kapkomet

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 04:04 PM) Cut dirty words into the lawn. Yea, "buy me". That sounds pretty good. I wonder if that would work?

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 04:02 PM) Wright seems like a nutjob and I personally felt slightly betrayed by Obama for having sat in his pews for all those years. I still hope Obama's just pretending to be religious for f sakes, but that stuff was on tv for days and guess what... the voters decided they'd look past it when they compared it to the alternative. And they're turning against him now that he's actually in office, as predicted, because he's as radical as predicted. He's not governing from the center, he's taking us as far left as he can. And yea, he's pretending to be religous all right, unless he goes to Egypt and gives a speech.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:49 PM) So while cutting the grass at my mom's house, the lawnmower blew up today. The gasket blew, and oil came pouring out of it. That can't be good for it... I get to mow the grass at the recently abandoned neighbor's house. That's exciting for me.

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 03:58 PM) Are you guys on H? Jeremiah Wright was on tv for days and probably weeks. Right - he sure was. He's a swell guy, and so misunderstood. I mean, 20 years meant nothing.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 03:33 PM) Exactly. None of those people were national stories for weeks on end. They really weren't... not the way it should have been. Other then O'Sean'HanITY. (who I really dislike, btw).

The being able to sell across state lines is a huge one and something I had forgotten to say.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:59 PM) Except if you are the current president. Bill A... who? Jeremiah who? Rashid who? All that doesn't matter, it's in the past.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:30 PM) As I understand it, Congress was doing that more or less without Carter's support. Maybe I am misremembering. Old ass, you're acting like that was 30 years ago or something.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Aug 29, 2009 -> 05:14 PM) Well what I was thinking of is going a more drastic route where when you log into each site there are a list of forums, but all the same database. When you go to Soxtalk, the baseball sites are at the top, when you go to TalkBears, the Bears forum is at the top. The Off Topic is the same forum and everything and basically put each site just has its own unique skin but in its entirety we are talking about one massive site with customized graphics. I have no clue how possible this is, but it was my idea. Basically put there would be the following forums (plus or minus some): Diamond Club, White Sox, Future Sox, Trade Winds (When Needed), Bears, Bulls, Generic Sports Forum. If stuff got very popular, there could be seperate forums for each sport..ie a baseball one, a football one, a basketball one, etc. And the order of the forums just depends on the site you are on. LOL. That is what I told you 5 years ago. You can make a portal to do that. But, it's not quite that simple, anymore. If you're serious, we can talk more.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:01 PM) Misogynistic views about women are pretty embarrassing. OHHHHHHHHHHH, that's what you meant. Yes... I would agree.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:00 PM) So again, you are opposed to a population paying into a healthcare insurance pool? Because if illegal residents need medical care, they still go get medical care. The difference is, if they've been paying into the insurance pool - the costs to us won't be so high when they ask for charity care or just don't pay their ER bills. Because, if you're living in the gray economy, why would a FICO score ever matter? Because these people won't be paying into a pool anyway. That's a farce. But they will have the same plan that I will be paying into as non-citizens of this country. Of course, by the end of the year, they'll be "legal" anyway, and all this doesn't matter, right?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:58 PM) Those views are pretty embarrassing. Only "right wingers" have "embarassing" points of view. Other points of view are totally rational and well thought out, and therefore, must be right.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:55 PM) Kap, those are two distinctly different words with very different meanings. I'm not playing a semantics game. I'm making sure the correct words are actually used. Words mean specific things. Yes, they'll have the same options as you. I've never said otherwise. They won't be receiving free or guaranteed coverage any more than you will. That's all I have been saying all along and you know it - and you want to just keep this going, so it IS a semantics game. You got the point that you know I've been making. That's enough.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:45 PM) Kap, I don't know the phrase for it, but you're committing a logical fallacy here. They are not excluded from purchasing coverage. That does not mean they are covered. There is a distinct difference. No one is dismissing it because its a talking point. Its being dismissed because its wrong. No, there's no difference. You keep playing this semantics bulls*** game. They are eligible for the same s*** that I, a citizen, is eligible for, and that's wrong. Eligible, guaranteed, f***ity f***, what the hell ever word you want to use. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE TO WHAT AN ILLEGAL WILL GET UNDER THIS PLAN THEN WHAT I WILL GET. That is the bottom line. Why the hell is that so goddamn hard to understand? This semantics circle jerk is getting stupid.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:43 PM) Why do you assume that private industry will remain static? It won't. That's sort of the point.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:38 PM) Has zero to do with it. The fact that a party is using it as a talking point is unrelated to whether or not its true. What DOES tell me its untrue is that its NOT IN THE BILL, or at least any part of it I've seen, or has been posted here. If someone can show me something other this - something that runs counter to the bill portions shown here to specifically EXEMPT illegals - then I will start worrying about it. This is what StrangeSox was getting at. The GOP method of arguing against anything seems to have become obscuration by decimation - lay waste any and all fact or information produced by anyone, saying nothing can be trusted, therefore I'm right because I feel that way. It is the utter destruction of useful dialogue. There is absolutely no mechanism to deny coverage to illegal aliens in the bill. By proxy, they're then covered. I posted a congressional review report that agrees with this, mr genuis posted another article, and yet, all I see is you're wrong you're wrong you're wrong. Holy s***, we gave you interpretations that say (CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW!!) illegals are covered in this bill. What the hell more do you want? Then you just outright dismiss it because "it's a talking point so it must be false".

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:37 PM) THEN PEOPLE WON'T ALL SWITCH TO IT. Your argument is self-refuting. Also, employers now can say "f*** off, get your own." They don't do that because it allows them to retain better talent while paying less payroll taxes. There you go. They're incentivized, more or less. Give that incentive back to the individual, and give them real choice. And employers would be glad to say "f*** off, get your own" when the government provides it. They're not on the hook then. And they'll probably lose their tax writeoffs when this comes down the pike as well.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:33 PM) Why not? And isn't that part of your plan? My plan, yes, and give it back to individuals - not a government takeover. Extremely big difference there.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:25 PM) My lord. Really? They haven't NOT proposed we cede Alaska back to Russia either. Should we fund the Palins to buy some tanks and fighter jets to keep those Ruskies at bay? Your argument could literally be used to protest anything, even things that do not exist, and then somehow cast us all as "not paying attention", because we don't see the non-existent. This argument reminds me of the character from Mystery Men who claimed he was invisible, but only when no one was looking at him. Makes a nice piece of fiction, but... really? Ok, the GOP is using it as a talking point, so it MUST NOT be true. End of story.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:31 PM) So if they're going to be so bad at running it why would people switch from their private plans? Because they will be forced to. Employers will not offer insurance after this passes.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:11 PM) But he's right. And again, I think its a legitimate argument to have if anyone has proposed such a thing, but as it stands, they haven't. If they do, I'll be right there with you. There are lots of things NOT to like in the various bill proposals that I have seen (and no I haven't read the entire things, only exceprts and overviews), so I am not going to waste energy worrying about what ISN'T in there. Are you paying attention? They haven't NOT proposed it, which is really the point. It means they're covered. When the Congresional Research Service is under the opinion that they'll have ability for coverage under this, that makes a pretty good statement. I don't understand why this doesn't bother people. They throw that 46/7 million number around like it's the world dying, yet, the points that are made about "immy-gants" are just swept under the rug as nothing and no big deal. Which way is it?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:01 PM) The bill does not forbid them from buying health insurance. It does not guarantee them coverage, provide them coverage at a reduced cost, or give them an unfair advantage in any way. So they walk right in, and get the same "rights" as you and me, right off the bat, without even being a citizen. I'm glad that's swell and ok with you. We better call the masses to get here before this thing passes. What's a few billion more people for us to cover? Oh, except they won't get "affordability credits". LMAO.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 12:55 PM) There were threats of leaving to Canada/ Europe, but not threats of armed revolution. Aye aye aye. Ok. I mean, there weren't MOVIES made about killing GWB, or anything like that. No unruly protests whatsoever. And the whole "stolen election" crap and that "people need to take back this country" language using arms in 2000. No, none of that. Everthing's just so peaceful, until "right wing kooks" say stuff. I see. We're just "clinging to our guns and religion" out here. I get it. Peace, love, and no war.

Key words: AFFORDIBILITY CREDITS. That's all this talks about. There's not a damn thing in here about coverage. Nothing. They are covered, or more specifically, there's nothing in the bill to NOT deny them COVERAGE. Same section - services covered by this act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics... ok, looks to be like they get their coverage. Besides that, one swipe of the pen, they're all legal. Poof. Argument over.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 11:06 AM) Guns, threats of revolution... There were no Waco's or Okla. City Bombings while GWB was president. Obviously, you've missed some things over the last 8 years.