Congratulations President Obama : 7.1 Million sign ups to obamacare. - Page 4 - GoFuckYourself.com

Rochard · 04-03-2014, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

I

I bring up mostly facts and BTW, not against the democratic party or the republican party, don't like any of them, who I think is screwing up is the POTUS.

What facts? Like the one where the price of gas was at an all time high under Obama even though it was higher under Bush? Or the one where you said the Congressional Report on Waco said the fires were caused by the FBI when the report said the direct opposite?

I like you, I really do, but you don't research anything and you tend to just repeat bullshit from websites. You just can't debate to save your life.

baddog · 04-03-2014, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

If they didn't read the bill before they voted on it, how we did know about the death panels?

Really? Death panels? http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/over75.asp http://www.factcheck.org/2012/04/death-panels-redux/

Quote:

In fact, we have not.

Let us know how it goes when you try to use it. goodgirl's experience has been all over the board from her doctor not taking it to doctors who were listed as accepting it saying they don't.

This shit just confirms for me that my choice to ignore the medical community and everything associated with it is the way to go.

Barry-xlovecam · 04-03-2014, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Sure thing. The President signed a bill into a law and it's been two years of lawsuits - Can you just fucking imagine what they would do if Obama tried that?

Quote:

However, many scholars think that the Framers implied these powers because the structural design of the Executive Branch enables it to act faster than the Legislative Branch. Because the Constitution remains silent on the issue, the courts cannot grant the Executive Branch these powers when it tries to wield them. The courts will only recognize a right of the Executive Branch to use emergency powers if Congress has granted such powers to the President.

Harry Truman declared the use of emergency powers when he seized private steel mills that failed to produce steel because of a labor strike in 1952. With the Korean War ongoing, Truman asserted that he could not wage war successfully if the economy failed to provide him with the material resources necessary to keep the troops well-equipped. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, refused to buy the argument in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, voting 6-3 that neither Commander in Chief powers nor any claimed emergency powers gave the President the authority to unilaterally seize private property without Congressional legislation. 343 U.S. 579.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/emergency_powers

Harry Truman sometimes had more balls than brains. It was probably more expedient for him to seize Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.

Had he had time ( and congressional funding ) to build a US Government steel mill, USG Steel, LOL.

I don't know what the price and quality of the output might have been but the Federal government has the power to authorise the printing of money to fund what they want to do.

When the Administration and the Congress are the same parties they enact laws (good or bad). When the Administration and the Congress are the opposing parties they just bicker and play political games.

And this could be the purple and the yellow political parties. The names can be changed but the game is the same.

Vendzilla · 04-03-2014, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

What facts? Like the one where the price of gas was at an all time high under Obama even though it was higher under Bush? Or the one where you said the Congressional Report on Waco said the fires were caused by the FBI when the report said the direct opposite?

I like you, I really do, but you don't research anything and you tend to just repeat bullshit from websites. You just can't debate to save your life.

Never said all time high, please re read. It dropped under Bush a lot at the end, then started climbing back up and staying there under Obama

What report are you talking about? It was the congressional report that was final.

Rochard · 04-03-2014, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Really? Death panels? http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/over75.asp http://www.factcheck.org/2012/04/death-panels-redux/

Yes, death panels. My point is the negativity started early on... They didn't read the bill? Bullshit, the Republican party ripped it apart long before the bill was finalized and started telling us how horrible it was.

dyna mo · 04-03-2014, 05:15 PM

so ~2.1% of the population, nice work Obama!

2.1% = Democrat victory lap

Rochard · 04-03-2014, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Never said all time high, please re read. It dropped under Bush a lot at the end, then started climbing back up and staying there under Obama

I'm pretty sure you've claimed gas was more expensive under Obama than Bush.

You sure did say the following a lot:

"When Obama went into office, the average price of gas was $1.84"

But again, that's cherry picking. Of course the price of gas dropped by the time Bush left office - the entire fucking economy crashed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

What report are you talking about? It was the congressional report that was final.

You claimed the Congressional Report On Waco blamed the deaths on CS gas. But you never read the report, but instead read some summary written by a single person. The full report says:

"It is important to note, however, that there are no published studies which find that any human death has been caused by exposure to CS agent."

"While it cannot be concluded with certainty, it is unlikely that the CS riot control agent, in the quantities used by the FBI, reached lethal toxic levels."

You cherry picked something that backed up the point you were trying to make, claimed the Congressional Report said it was so, but being as you never read the report you had no clue it said the opposite.

Here's the post: https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=19794873&postcount=123

Sly · 04-03-2014, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

so ~2.1% of the population, nice work Obama!

2.1% = Democrat victory lap

I've had three different people tell me today that their prior insurance package was canceled. That's just people randomly telling me about it.

kane · 04-03-2014, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

I've had three different people tell me today that their prior insurance package was canceled. That's just people randomly telling me about it.

I had mine cancelled, but it worked out well for me. Since I have a preexisting condition and am self employed I was never able to buy regular insurance. I had a catastrophic policy that only covered life threatening things. It sucked and I had to pay for pretty much everything out of pocket.

It was canceled since I am too old for that under Obamacare, but through the exchanges I was able to buy better insurance. My premium doubled and I have a $2,500 deductible, but I have prescription coverage, my doctor is covered under it so I have small co-pays for visits and anything like that. In the end I end up spending close to the same as before, but I have much better coverage, it is much more convenient and in the event I get sick/hurt with something that requires an ER trip or urgent care trip, but isn't life threatening, it will end up saving me money.

MK Ultra · 04-03-2014, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Yes, death panels. My point is the negativity started early on... They didn't read the bill? Bullshit, the Republican party ripped it apart long before the bill was finalized and started telling us how horrible it was.

A CNN poll at the time the bill was rammed through congress showed that 57% of Americans opposed it.

As of a couple weeks ago the popularity of the law had gone up slightly, now it's only opposed by ................................ 57% of Americans

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...care-edges-up/

The bill was a turkey that was passed over the objections of the majority because it was more important to have a political win for Obama and the Dems than it was to actually govern.

Just because you see a good outcome for yourself does not mean there will be a good outcome for everybody, or even for the majority.

I'm waiting for the insurance companies to announce the rates for 2015 in a couple months, if the increase is what some are predicting there will be blood on the walls down at the DNC come November.

Unless of course, the Administration bails them out.

kane · 04-03-2014, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MK Ultra

A CNN poll at the time the bill was rammed through congress showed that 57% of Americans opposed it.

As of a couple weeks ago the popularity of the law had gone up slightly, now it's only opposed by ................................ 57% of Americans

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...care-edges-up/

The bill was a turkey that was passed over the objections of the majority because it was more important to have a political win for Obama and the Dems than it was to actually govern.

Just because you see a good outcome for yourself does not mean there will be a good outcome for everybody, or even for the majority.

I'm waiting for the insurance companies to announce the rates for 2015 in a couple months, if the increase is what some are predicting there will be blood on the walls down at the DNC come November.

Unless of course, the Administration bails them out.

The interesting thing is that when the polls ask people questions about the different parts of Obamacare without calling it that most people tend to agree with what it does. There are still some sticking points like the mandate, but overall many people like the idea of it. The problem was/is the execution. I think Obama assumed it would come out, 30 million people would sign up and it would be a huge victory for him. As it turns out, only a fraction of the uninsured have signed up (not fully his fault, many states are not cooperating), the process has sucked and they have not done a very good job of explaining how it works.

Obama's sad reality is that his promotion of it and the democrats rolling it out has paled in comparison to multi-million dollar anti-Obamacare ad campaign the republicans have rolled out.

Robbie · 04-03-2014, 07:15 PM

kane, I keep seeing some people post that some states are "not cooperating". What does that mean? Which states? And how can they "not cooperate" (which sounds pretty "big brother" right there lol)

Are you saying that Republican Governors in some states are "not cooperating"?
How do they "cooperate" in the first place...and how do they have any affect on the law even if they don't like it?

Other than make speeches and/or pursue lawsuits...do the governors have ANY power in this at all?

Seems like the excuse of some states "not cooperating" might be another (of many) b.s. "blame everybody but Obama" ideas floated by the DNC to keep the heat off of them?

Vendzilla · 04-03-2014, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I'm pretty sure you've claimed gas was more expensive under Obama than Bush.

You sure did say the following a lot:

"When Obama went into office, the average price of gas was $1.84"

But again, that's cherry picking. Of course the price of gas dropped by the time Bush left office - the entire fucking economy crashed.

You claimed the Congressional Report On Waco blamed the deaths on CS gas. But you never read the report, but instead read some summary written by a single person. The full report says:

"It is important to note, however, that there are no published studies which find that any human death has been caused by exposure to CS agent."

"While it cannot be concluded with certainty, it is unlikely that the CS riot control agent, in the quantities used by the FBI, reached lethal toxic levels."

You cherry picked something that backed up the point you were trying to make, claimed the Congressional Report said it was so, but being as you never read the report you had no clue it said the opposite.

Here's the post: https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=19794873&postcount=123

OK, what part of this do you think is wrong?

The Government's use of CS gas in the manner it did, that is, clearly designed to incapacitate men, women and children in a confined, unventilated space, after avenues of escape had been deliberately cut off, was unconscionable; as was the cursory manner in which the Government, and especially Attorney General Reno `bought into' the conclusory and simplistic analyses that the use of CS gas posed an `acceptable' level of risk.

The fact is, while experts may--and did--differ over the precise effects of CS gas on children, or how and in what ways the use of CS gas might act as a catalyst for a fire, no rational person can conclude that the use of CS gas under any circumstances against children, would do anything other than cause extreme physical problems and possibly death.

For the Government of this country to consciously use CS gas in the way it did on April 19, 1993 in Waco is utterly indefensible and should never be allowed to be repeated. I believe the deaths of dozens of men, women and children can be directly and indirectly attributable to the use of this gas in the way it was injected by the FBI.

I would go further than the report, and call for a prohibition on the use of CS gas in situations in which children or the elderly are present or are the targets.

Biggy · 04-03-2014, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MK Ultra

A CNN poll at the time the bill was rammed through congress showed that 57% of Americans opposed it.

As of a couple weeks ago the popularity of the law had gone up slightly, now it's only opposed by ................................ 57% of Americans

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...care-edges-up/

The bill was a turkey that was passed over the objections of the majority because it was more important to have a political win for Obama and the Dems than it was to actually govern.

Just because you see a good outcome for yourself does not mean there will be a good outcome for everybody, or even for the majority.

I'm waiting for the insurance companies to announce the rates for 2015 in a couple months, if the increase is what some are predicting there will be blood on the walls down at the DNC come November.

Unless of course, the Administration bails them out.

Yep. He seems to think half benefitted, half didn't benefit. What he doesnt realize is, it's plausible that very few people benefitted, and a lot more got hurt by it.

Higher costs, Less Jobs, Same amount of people covered. Look, the implementation has been in effect for how long and what do the #s suggest: It will hurt job growth, costs will go up, and there's likely no tangible impact on the number of new insured. All of a sudden its going to turn around.

The costs are lower for him and his family, so he's seeing everything thru rose colored lenses, but maybe, just maybe, if his bill went up by double or triple to the point where his employer couldn't even cover his wife anymore so they all went uninsured, he'd be singing a different tune.

While we're on the subject, let's also not give Obama credit on the economy. He's been trash for the economy. Now ever his supporters, who are befuddled by "anemic" GDP growth are pointing to all the regulation. The only thing holding this economy up is 0% interest rates for the longest time, and money printing machines.

Rochard · 04-03-2014, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

I've had three different people tell me today that their prior insurance package was canceled. That's just people randomly telling me about it.

Yes. This happens all the time, but in the past people didn't discuss it. When I worked for the phone company and they changed our insurance company and we had to pick a new plan, I didn't go out and discuss it with people or change it.

I got a letter about my car insurance and how they changed my policy last week, but I didn't run out and discuss this with people either.

Some of these people were canceled for reasons that have nothing to do with the Healthcare law - some of these were plans that insurance carries decided to drop as the normal course of business. Other plans were dropped because of the new law, and yet other plans had to be dropped because they failed to meet the basic requirements according to the new law.

This is being harped on like it's a huge problem when it's not. The plan was canceled; People weren't dropped from their insurance companies. You pick another plan.

Rochard · 04-03-2014, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

OK, what part of this do you think is wrong?

The Government's use of CS gas in the manner it did, that is, clearly designed to incapacitate men, women and children in a confined, unventilated space, after avenues of escape had been deliberately cut off, was unconscionable; as was the cursory manner in which the Government, and especially Attorney General Reno `bought into' the conclusory and simplistic analyses that the use of CS gas posed an `acceptable' level of risk.

The fact is, while experts may--and did--differ over the precise effects of CS gas on children, or how and in what ways the use of CS gas might act as a catalyst for a fire, no rational person can conclude that the use of CS gas under any circumstances against children, would do anything other than cause extreme physical problems and possibly death.

For the Government of this country to consciously use CS gas in the way it did on April 19, 1993 in Waco is utterly indefensible and should never be allowed to be repeated. I believe the deaths of dozens of men, women and children can be directly and indirectly attributable to the use of this gas in the way it was injected by the FBI.

I would go further than the report, and call for a prohibition on the use of CS gas in situations in which children or the elderly are present or are the targets.

What part of that is wrong? It's wrong because it's not correct, didn't come from the Congressional Report on Waco, and instead came from some dumb whack job site.

And again more cut and paste. This is nothing more than a statement from whathappened.com -Here's the link. Once again you proved that you cannot think for yourself....

The Congressional report said the following:

It is important to note, however, that there are no published studies which find that any human death has been caused by exposure to CS agent.

And...

...it is unlikely that the CS riot control agent, in the quantities used by the FBI, reached lethal toxic levels.

On top of all of this, law enforcement using CS gas is a commonly used tactic here in the US and around the world - STILL.

You put up a link to a Congressional report, made false claims about what it said, and then when you try to defend yourself here you post up some nonsense form a conspiracy site called "What really happened".

Seriously, stop copying text from gun nut websites and conspiracy sites and accepting them as fact - they aren't fact, they are opinion.

kane · 04-03-2014, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

kane, I keep seeing some people post that some states are "not cooperating". What does that mean? Which states? And how can they "not cooperate" (which sounds pretty "big brother" right there lol)

Are you saying that Republican Governors in some states are "not cooperating"?
How do they "cooperate" in the first place...and how do they have any affect on the law even if they don't like it?

Other than make speeches and/or pursue lawsuits...do the governors have ANY power in this at all?

Seems like the excuse of some states "not cooperating" might be another (of many) b.s. "blame everybody but Obama" ideas floated by the DNC to keep the heat off of them?

Obamacare allows for the expansion of eligibility for Medicaid to include people of lower income. It allows for federal funds to go to states that expand their programs to include these people. Many red states are refusing to expand their Medicaid program, even though the cost will be covered by the federal government, because they don't like Obamacare and they don't want to be seen as going along with it.

Part of the republican lawsuits against Obamacare was to allow states to "opt out" of the medicare expansion it was granted by the supreme court.

Here is a map that shows which states expanded and which didn't. Do a side by side comparision with the 2012 electoral vote map and you will see that almost all of those states that have opted out are red states.

Biggy · 04-04-2014, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Yes. This happens all the time, but in the past people didn't discuss it. When I worked for the phone company and they changed our insurance company and we had to pick a new plan, I didn't go out and discuss it with people or change it.

I got a letter about my car insurance and how they changed my policy last week, but I didn't run out and discuss this with people either.

Some of these people were canceled for reasons that have nothing to do with the Healthcare law - some of these were plans that insurance carries decided to drop as the normal course of business. Other plans were dropped because of the new law, and yet other plans had to be dropped because they failed to meet the basic requirements according to the new law.

This is being harped on like it's a huge problem when it's not. The plan was canceled; People weren't dropped from their insurance companies. You pick another plan.

My health jnsurance policy was never cancelled before. The letter I got specifically referenced the affordable care act as the reason my plan was cancelled.

Really the argument you are making is hollow.

People's insurance plans are being cancelled due to obamacare, and the letters explicitly say so. Either the plans aren't "good enough" under the law, or the insurance companies now have uncertainty and don't want to offer it.

The new and are actually shittier and more expensive by a lot. I was supposed to be able to keep it since I liked it. It was supposed to be better and cheaper. Instead I lost it, and it got worst and more expensive.

No state in pretty sure is even offering PPO plans. PPO means you can pick your provider either innetwork or out of network. Now HMO is the only option. You must stay in network and if you go to a specialist it will be whatever one your doctors refers and that's it. Shouldn't I be able to do my research and pick my doctors? That is now gone, my monthly premium is up by double, my office visits and medicine coverage is worst, the only thing that's better is my deductible.

Vendzilla · 04-04-2014, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

What part of that is wrong? It's wrong because it's not correct, didn't come from the Congressional Report on Waco, and instead came from some dumb whack job site.

And again more cut and paste. This is nothing more than a statement from whathappened.com -Here's the link. Once again you proved that you cannot think for yourself....

The Congressional report said the following:

It is important to note, however, that there are no published studies which find that any human death has been caused by exposure to CS agent.

And...

...it is unlikely that the CS riot control agent, in the quantities used by the FBI, reached lethal toxic levels.

On top of all of this, law enforcement using CS gas is a commonly used tactic here in the US and around the world - STILL.

You put up a link to a Congressional report, made false claims about what it said, and then when you try to defend yourself here you post up some nonsense form a conspiracy site called "What really happened".

Seriously, stop copying text from gun nut websites and conspiracy sites and accepting them as fact - they aren't fact, they are opinion.

For the Government of this country to consciously use CS gas in the way it did on April 19, 1993 in Waco is utterly indefensible and should never be allowed to be repeated. I believe the deaths of dozens of men, women and children can be directly and indirectly attributable to the use of this gas in the way it was injected by the FBI.

This came from the
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquer...49&dbname=104& which is from the website congress.gov

Go ahead, look at the link and go to http://thomas.loc.gov

Congress.gov is the official source for federal legislative information. It replaces the nearly 20-year-old THOMAS.gov site with a system that includes platform mobility, comprehensive information retrieval and user-friendly presentation. It currently includes all data sets available on THOMAS.gov except nominations, treaties and communications. These data sets will be added throughout 2014. Until that time they are still accessible through THOMAS.gov via the link below. THOMAS.gov will be permanently retired by the end of 2014.

You think that's a gun nut website?

It was opinion, opinion on a congressional report
104TH CONGRESS 2ND SESSION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPORT

INVESTIGATION INTO THE ACTIVITIES OF FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TOWARD THE BRANCH DAVIDIANS

THIRTEENTH REPORT
by the
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
prepared in conjunction with the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
together with
ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS

But hey if you think they are gun nuts, I think I have proved a point here

Quit trying to prove you are nuts!

Magnetron · 04-04-2014, 05:23 AM

This is where I once again can't be bothered to say much more than Adapt or Die to all the complainers wasting their time whining instead of taking personal action to ensure their own physical health and financial well being. The govt did this to me, the govt didn't do that for me, blah blah bladdee da da. Debating is one thing. Crying over spilled milk is another.

Axeman · 04-04-2014, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Obamacare allows for the expansion of eligibility for Medicaid to include people of lower income. It allows for federal funds to go to states that expand their programs to include these people. Many red states are refusing to expand their Medicaid program, even though the cost will be covered by the federal government, because they don't like Obamacare and they don't want to be seen as going along with it.

Part of the republican lawsuits against Obamacare was to allow states to "opt out" of the medicare expansion it was granted by the supreme court.

The other reason they opted out is the federal funds are only fully paid until 2017. Then the states are on the hook for a portion of the costs after that.

MK Ultra · 04-04-2014, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

The interesting thing is that when the polls ask people questions about the different parts of Obamacare without calling it that most people tend to agree with what it does. There are still some sticking points like the mandate, but overall many people like the idea of it. The problem was/is the execution. I think Obama assumed it would come out, 30 million people would sign up and it would be a huge victory for him. As it turns out, only a fraction of the uninsured have signed up (not fully his fault, many states are not cooperating), the process has sucked and they have not done a very good job of explaining how it works.

Obama's sad reality is that his promotion of it and the democrats rolling it out has paled in comparison to multi-million dollar anti-Obamacare ad campaign the republicans have rolled out.

There are parts of I like as well, but all that is negated by the individual mandate, I think that is the most evil, dangerous expansion of governmental power ever.

And any government power will eventually be used.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Obamacare allows for the expansion of eligibility for Medicaid to include people of lower income. It allows for federal funds to go to states that expand their programs to include these people. Many red states are refusing to expand their Medicaid program, even though the cost will be covered by the federal government, because they don't like Obamacare and they don't want to be seen as going along with it.

Part of the republican lawsuits against Obamacare was to allow states to "opt out" of the medicare expansion it was granted by the supreme court.

Here is a map that shows which states expanded and which didn't. Do a side by side comparision with the 2012 electoral vote map and you will see that almost all of those states that have opted out are red states.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axeman

The other reason they opted out is the federal funds are only fully paid until 2017. Then the states are on the hook for a portion of the costs after that.

Actually the states have to pay the full amount starting in 2022, the federal government covers part of the cost from 2017 until then.
But some states were already struggling with medicaid costs before ACA, now with the expansion you can expect some sharp tax increases in the states that opted in by the time the federal assistance stops.

Medicaid is an entitlement, and like all entitlements it will grow at a scary rate, and we all get to pay for it.

Rochard · 04-04-2014, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggy

My health jnsurance policy was never cancelled before. The letter I got specifically referenced the affordable care act as the reason my plan was cancelled.

Really the argument you are making is hollow.

People's insurance plans are being cancelled due to obamacare, and the letters explicitly say so. Either the plans aren't "good enough" under the law, or the insurance companies now have uncertainty and don't want to offer it.

The new and are actually shittier and more expensive by a lot. I was supposed to be able to keep it since I liked it. It was supposed to be better and cheaper. Instead I lost it, and it got worst and more expensive.

No state in pretty sure is even offering PPO plans. PPO means you can pick your provider either innetwork or out of network. Now HMO is the only option. You must stay in network and if you go to a specialist it will be whatever one your doctors refers and that's it. Shouldn't I be able to do my research and pick my doctors? That is now gone, my monthly premium is up by double, my office visits and medicine coverage is worst, the only thing that's better is my deductible.

So you've never done open enrollment where you pick your plan? The plans were canceled because the laws were changed, but you still have insurance. I don't see the issue here.

I have Kaiser, and I can still pick my doctor.

Rochard · 04-04-2014, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

For the Government of this country to consciously use CS gas in the way it did on April 19, 1993 in Waco is utterly indefensible and should never be allowed to be repeated. I believe the deaths of dozens of men, women and children can be directly and indirectly attributable to the use of this gas in the way it was injected by the FBI.

This came from the
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquer...49&dbname=104& which is from the website congress.gov

Go ahead, look at the link and go to http://thomas.loc.gov

Congress.gov is the official source for federal legislative information. It replaces the nearly 20-year-old THOMAS.gov site with a system that includes platform mobility, comprehensive information retrieval and user-friendly presentation. It currently includes all data sets available on THOMAS.gov except nominations, treaties and communications. These data sets will be added throughout 2014. Until that time they are still accessible through THOMAS.gov via the link below. THOMAS.gov will be permanently retired by the end of 2014.

You think that's a gun nut website?

It was opinion, opinion on a congressional report
104TH CONGRESS 2ND SESSION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPORT

INVESTIGATION INTO THE ACTIVITIES OF FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TOWARD THE BRANCH DAVIDIANS

THIRTEENTH REPORT
by the
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
prepared in conjunction with the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
together with
ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS

But hey if you think they are gun nuts, I think I have proved a point here

Quit trying to prove you are nuts!

The text that you are using is not from the Congressional Report, but instead is the opinion of one person. The Congressional Report says the direct opposite. You are using this opinion and saying it's official, when it's not. It's an opinion written by a nut case, that is being picked up by other kook sites with the title "what really happened".

You haven't proved a point here at all. This is someone's opinion, not part of the Congressional Report.

2MuchMark · 04-04-2014, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

This again is the world through the filters of your own bias. All republicans are not one person nor are they the comments of one person and there is just as much stupidity on the democratic side which you ignore because again, you are biased towards democrats. In fact, you continually malign 1/2 of the population of the country, never once stopping to consider the magnitude of the math involved or pondering why its all so confusing to you, that you so easily conclude like so many that 1/2 a nation must be "crazy". This is an example of how you continue to press the same old point. "that team = bad".... "my team = good" (ironically, you aren't technically on either team)

Its all not that complicated.

Since you are a fan of science, i will attempt to explain a bit of well studied science for you.

We are all biased towards our views.

You can say "lets take bias out of it" but what you do not really understand or don't want to accept is that is absolutely 100% impossible. Bias is not a conscious filter. Its unconscious... meaning before you become consciously aware of anything at all, the information has ALREADY passed through all your mental filters and become distorted and perverted to suit your pre-determined narratives and beliefs. This is in part, what makes scientific study difficult and what makes removing bias from a study difficult. I would guess you at least understand that.

You don't have to dig too far to find countless studies of unconscious bias in psychology and neuroscience.... not to mention many many attempts to use them in court. Every single person here that says they are not biased against anything... say "black people",... including black people are lying. They are not intentionally lying... they just don't know. They don't have conscious access to that information. They only have the socially acceptable answers they give and the fabrications (confabulations) they use to defend those answers. And when measured and tested, the results are very very consistent across the board and across tests and across races and cultures.

So... you are biased to see things one way. I am biased to see things another. It's fine. It's exactly how human beings are designed. There is a reason you deny it. And that reason is one of the many which makes the most incredible living thing designed by nature (your brain) so advanced and downright incredible to see in action. It's actually one of the very reasons that true artificial intelligence has yet to be created and likely won't be in our lifetimes.... because our brain is not a computer. It is a million man, multi party legislative body, arguing furiously about every single choice and action and finding the winning argument of millions of arguments with every single decision or action.

You are in denial because it is actually how your brain itself is designed. And for your own survival and that of the tribe, its actually better this way. Much much better. Decisions are much much better. When you make decisions, you have no access to the actual decision making process. When someone offers you 1000.00 to take a cock in the ass on film... you're brain lights up with neural activity and literally millions of decision centers go into action weighing pro's and con's and battling it out. The only thing you are consciously aware of is the final 1 or 2 winning arguments... and with that, conscious thinking becomes the final arbiter. In terms of conscious thinking, you then falsely take credit for a winning argument that you had nothing to do with which simply popped into conscious awareness. Neuroscientist David Eagleman refers to the decision making processes of the brain as a "team of rivals". The best decisions are not made by full agreement on all sides. The best decisions are made by brutal battles where every single point is made and heard and the winning argument rises to the top. To argue.. you need arrogance and confidence in your argument no matter how lopsided or misguided and flat out wrong it may be.

This, no matter what anyone wants to believe, actually mirrors our political system.

You are not special.

You are not enlightened.

You are just ignorant of how the brain actually works and what drives peoples behaviors.

But its not your fault because you don't understand the mental processes involved... you simply react to stimuli like a rodent seeking cheese or escaping danger. And you should. That too, is by design. The brain is costly to run and though insanely efficient, your brain doesn't want to know a whole lot beyond matters directly pertaining to survival and reproduction. Conscious thinking is also slow, clunky and costly in terms of energy spent. It's more energy efficient to cling to a narrative and set of beliefs and dismiss anything which calls them into question.

So... like all, you are so sure of yourself and your own ideas and views as you ignore your own bias', give more weight to your own points and less weight to those against you, more weight to those on your team and less to those on the other.... as you lift your team up and put them on a pedestal and look at the other as the cause of every problem known to man.

That's what teams do. Teams "blind and bind". This again is the brilliance of our design and the human brain. Teams don't need to agree. They are not effective when they agree. When everyone in the tribe agrees that they will have peace for 1000 years... thats when they weaken their security and someone swoops in to destroy them. You need voices expressing all concerns and all sides of the argument with equal veracity. The more people agree, the more blind they become to the possibilities (and future genetic consequences) of being wrong.

You are nothing more than one voice in a sea of millions contributing to an argument with the same old self righteous "my team = good".. "your team = bad", "my team = right"... "your team = wrong" self assured, misguided and deluded arrogance that everyone else has on every. You are a tiny cog in a machine fulfilling your role, never realizing at all that you make no difference whatsoever and change no minds.

A wise person can step back and observe and appreciate the whole process for what it is. An ignorant person only has their own biased narrative and plays their own largely irrelevant role... for the greater good of the group "....a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Yikes thanks for all of that, but no no no you missed my point. Let me try again - remove DEM and GOP and everything else from the mix, and answer this question:

What / Which politician(s) do you trust?

Bonus question : On which subject? Example: Obamacare, Global Warming, etc..

Vendzilla · 04-04-2014, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

The text that you are using is not from the Congressional Report, but instead is the opinion of one person. The Congressional Report says the direct opposite. You are using this opinion and saying it's official, when it's not. It's an opinion written by a nut case, that is being picked up by other kook sites with the title "what really happened".

You haven't proved a point here at all. This is someone's opinion, not part of the Congressional Report.

First you say I'm using opinion from a gun nut site, then you are saying I'm using opinion from a nut when I prove it's from a official site.

I put up opinion that it written on the official site from CONGRESS, what part of that escapes you?

So you disagree with HON. STEVEN SCHIFF? He was a Congressmen that was a member of the Crime Subcommittee and a US attorney. You blow this guy off as a guy that's a nut job because you disagree with him?

Fuck Richard, where am I losing you? It's an Opinion from one of the people that sat in as a congressmen on the OFFICIAL Subcommittee that went over this stuff, your defence on this is he must be a nut, not, he's an OFFICIAL part of it!

dyna mo · 04-04-2014, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Yikes thanks for all of that, but no no no you missed my point. Let me try again - remove DEM and GOP and everything else from the mix, and answer this question:

What / Which politician(s) do you trust?

Bonus question : On which subject? Example: Obamacare, Global Warming, etc..

That's not your point at all.

You're so completely biased you can't see past the end of your nose or else you'd have never tried to claim that this is your point.

Many people have told you many times how biased you come across.

MK Ultra · 04-04-2014, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Yikes thanks for all of that, but no no no you missed my point. Let me try again - remove DEM and GOP and everything else from the mix, and answer this question:

What / Which politician(s) do you trust?

Bonus question : On which subject? Example: Obamacare, Global Warming, etc..

I can answer your question:

None of them, on any subject.

Understand the beginning of the United States
A group colonists got together and rebelled against the crown because of increasing interference, taxation and heavy-handed rule. (why is this starting to sound familiar?)

They formed a new government keeping in mind the fact that it would be run by men, and men are greedy, power-hungry and amoral creatures at best.

So they tried to keep the power of the federal government limited, thinking that the states would be where ideas were tried and good ones would be adopted by other states and bad ones would be rejected by it's citizens.

Thus the power of the federal government could be constrained, because they didn't trust the men who would be running it.

But over the centuries those men have worked tirelessly to increase the power of the federal government and reduce the power of the states, thus increasing their own personal power and influence.

Kind of what the founders foresaw, unfortunately they didn't put enough safeguards in place and now we have this stupidly bloated, inefficient and ever hungry federal government that should not be trusted by anyone.

Robbie · 04-04-2014, 10:15 AM

MK Ultra just hit it right on the head.

dyna mo · 04-04-2014, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

MK Ultra just hit it right on the head.

Actually, hitting that right on the head would be an answer along the lines of-

that's a stupid fucking question, governments and politicians are never to be trusted.

It's just more of **********'s USA finger-pointing from canada couched in a silly rhetorical question.

Robbie · 04-04-2014, 10:37 AM

The Federal Govt. is just too damn big. And it's made itself the provider for too many people. That gives the politicians all the power.

Or as Benjamin Franklin said:

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means.—I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.
In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer.
And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."

Of course the big govt people on here will make snide remarks about "pulling yourself up by the boot straps" and how some people in the U.S. don't have enough opportunity, etc. etc.

To which I would say: Just read what Mr. Franklin wrote there. And then take a look at poverty, unemployment, etc.
You would think that IF big govt "helping" people really did work that it wouldn't be this way after FIFTY years and TRILLIONS of dollars from the Federal Gov. on the "War On Poverty".

The concept is a failure and always has been throughout history.

And now we are setting ourselves up to expand the Feds power even greater.
Pure genius.

stickyfingerz · 04-04-2014, 12:52 PM

TheSquealer · 04-04-2014, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Yikes thanks for all of that, but no no no you missed my point. Let me try again - remove DEM and GOP and everything else from the mix, and answer this question:

What / Which politician(s) do you trust?

Bonus question : On which subject? Example: Obamacare, Global Warming, etc..

Your point was,... as you said a few times that you were going to remove bias from the conversation (which is not possible) and then as an example of starting fresh, you picked your favorite nut case from "the other team" and then used her name to malign 1/2 of the country.... as per your usual m.o. to bait people into a partisan based discussion.

The point of what I wrote, which not only answered your question but which you are seemingly incapable of understanding is that they are all the same. Just two sides of the same coin... and that is an evolutionary adaptation.. not a question of logic or reason or right and wrong.

Rochard · 04-04-2014, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

I put up opinion that it written on the official site from CONGRESS, what part of that escapes you?

How do you not get this? It's a opinion written by a Congressman. It is not part of the Congressional report. The Congressional report says the direct opposite of this man's opinion.

His opinion is so far from the truth that it's being picked up by conspiracy sites, but still you accept it as fact. It's not.

Vendzilla · 04-04-2014, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

How do you not get this? It's a opinion written by a Congressman. It is not part of the Congressional report. The Congressional report says the direct opposite of this man's opinion.

His opinion is so far from the truth that it's being picked up by conspiracy sites, but still you accept it as fact. It's not.

First you say it's from a gun nut website

Then you say it's from a nut

Now that we have escalated to a congressman, you have to agree that his opinion is listed as part of the congressional report as his opinion. I never said anything else. It's not just a man, it's a congressman that sat on the committee that rendered the report. His opinion is part of the report listed on that page, go ahead, read the page you said I didn't read!

Maybe you didn't see this on the OFFICIAL REPORT

17. The government should further study and analyze the effects of CS riot control agent on children, persons with respiratory problems, pregnant women, and the elderly. The subcommittees note that only limited scientific literature exists concerning the effects of CS riot control agent, especially with regard to the effects of long-term exposure in a closed area. Until such time as more is known about the actual effects of exposure to this agent, the subcommittees recommend that CS not be used when children, persons with respiratory problems, pregnant women, and the elderly are present. Federal law enforcement agencies should develop guidelines for the use of riot control agents in light of this further study and analysis.

OR

What the hell, since you are so fucking dense that you can't read the WHOLE FUCKING Report

HERE'S WHAT THEY SAID AS PART OF THE REPORT

USE OF CS GAS

The Government's use of CS gas in the manner it did, that is, clearly designed to incapacitate men, women and children in a confined, unventilated space, after avenues of escape had been deliberately cut off, was unconscionable; as was the cursory manner in which the Government, and especially Attorney General Reno `bought into' the conclusory and simplistic analyses that the use of CS gas posed an `acceptable' level of risk.

The fact is, while experts may--and did--differ over the precise effects of CS gas on children, or how and in what ways the use of CS gas might act as a catalyst for a fire, no rational person can conclude that the use of CS gas under any circumstances against children, would do anything other than cause extreme physical problems and possibly death.

For the Government of this country to consciously use CS gas in the way it did on April 19, 1993 in Waco is utterly indefensible and should never be allowed to be repeated. I believe the deaths of dozens of men, women and children can be directly and indirectly attributable to the use of this gas in the way it was injected by the FBI.

I would go further than the report, and call for a prohibition on the use of CS gas in situations in which children or the elderly are present or are the targets.

BLOW THAT OUT YOUR ASS RICHARD IF YOU THINK I DON'T DEBATE WELL, GO AHEAD,M TRY TO COME TO ANY OTHER FUCKING CONCLUSION THAN THOSE FUCKERS DID THE RIGHT THING, THEY KILLED THOSE THOSE BABIES, FUCK THEM

Vendzilla · 04-04-2014, 02:28 PM

here's some more from the OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL REPORT

ESCAPE

The report concludes that there was opportunity for the Davidians to escape. While obviously this is true--a handful did escape the maelstrom--I conclude there was no opportunity for the vast majority of the Davidians to have any hope of escape, because of the Government's tactics the morning of the 19th of April.

Essentially, the use of the armored vehicles, methodically smashing down portions of the building, cutting off avenues of escape (for example, smashing the walls down to cover the `escape' hatch to the tunnel out of the main building), intimidated the inhabitants into seeking `safety' in the one secure part of the structure (the concrete `bunker' in the center). With massive quantities of CS gas pumped into this area, it virtually guaranteed that most inhabitants would be incapacitated; which they were, and they died in the ensuing fire because of the incapacitating effects of the CS gas and the cutting off of escape routes.

So again, where does this leave your standings on this? Are you still routing for the assholes that blocked the escapes of those parents and children so they would sufficate from use of CS gas?

Robbie · 04-04-2014, 03:11 PM

Vendzilla...he is trolling you man.

That's why I had to put him on "ignore". He even told me in person that he enjoys firing people up on GFY (or as it's more commonly known: trolling).

He just has fun saying outrageous stuff and watching other people get crazy over it.

I don't understand the "fun" of it...but then again I don't "get" people who are into being pissed on or who love to lick dirty feet either. lol

Who am I to judge?

But make no mistake, you are not in a "debate" with Rochard. He is doing it just for fun.

Instead of getting annoyed with him, just put his "Rochard" persona on "ignore" on GFY and enjoy the real Richard in person when you talk at shows.

It's much better on the nerves. lol

1215 · 04-04-2014, 03:34 PM

6 million people lost their coverages because you CAN'T keep your plan.

so there's your first 6 million - people who already had coverage, not new people with ensurance.

the rest are people who were signing up for medicare/medicaid anyway.

so obamacare actually has about 0 signups.

besides that, usa has 300 million residents. 7 million is a tiny percentage, so obamacare is a disaster.

baddog · 04-04-2014, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Yes, death panels. My point is the negativity started early on... They didn't read the bill? Bullshit, the Republican party ripped it apart long before the bill was finalized and started telling us how horrible it was.

That was propaganda; there are no death panels.

Rochard · 04-04-2014, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

here's some more from the OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL REPORT

ESCAPE

The report concludes that there was opportunity for the Davidians to escape. While obviously this is true--a handful did escape the maelstrom--I conclude there was no opportunity for the vast majority of the Davidians to have any hope of escape, because of the Government's tactics the morning of the 19th of April.

Essentially, the use of the armored vehicles, methodically smashing down portions of the building, cutting off avenues of escape (for example, smashing the walls down to cover the `escape' hatch to the tunnel out of the main building), intimidated the inhabitants into seeking `safety' in the one secure part of the structure (the concrete `bunker' in the center). With massive quantities of CS gas pumped into this area, it virtually guaranteed that most inhabitants would be incapacitated; which they were, and they died in the ensuing fire because of the incapacitating effects of the CS gas and the cutting off of escape routes.

So again, where does this leave your standings on this? Are you still routing for the assholes that blocked the escapes of those parents and children so they would sufficate from use of CS gas?

No. This is an opinion by one person. It says "I conclude", not "we conclude". This is part of the Congressional report under the heading "ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. WILLIAM H. ZELIFF, JR." It's not a part of the official report, but added on as one person's opinion.

The full report says "The Davidians could have escaped the residence for a significant period of time after the start of the fire. Most of the Davidians either did not attempt to escape from the residence or were prevented from escaping by other Davidians.".

This is the direct opposite of his "opinion".

You cherry pick what you believe in and accept it as fact because you can't read - it's opinion, not the finding of the Congressional Report.

Rochard · 04-04-2014, 05:25 PM

The Republican party is trying to pick this law apart so bad that it's comical. And it's not difficult to do.

Obamacare just reached it's goal, seven million people. There is over three hundred million people in the US. If this is mandatory, why is it only seven million? Why aren't we discussing what percentage of Americans are now covered by healthcare - because, at the end of the day, isn't that what this is all about?

noshit · 04-04-2014, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

That was propaganda; there are no death panels.

You're right. It's not called Death Panels. It's called: fewer years of "useful" life left.
To them, it's a place where no dollars should be invested in care

Death panels and their functional equivalents are for the little people, the ones they pose as champions of

Vendzilla · 04-04-2014, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Vendzilla...he is trolling you man.

That's why I had to put him on "ignore". He even told me in person that he enjoys firing people up on GFY (or as it's more commonly known: trolling).

He just has fun saying outrageous stuff and watching other people get crazy over it.

I don't understand the "fun" of it...but then again I don't "get" people who are into being pissed on or who love to lick dirty feet either. lol

Who am I to judge?

But make no mistake, you are not in a "debate" with Rochard. He is doing it just for fun.

Instead of getting annoyed with him, just put his "Rochard" persona on "ignore" on GFY and enjoy the real Richard in person when you talk at shows.

It's much better on the nerves. lol

I forget he does that.

What happened in WACO shouldn't be dismissed, the FBI killed those people and IMHO should answer for it.

I'm going to put Rochard back on ignore for a while, because this subject I can't do lightly, it's something that pisses me off to no end.

When you put that much gas in a hole, it kills

That's how I use to kill moles on my moms property, I put some oil in the gas tank in a lawnmower, ran a tube from the exhaust into a hole and plugged all the other holes I could find and fire up the mower. Moles died because they couldn't escape and when you introduce any gas into a hole, the Oxygen level goes down suffocating them.

And here I am putting up things straight from the Congressional report and Rochard is saying it's not from the report. I would rather debate than deal with that.

2MuchMark · 04-04-2014, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

That's not your point at all.

You're so completely biased you can't see past the end of your nose or else you'd have never tried to claim that this is your point.

Many people have told you many times how biased you come across.

Lol ok Dyna mo whatever you say, but look what you are doing. Now YOU are deflecting too.

Try again please. Tell me the name of any politician, Demo, Gop or whatever, on any topical subject.

The problem is that, as I said earlier, politics are complicated, and the threads become more complicated as people post ideas about other subjects, related or not. Let's see if we can keep a thread exactly on target, and on subject.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MK Ultra

I can answer your question:

None of them, on any subject.

I know what you mean, but lets try anyway. Pick the one then that you trust the most, on any subject.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Actually, hitting that right on the head would be an answer along the lines of-

that's a stupid fucking question, governments and politicians are never to be trusted.

It's just more of **********'s USA finger-pointing from canada couched in a silly rhetorical question.

No Dyna Mo, I promise you that this is not the case. What I am trying to do in this thread is get you (or someone) to pick a politician and a subject. This isn't a "Gotcha" question, so please relax.

And for the record, I live the United States. The people are awesome and the landscape is stunning. It's as beautiful as I think Canada is. Canada, like the US, has its problems too of course. Don't tell me I point fingers at the US when I do not. If this is all you get from me then you clearly do not read what I post, have never met me or talked to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

Your point was,... as you said a few times that you were going to remove bias from the conversation (which is not possible) and then as an example of starting fresh, you picked your favorite nut case from "the other team" and then used her name to malign 1/2 of the country.... as per your usual m.o. to bait people into a partisan based discussion.

The point of what I wrote, which not only answered your question but which you are seemingly incapable of understanding is that they are all the same. Just two sides of the same coin... and that is an evolutionary adaptation.. not a question of logic or reason or right and wrong.

Maybe you have a point. I picked Bachman because, well, she's just so damn cool. Please feel free to pick anyone you want.

And no I don't agree that they are 2 sides to the same coin. I think it is easy to think that, but looking closer into things and people reveals interesting and important differences.

PEACE

escorpio · 04-05-2014, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

MK Ultra just hit it right on the head.

Yes, he did. Really fucking hard.

2MuchMark · 04-05-2014, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

That was propaganda; there are no death panels.

Right! Good point. This was republican propaganda, repeated ad nauseum by Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and others.

So then can we all agree, that Palin and Bachmann cannot be trusted? Can we agree that they both flat-out lied or at least, were ill informed about Obamacare?

kane · 04-05-2014, 04:03 PM

Just in case anyone is interested, more numbers are starting to come out that clarify who and how many are signing up for Obamacare

According to this story. there were 7.1 million people who signed up for a plan through Obamacare and an additional 3 million people who qualified for free medicaid for a total of 10.1 million.

They haven't released how many of these 10 million have had insurance before and lost it and if they lost it what the reason for losing it was.

directfiesta · 04-05-2014, 06:17 PM

I am Canadian .. so I do not give a fuck about your internal politics ( but still let me insert a thought ...

).

That said, if 7 million signups is a success . well I really feel sorry for you guys

This Obamacare care is a FLOP , a grandiose failure , all the results of stupid compromises of keeping the private insurance companies in ...

This will never work .. it is doomed ...

Amazing how the USA can fuck up easy things in such a grandiose manner ...

Vendzilla · 04-05-2014, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

I am Canadian .. so I do not give a fuck about your internal politics ( but still let me insert a thought ...

).

That said, if 7 million signups is a success . well I really feel sorry for you guys

This Obamacare care is a FLOP , a grandiose failure , all the results of stupid compromises of keeping the private insurance companies in ...

This will never work .. it is doomed ...

Amazing how the USA can fuck up easy things in such a grandiose manner ...

7 million is not very much when you figure California has over 38 million

TheSquealer · 04-05-2014, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

And no I don't agree that they are 2 sides to the same coin. I think it is easy to think that, but looking closer into things and people reveals interesting and important differences.

PEACE

Of course you don't agree.

Why would any reasonable person to expect you to agree?

You've joined a team.
You love your team.
You let it be known, day in and day out.
You wear the colors.
You wave the flag.
You proudly sing the team fight song.
You proudly parrot and recycle all the same tired cliche's and jokes targeting the other team and pick of 1-2 easy targets to malign 100,000,000 or more people and think you are doing a service to others.
You look at the good of your team and ignore the bad.
You look at the bad of the other team and ignore the good.

You are incapable of admitting you are biased towards your views just as those on the opposite side of the spectrum from you are. You have only reluctantly conceded that you are liberal after fervently denying any bias at all. Even then, you admit to being on one side, but deny being biased - and any child could pick apart that logic. And the fact that you can attempt to argue that you've chosen one side, then arguing that you aren't biased towards that side shows how immature you are in your thinking.

You believe those on the opposite side are just "dumb" or "ignorant" or "crazy" because that is all you can conclude being that you are blissfully unaware of the fact that you only see part of the picture to begin with, which of course, makes the other side seem odd and irrational... never once considering that its your own inability to take a step back, open your mind, open your eyes and accept that you are just as flawed as everyone else in your reasoning and to train yourself to see and understand the other side of every argument, or other views and their merits.

You are nothing more than a tiny cog in a machine playing out your inconsequential role for your team and fulfilling your genetic mandate and basic human behavior... to put the tribe and its beliefs first and reject other tribes and their beliefs. Your denial of that fact is exactly what you are expected to do. When everyone questions the tribe, the tribe becomes weakened. It's not your fault though... its how we are designed as human beings from many many eons of successful evolutionary adaptation which has set homo sapiens apart from apes and other failed lines of ancestors.

04-03-2014, 07:15 PM	#162
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	kane, I keep seeing some people post that some states are "not cooperating". What does that mean? Which states? And how can they "not cooperate" (which sounds pretty "big brother" right there lol) Are you saying that Republican Governors in some states are "not cooperating"? How do they "cooperate" in the first place...and how do they have any affect on the law even if they don't like it? Other than make speeches and/or pursue lawsuits...do the governors have ANY power in this at all? Seems like the excuse of some states "not cooperating" might be another (of many) b.s. "blame everybody but Obama" ideas floated by the DNC to keep the heat off of them? __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

04-04-2014, 05:23 AM	#170
Magnetron Lord High Groundhog Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Bumblefuck, USA Posts: 1,841	This is where I once again can't be bothered to say much more than Adapt or Die to all the complainers wasting their time whining instead of taking personal action to ensure their own physical health and financial well being. The govt did this to me, the govt didn't do that for me, blah blah bladdee da da. Debating is one thing. Crying over spilled milk is another. __________________ . Approach the mirrored reflection saying his name three times : "Butcher .... Butcher .... Butcher ....." and wait to see if this Bogeyman urban legend manifests in the background, looming over shoulder While your neighbors were busy killing off everyone in the neighborhood with your own butcher knife in hand concealed behind your back you stood for ever before the window saying nothing

04-04-2014, 10:15 AM	#179
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	MK Ultra just hit it right on the head. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

04-04-2014, 10:37 AM	#181
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	The Federal Govt. is just too damn big. And it's made itself the provider for too many people. That gives the politicians all the power. Or as Benjamin Franklin said: "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means.—I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." Of course the big govt people on here will make snide remarks about "pulling yourself up by the boot straps" and how some people in the U.S. don't have enough opportunity, etc. etc. To which I would say: Just read what Mr. Franklin wrote there. And then take a look at poverty, unemployment, etc. You would think that IF big govt "helping" people really did work that it wouldn't be this way after FIFTY years and TRILLIONS of dollars from the Federal Gov. on the "War On Poverty". The concept is a failure and always has been throughout history. And now we are setting ourselves up to expand the Feds power even greater. Pure genius. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

04-04-2014, 02:28 PM	#186
Vendzilla Biker Gnome Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: cell#324 Posts: 23,200	here's some more from the OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL REPORT ESCAPE The report concludes that there was opportunity for the Davidians to escape. While obviously this is true--a handful did escape the maelstrom--I conclude there was no opportunity for the vast majority of the Davidians to have any hope of escape, because of the Government's tactics the morning of the 19th of April. Essentially, the use of the armored vehicles, methodically smashing down portions of the building, cutting off avenues of escape (for example, smashing the walls down to cover the `escape' hatch to the tunnel out of the main building), intimidated the inhabitants into seeking `safety' in the one secure part of the structure (the concrete `bunker' in the center). With massive quantities of CS gas pumped into this area, it virtually guaranteed that most inhabitants would be incapacitated; which they were, and they died in the ensuing fire because of the incapacitating effects of the CS gas and the cutting off of escape routes. So again, where does this leave your standings on this? Are you still routing for the assholes that blocked the escapes of those parents and children so they would sufficate from use of CS gas? __________________ Webair died? Carbon is not the problem, it makes up 0.041% of our atmosphere , 95% of that is from Volcanos and decomposing plants and stuff. So people in the US are responsible for 13% of the carbon in the atmosphere which 95% is not from Humans, like cars and trucks and stuff and they want to spend trillions to fix it while Solar Panel plants are powered by coal plants think about that

04-03-2014, 05:15 PM	#156
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 65,182	so ~2.1% of the population, nice work Obama! 2.1% = Democrat victory lap

04-04-2014, 12:52 PM	#182
stickyfingerz Doin fine Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 24,983

04-04-2014, 03:11 PM	#187
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	Vendzilla...he is trolling you man. That's why I had to put him on "ignore". He even told me in person that he enjoys firing people up on GFY (or as it's more commonly known: trolling). He just has fun saying outrageous stuff and watching other people get crazy over it. I don't understand the "fun" of it...but then again I don't "get" people who are into being pissed on or who love to lick dirty feet either. lol Who am I to judge? But make no mistake, you are not in a "debate" with Rochard. He is doing it just for fun. Instead of getting annoyed with him, just put his "Rochard" persona on "ignore" on GFY and enjoy the real Richard in person when you talk at shows. It's much better on the nerves. lol __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

04-04-2014, 03:34 PM	#188
1215 Boner Party Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 2,376	6 million people lost their coverages because you CAN'T keep your plan. so there's your first 6 million - people who already had coverage, not new people with ensurance. the rest are people who were signing up for medicare/medicaid anyway. so obamacare actually has about 0 signups. besides that, usa has 300 million residents. 7 million is a tiny percentage, so obamacare is a disaster. __________________ Best Hosting

04-04-2014, 05:25 PM	#191
Rochard Jägermeister Test Pilot Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NORCAL Posts: 73,911	The Republican party is trying to pick this law apart so bad that it's comical. And it's not difficult to do. Obamacare just reached it's goal, seven million people. There is over three hundred million people in the US. If this is mandatory, why is it only seven million? Why aren't we discussing what percentage of Americans are now covered by healthcare - because, at the end of the day, isn't that what this is all about? __________________ “The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.” - Sarah Huckabee Sanders YNOT MAIL \| THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

04-05-2014, 04:03 PM	#197
kane Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, OR Posts: 20,684	Just in case anyone is interested, more numbers are starting to come out that clarify who and how many are signing up for Obamacare According to this story. there were 7.1 million people who signed up for a plan through Obamacare and an additional 3 million people who qualified for free medicaid for a total of 10.1 million. They haven't released how many of these 10 million have had insurance before and lost it and if they lost it what the reason for losing it was.

04-05-2014, 06:17 PM	#198
directfiesta Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 29,627	I am Canadian .. so I do not give a fuck about your internal politics ( but still let me insert a thought ... ). That said, if 7 million signups is a success . well I really feel sorry for you guys This Obamacare care is a FLOP , a grandiose failure , all the results of stupid compromises of keeping the private insurance companies in ... This will never work .. it is doomed ... Amazing how the USA can fuck up easy things in such a grandiose manner ... __________________ I know that Asspimple is stoopid ... As he says, it is a FACT ! But I can't figure out how he can breathe or type , at the same time ....