Y2HH

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:43 PM) Zimmerman has been portrayed as being motivated by race for several weeks now. NBC editing a clip this week did not make people portray Zimmerman as racist three weeks ago. edit: if you haven't seen the unedited call available, you haven't been looking. It's been available since this story first started getting attention. Hell, here's an article from 3/17 that goes over the call: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/16/2697...sset_type=audio Several weeks? The story just broke big about 7 days ago, regardless of it being a month old now. Until the story got big, which is when NBC aired their edited tape, not many people knew about this.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:36 PM) The unedited call has been available for quite a while. As far as I know, other networks have not aired similarly edited versions. I've also not seen it edited that way in print, but that doesn't mean it isn't out there. I still don't see how one deceptively edited clip on a show weeks after the story become national is "huge" or really changes anything. I just told you why it changes something. Maybe you should actually read what I wrote and listen to the words. Zimmerman has been portrayed as a f***ing racist. Do you understand that? A 911 call that most of the media latched onto, regardless of the "unedited version" being available that nobody heard or bothered listening too, made Zimmerman sound like he was racially profiling this kid. Fact is, he didn't. He was asked what color he was...and he said black. No longer does it sound like he was profiling him because of his color. You don't "get that" because you don't want too...you WANT Zimmerman to go down, and f*** the facts, right? Until today, I have NOT heard nor seen anyone report on that "unedited" call. Until today all I heard was people saying he was racially profiling.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:34 PM) Should the Court overturn a major legislative bill on a minor technicality that doesn't really affect the implementation of the policy? Yes, because it grants congress a power it didn't have, as it sets new precedent. That minor technicality is major.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:28 PM) Well it provides Fox with something else to focus on instead of the story itself or any of the issues surrounding it, but other than that, what changes? It's one clip from the Today show this week. This story have been in the national media for a while. Until I saw/read that unedited 911 call, I looked at it like Zimmerman was profiling, this changes that. And until seeing this, every story in print also left out the dispatchers question as if they took the NBC version of the 911 call and reported on that, instead of the truth. Two things made Zimmerman appear to be profiling, the NBC edit, combined with something unintelligible that may have been racial. The edit lent more credence to the possible racial slur...

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:26 PM) This edited clip aired this Tuesday on one show. This story has been going on for week. It doesn't actually change anything at all. Yea I kinda disagree.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:19 PM) lol @ Hannity aside, that is pretty awful. Yea, I'm not a fan of Hannity, because he's a biased moron, but he's just pointing out something obvious here, and in this case I'm not going to shoot the messenger because of who it happens to be.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tray...911-call-306359 Awesome.

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 03:16 PM) Anyone use a iPad browser with flash support? Any recommendations? These are all workarounds, as it's not natively supported...that said, even native support is short term since Adobe has abandoned mobile flash. There is some program people once used to do this but I don't remember the name if it. :/

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 02:50 PM) But you could easily change the law, to state that everyone in the US has a ____ enrollment period when the law enacts, to get the great rate. After that period the rates go up. It just seems that there are answers to these questions that are practical. I dont understand why we have to keep forcing a square peg into a round space. You could...but Congress isn't all that smart, now is it?

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 02:44 PM) I wonder how many people I actually got. I thought I'd be lucky to get one or two. I'll give it to you...THIS time. Go ahead and say it...throw your towel over your shoulder and catch it...spit your gum into the air and slap it away...and say it... "Absolutely..."

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 02:41 PM) That is just silly (for congress to set it up that way). There is no question (at least in my mind) that the govt couldnt draft a law stating that insurance companies can not deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions. I believe that would fully be within their power. The reason why that doesn't work is because nobody would be paying into insurance until they needed it...BECAUSE you cannot be denied for pre-existing conditions. Therefore...why bother paying for something that cannot be denied to you when you suddenly need it? Entire system collapses. That would be akin to waiting until you get into a car accident, then calling State Farm for insurance to cover the accident you just had...knowing they cannot deny your "pre-existing" car wreck, and would have to pay out on it. It's fairly simple to see why it wouldn't work.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 02:38 PM) Strangesox, Correct me if im wrong, but isnt the pre-existing condition part entirely unrelated to the mandate part? I believe that the law about pre-existing conditions would be enforceable but for the mandate. Furthermore, couldnt the govt/insurance companies provide some sort of cheaper insurance (like liability insurance for cars), that would at least provide minimum levels of coverage. Or couldnt the govt give insurance and count it as a benefit, such as food stamps, etc. The mandate exists mainly to cover the pre-existing clause.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 01:50 PM) What is the substantial difference between a tax and a penalty? You're not forced to buy something, but you face a penalty if you do not. 2) I'm not forced to buy a home, but I'll pay higher federal income taxes for not having a mortgage. 3) Isn't this merely a distinction of semantics? 1) The difference is one is a tax and one is not. 2) It's more complicated than you are all making it sound. It's not like they're saying, if you buy a home, you're income tax rate is 20% instead of 25%. They're simply giving you a tax write off on the interest you paid. I laid out why the math in this is MUCH different than people seem to think in an earlier post. You guys are making it sound like if you buy a house, you'll save thousands of dollars on your federal tax. I paid over 10K on interest this year, amongst other fees for owning my house, not to mention 3800$ in property tax, and my federal tax liability was reduced by about 1500$. That's a net loss of over 10k compared to what you had to pay out. 3) No. This precedent allows congress the power to tell you to purchase things. Just because you happen to agree with THIS thing they want you to purchase, doesn't mean you'll agree with the next thing they want you to purchase. Can they raise taxes and in a round about way force you to buy that same thing? Sure. And when the tax rates get too high, people can start slaying them, too.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 01:49 PM) You had the option to divert some of your FICA funds into private investment vehicles, but you could not simply keep the money. You were mandated to invest in certain types of private investments or to pay higher FICA taxes. You could not do anything you wanted with that money. None of this happened, so why do you keep trying to discuss it? There is no discussion here...it was and is a hypothetical. It was a ridiculous bill the Republicans introduced and it was shot down, as it should have been. For many of the same reasons they never should have done this bill the way they did it. Pointing to the republicans and saying, well they tried it, too...nah nah nah, doesn't do much here.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 01:41 PM) You could not simply "keep" the money. You were mandated to invest it in private-market investment vehicles. The medicare privatization schemes are similar. So what new Congressional powers did ACA find, and what powers will striking down ACA limit? We've explained this already. Medicare is a tax. SS is a tax. Look on your paycheck. THIS IS NOT A TAX. That's the entire point in that it's a NEW power granted to congress. If this precedent is set, and I know you find the Broccoli argument ridiculous -- because it's SUPPOSED TO BE -- it sets the future precedent that congress can now tell you that you have to buy things. Yes, they can always pass a tax increase, and that's STILL NOT THE SAME AS THEM TELLING YOU TO BUY SOMETHING, even if it's achieving the same goal.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 01:38 PM) Im not very well versed on this stuff. And maybe this has been argued, but wouldnt it not be a tax because you are paying a private company. Wouldnt the better example be car insurance? Illinois law requires that you own car insurance to drive on the roads of Illinois. Now yes, driving is considered a privilege, but couldnt we argue that receiving medical treatment at a hospital, etc that is paid for by the tax payers is a privilege? That there is no law that states as a society we must treat anyone who is sick? So isnt there a good argument to be made that if you want the privilege of knowing that you can have access to any hospital, knowing that if you are sick or injured anywhere in the US, that you will be able to receive treatment, that the US can create a law that restricts that privilege unless you have health insurance? To me that seems like the actual intent of this law. Not to tax people (govt isnt getting the money, or at least that is my understanding), not to penalize people, but instead to prevent states/govt being left holding huge bills for the treatment of non-insured? Comes down to choice, and lack of choice. You don't HAVE to buy a car or drive, therefore they're not telling you that you HAVE to purchase something. You HAVE to do this. In this case, they're outright telling you that you HAVE to buy a product, even if you don't want it. And I know, it's silly that a person wouldn't want health insurance, right? That's the point.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 01:32 PM) But nobody* at the time really thought there was anything unconstitutional about mandated private retirement investment accounts. *there's always the libertarians who think the whole modern government is pretty much unconstitutional The whole privatizing social security idea was a stupid idea which didn't get through anyway, nor did anyone think it had any chance to get through, so of course the unconstitutional arguments didn't start. I'm sure they would have, however, if they did get it through...only right now, you'd all be arguing how it's unconstitutional, instead...as would the 4 liberal justices. * Edit : And this had an opt-out clause, as a poster stated above, which wouldn't penalize you for opting out...

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 01:29 PM) Or maybe they didn't anticipate anyone would take garbage like the broccoli arguments seriously since conservatives didn't have a problem with mandates until Obama came along (see: who originally crafted the mandate, social security privatizing in 2005). Again, how does striking down the mandate limit Congress's powers if they can still get the same exact results with different wording? Social Security Privatizing didn't happen, though...this did.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 01:25 PM) What meaningful limit on Congress's power is there if the ACA mandate is struck down if Congress can do the exact same thing with a minor tweak? That's actually a pretty major tweak. If it was that "minor" they'd have done it that way from the start.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 01:19 PM) A strong majority of legal scholars were basically laughing at the "inactivity/activity" novel distinction before this week. I guess they're not laughing anymore. And let me guess, they were "liberal" legal scholars, right, versus just...regular legal scholars that don't take politics into account when making judgements? Not to say that some of the justices on the supreme court aren't like that, too...but whatever.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 01:14 PM) I didn't think I needed to but I was definitely being sarcastic about calling you a pig. Sure you were. Girl.

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 03:38 PM) There is a neighborhood watch consultant in Florida who is looking to leave the state and help with just sort of a project Too soon, Tex...too soon.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 12:57 PM) Ugh, you're such a pig.... You know...when I tell that joke, the only people that reply to me and use the word "pig"...are women. Even if it's NOT true, and it's obviously NOT, it's only meant to be a silly/shallow joke. Men laugh at it...women call me a pig...or sometimes asshole... But then they like me anyway...cuz I'm one of those guys, or at least I was at one time.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 01:02 PM) Lol, that was intended for Y2HH and his misogynistic joke. Oh, come on...you didn't find that funny?!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 01:01 PM) I just told you why. So have 4 other people. It is different because it requires you to buy a consumer product. Now, it can be argued that those two things you list are financially a similar impact, and the delivery of service to citizens is in essence the same. And therefore, you can think it is a good thing. But simply, mechanically, and on its face, it is NOT the same. It is crossing a line, and the only way to make that OK is to move said line, which can really only be done via a Constitutional amendment. They should have had the balls to just make it a tax and do it right the first time. And if that wouldn't survive, then go another route. Right, one is a tax (which they can choose to add incentives if you do X, Y and Z, such as write offs on interest payments), and the other is a penalty for NOT doing something. If they had made it a tax, this isn't in the supreme court right now being discussed. Even the liberal minded justices are saying this is a 'special circumstance', if it was the same thing as the other examples, they wouldn't say that, and it wouldn't even be a case they're looking at right now. It's being called into question because it's questionable. While these examples achieve the same outcome, both routes (EDIT) are may not be legal to that outcome.