Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 68
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    House Health Care Bill - H.R.3200: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

    ^^^There it is, read it. As for rushing things, well that's funny. Since Clinton was in office, the Party of NO Clue has been playing the obstructionist game through fear mongering and the spreading of fud when he tried to pass some kind of reform. And yes the spineless Democrats back then allowed themselves to be trampled over as they are doing yet again. Only difference is, now there are lot more dems in control so hopefully something will go forward.
    Thanks....but read more than I care to admit....I'm not an attorney and isn't the easiest read....but glad you have read it. Did you enjoy the part about small business paying a "contribution" (that's a tax, by the way) if they don't want to provide a group health plan? Did you read the part about small business having to pay 65% of dependent coverage? Or maybe the part where they have to pay for part time workers? It's in there....did you read it? Small businesses weren't started so they could provide health coverage for others.....yet the government will require it....require it....it's in there....don't trust me, read it.....that's not fear....that's real.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Thanks....but read more than I care to admit....I'm not an attorney and isn't the easiest read....but glad you have read it. Did you enjoy the part about small business paying a "contribution" (that's a tax, by the way) if they don't want to provide a group health plan? Did you read the part about small business having to pay 65% of dependent coverage? Or maybe the part where they have to pay for part time workers? It's in there....did you read it? Small businesses weren't started so they could provide health coverage for others.....yet the government will require it....require it....it's in there....don't trust me, read it.....that's not fear....that's real.
    I'm not going to sift through 1000+ pages so here's a snippet from the WSJ:

    "Under the House measure, employers with payrolls exceeding $400,000 a year would have to provide health insurance or pay the 8% penalty. Employers with payrolls between $250,000 and $400,000 a year would pay a smaller penalty, and those less than $250,000 would be exempt. Certain small firms would get tax credits to help buy coverage."

    So not all small businesses will have to pay the penalty, some will get tax credits and the penalty itself varies according to payroll numbers. I worked for a small business that provided no coverage and luckily I never got sick. I wish I did have coverage at the time. So from my perspective I have no problems with the requirement if it will ensure more Americans get coverage.

    No one said reforming health care would be easy. Right now the costs involved are ridiculously high and the Pharmaceuticals are the ones raking in the cash. It's profits first, health care after. Everyone is clammering for the all mighty buck. They'll even sell their mothers for higher profit margins. There has to be balance in the form of regulations. The seduction of Greed is too strong. An unregulated market will basically mean one big company buys out all the other little guys and charges an arm and a leg for everything.
    Last edited by darreno1; 08/12/2009 at 09:01 PM. Reason: grammar
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    I'm not going to sift through 1000+ pages [...]
    So, you expect others to read through it for you and prove you wrong? And yet, you're arguing against a faith-based position in the evolution thread?

    Let's do some basic math, let's say you have a small business that employs 6 people. You pay those people a wage of 36,000 a year, not exactly an extravagant wage. Since you're an egalitarian sort, you even only pay yourself that same $36,000. Congratulations! You're at $252,000 in payroll and get to make a contribution. And that's without even considering loaded costs or other costs of doing business.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    So, you expect others to read through it for you and prove you wrong? And yet, you're arguing against a faith-based position in the evolution thread?
    I don't have a photographic memory, maybe you do. So why would I go through hundreds of pages to find that info when it's readily availabe elsewhere? Anyway since you brought up the evolution thread, did you read through all the scientific theories available before posting there?




    Let's do some basic math, let's say you have a small business that employs 6 people. You pay those people a wage of 36,000 a year, not exactly an extravagant wage. Since you're an egalitarian sort, you even only pay yourself that same $36,000. Congratulations! You're at $252,000 in payroll and get to make a contribution. And that's without even considering loaded costs or other costs of doing business.
    Hypotheticals can be skewed in any direction. And without seeing all the figures your example is meaningless. If the answer you're looking for is whether some small businesses will feel it more than others? That answer would be, yes. Is it avoidable? That answer would be, no. Will the best system in the world work for everyone? That answer would be no also.
    Last edited by darreno1; 08/12/2009 at 10:31 PM. Reason: spelling
  5. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Let's do some basic math, let's say you have a small business that employs 6 people. You pay those people a wage of 36,000 a year, not exactly an extravagant wage. Since you're an egalitarian sort, you even only pay yourself that same $36,000. Congratulations! You're at $252,000 in payroll and get to make a contribution. And that's without even considering loaded costs or other costs of doing business.
    As we just saw with the GM bailout, our government believes some businesses are just too big to fail. Unfortunately, this is another sign they also believe some companies are too small to succeed. That proposition is completely backwards in an environment where you actually want to grow the economy.
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    I don't have a photographic memory, maybe you do.
    Not quite eidetic, but my recall is very good (rote facts not as much but practically perfect with concepts).
    So why would I go through hundreds of pages to find that info when it's readily availabe elsewhere?
    Because such information is second or third hand information at best.
    Anyway since you brought up the evolution thread, did you read through all the scientific theories available before posting there?
    Obviously there's no way for me to read through every scientific theory. However, I do take the time to read through one if I'm going to reference it.
    Hypotheticals can be skewed in any direction.
    What am I skewing?
    And without seeing all the figures your example is meaningless.
    What figures are missing? My example only shows how easy it is to get to $250,000 in payroll.
    If the answer you're looking for is whether some small businesses will feel it more than others? That answer would be, yes. Is it avoidable? That answer would be, no. Will the best system in the world work for everyone? That answer would be no also.
    I'm not looking for an answer per se. It's a demonstration of simple math. It doesn't take much to get to $250,000 in payroll. Give a few of those people a raise or create a couple new jobs and get to $400,000, and you might find yourself with a $32,000 contribution that you might have otherwise used to create yet another job. That is, assuming the numbers you provided through the WSJ are correct.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    I'm not going to sift through 1000+ pages so here's a snippet from the WSJ:

    "Under the House measure, employers with payrolls exceeding $400,000 a year would have to provide health insurance or pay the 8% penalty. Employers with payrolls between $250,000 and $400,000 a year would pay a smaller penalty, and those less than $250,000 would be exempt. Certain small firms would get tax credits to help buy coverage."

    So not all small businesses will have to pay the penalty, some will get tax credits and the penalty itself varies according to payroll numbers. I worked for a small business that provided no coverage and luckily I never got sick. I wish I did have coverage at the time. So from my perspective I have no problems with the requirement if it will ensure more Americans get coverage.

    No one said reforming health care would be easy. Right now the costs involved are ridiculously high and the Pharmaceuticals are the ones raking in the cash. It's profits first, health care after. Everyone is clammering for the all mighty buck. They'll even sell their mothers for higher profit margins. There has to be balance in the form of regulations. The seduction of Greed is too strong. An unregulated market will basically mean one big company buys out all the other little guys and charges an arm and a leg for everything.
    Well....so you backed up what I said....thanks! I'm glad the WSJ read HR 3200. The contribution % goes from 2% to 8% between an annual payroll of $250k and $400k. My point is that people don't start businesses with the main focus being providing health insurance. Oh sure, many eventually see the advantage of providing this as a benefit and they make the choice (key word, choice) to provide this benefit. It can attract better employees....it can keep their employees healthier....so it can be an advantage. But, I am one of these weird people that just don't believe the government should require a business to either provide a health plan or make a contribution (I love the use of the word contribution) if they decide this is not what they want to do as a business owner. You disagree. You may own a business now, but if not, should you ever decide to go into business I believe it should be YOUR choice to provide and pay for coverage for your employees. If you're just getting by as a business owner, this could be the straw that breaks their back....especially when they are required to pay for both dependents (65%) and part time employees (I believe the same % as full time, which would be 72.5% based on Section 312(b) of the bill).

    We apparently don't disagree this is in the bill, but you believe it is fair to require those risking their money to establish a business and employee people to have to pay for a benefit, and I believe they shouldn't.

    You believe this is Constitutional to force people to pay for benefits and I don't. I again refer anyone to: Historic Documents - The Constitution of the United States of America It is pretty interesting to read. I see nothing in there that says this should be covered under the Federal Government. I do see the 10th Amendment which says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    We disagree....and apparently you believe I shouldn't have the right to disagree? I would not take that right away from you to agree with a socialist program.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post

    Because such information is second or third hand information at best.
    Really? But you readily accepted it to formulate your reply? Did you read through the bill?


    Obviously there's no way for me to read through every scientific theory. However, I do take the time to read through one if I'm going to reference it.
    Well I take the time to read the parts that are relevent to the point I'm trying to make even if those parts can be found elsewhere. I don't have your kind of time or memory.


    What am I skewing?
    Ok take your business example. If said business made $10 million profit annually, it should be able to afford to provide insurance. What am I skewing?

    What figures are missing? My example only shows how easy it is to get to $250,000 in payroll.
    Ok so it's easy to get to $250k , and? Without knowing profits, costs, insurance costs, contribution amounts, how can anyone determine if this business can easily afford insurance for its workers?




    I'm not looking for an answer per se. It's a demonstration of simple math. It doesn't take much to get to $250,000 in payroll. Give a few of those people a raise or create a couple new jobs and get to $400,000, and you might find yourself with a $32,000 contribution that you might have otherwise used to create yet another job. That is, assuming the numbers you provided through the WSJ are correct.
    Again you're using only payroll figures without knowing anything about what this business makes. Maybe they can easily afford to provide healthcare. Maybe they can't. Lots of maybes. And lots of businesses hire people based on need. If I don't need another person, why would hire them? Just because I can afford to? Even if they don't have to make a contribution, there is no guarantee they'll hire people.
    Last edited by darreno1; 08/13/2009 at 08:19 AM.
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Again you're using only payroll figures without knowing anything about what this business makes. Maybe they can easily afford to provide healthcare. Maybe they can't. Lots of maybes. And lots of businesses hire people based on need. If I don't need another person, why would hire them? Just because I can afford to? Even if they don't have to make a contribution, there is no guarantee they'll hire people.
    I'm not worried about the "maybe they can" ones, I'm worried about the "maybe they can't" ones. The "maybe the can" businesses are likely providing health insurance already....but the "maybe they can't" bsinesses are likely not because of the expense. And now, based on HR 3200 the government says they don't care....so.....the businesses fires one of those workers to pay the "contribution". But even that still misses my point....why should the government be telling a business owner he must pay for health care? WTF? Why? Because it's the right thing to do?

    If you were to open a business, what would be the driving force for you? Why would you be willing to take the risk with your own money to venture out on your own? What would "drive" you to do this? Just curious.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Really? But you readily accepted it to formulate your reply?
    If I am replying to your premise and not the bill, why should I not?
    Did you read through the bill?
    I have started reading through when time allows. That's the point though. I haven't really commented on what the bill says since I haven't completed reading it. However, there is nothing that prevents me from commenting on the logic or reasoning of what other people claim it says.
    Well I take the time to read the parts that are relevent to the point I'm trying to make even if those parts can be found elsewhere. I don't have your kind of time or memory.
    We have the same 24 hours in the same day.
    Ok take your business example. If said business made $10 million profit annually, it should be able to afford to provide insurance. What am I skewing?
    If that business makes $10 million profit annually, they should be able to provide insurance. They will also likely pay much better wages than my example. But that's irrelevant to the legislation if your relaying of the WSJ relaying of the bill is accurate. It does not base requirements and penalties on profit. It bases them on payroll.
    Ok so it's easy to get to $250k , and? Without knowing profits, costs, insurance costs, contribution amounts, how can anyone determine if this business can easily afford insurance for its workers?
    Now you're starting to understand. Where in the bill are these factors taken into account?
    Again you're using only payroll figures without knowing anything about what this business makes.
    I didn't come up with the plan to base it on payroll amounts. That's what the bill says according to you and the WSJ.
    Maybe they can easily afford to provide healthcare. Maybe they can't. Lots of maybes. And lots of businesses hire people based on need. If I don't need another person, why would hire them? Just because I can afford to? Even if they don't have to make a contribution, there is no guarantee they'll hire people.
    Very true.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    If I am replying to your premise and not the bill, why should I not?

    The provisions and figures in the bill is the focus of the discussion. The WSJ figures are accurate. A reputable publication such as theirs will have very little reason to fabricate the numbers. So following your own logic, you should have read through the ENTIRE bill.



    I have started reading through when time allows. That's the point though. I haven't really commented on what the bill says since I haven't completed reading it. However, there is nothing that prevents me from commenting on the logic or reasoning of what other people claim it says.
    HAHA, well maybe you can extend that courtesy to me as well.

    We have the same 24 hours in the same day.
    No you have 24 hours. I only have about 4-5 free hours per day which gets occupied by slighty more important things for the time being. I will get around to reading it though. For now I will rely on the hard work of others who read and deciphered it. And I will be cross-checking sources for accuracy.

    If that business makes $10 million profit annually, they should be able to provide insurance. They will also likely pay much better wages than my example. But that's irrelevant to the legislation if your relaying of the WSJ relaying of the bill is accurate. It does not base requirements and penalties on profit. It bases them on payroll.
    You are correct in that they look at payroll but they are also taking into the consideration other factors hence the reason for the recent change:

    Small-business owners concerned health-care bill could harm them | coshoctontribune.com | Coshocton Tribune


    Speaker Nancy Pelosi | News Room | Reports
    Last edited by darreno1; 08/13/2009 at 10:36 PM.
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I'm not worried about the "maybe they can" ones, I'm worried about the "maybe they can't" ones. The "maybe the can" businesses are likely providing health insurance already....but the "maybe they can't" bsinesses are likely not because of the expense. And now, based on HR 3200 the government says they don't care....so.....the businesses fires one of those workers to pay the "contribution". But even that still misses my point....why should the government be telling a business owner he must pay for health care? WTF? Why? Because it's the right thing to do?

    If you were to open a business, what would be the driving force for you? Why would you be willing to take the risk with your own money to venture out on your own? What would "drive" you to do this? Just curious.

    Well with the recent changes, the exempt limits have been rasied. You probably have already heard or seen the new limits. If not, see the above links.
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    The provisions and figures in the bill is the focus of the discussion.
    In fact, the focus of the discussion was Clinton escorting some reporters back home. Then you and Ben lost focus and started bringing Bush and other things into the discussion.
    The WSJ figures are accurate. A reputable publication such as theirs will have very little reason to fabricate the numbers.
    I didn't say they fabricated the numbers. My example was only pointing out how easy it was to hit their numbers.
    So following your own logic, you should have read through the ENTIRE bill.
    No, following my logic, you should have read through the entire bill. I'm not the one passing out a url and telling others to read it.
    HAHA, well maybe you can extend that courtesy to me as well.
    I did. You posted a url with the bill telling others to read it. Then when someone said they had read significant portions and asked if you had read it, you said you didn't have the time.
    No you have 24 hours.
    How long is your day? Do you not live on Earth?
    I only have about 4-5 free hours per day which gets occupied by slighty more important things for the time being.
    I usually have less free hours than that. I guess I'm just using my time more efficiently.
    You are correct in that they look at payroll but they are also taking into the consideration other factors hence the reason for the recent change:

    Small-business owners concerned health-care bill could harm them | coshoctontribune.com | Coshocton Tribune


    Speaker Nancy Pelosi | News Room | Reports
    Seems like it's a good thing they didn't rush it through before the break then. If that's only one little snippet out of 1000+ pages, imagine how many other things they might find.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Well with the recent changes, the exempt limits have been rasied. You probably have already heard or seen the new limits. If not, see the above links.
    So, apparently not rolling over and taking whatever the politicians want is a good idea? As Toby pointed out, because of these citizens expressing their concerns the potential bill is being tweaked and folk's concerns are actually being addressed. Otherwise, we would have gotten a bill that Obama and democrats would have voted through and not read. I think this is an amazing example of how we must demand more from our politicians....what is sad is this demand is to request 1) they read their bills before voting and 2) that we the people be able to see bills before they vote on them. Seems like these "demands" should be common sense.

    TERM LIMITS....TERM LIMITS....TERM LIMITS. Why we let these people (both democrats and Republicans) sit up there for 10, 20, and 30+ years to make a living, get health benefits, get a really sweet retirement plan, and not have to worry about social security and/or medicare for themselves is beyond me. Why do we allow them to get away with this? Again...this should not be a democrat or Republican issue, it should be an American issue. But I digress....
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  15. #55  
    It is great how those dollar amounts are thrown out. Small business - $400,000 - that really is not much money for many small businesses. Another tax. We really do need term limits on all of them - in one time and no more.
  16. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    TERM LIMITS....TERM LIMITS....TERM LIMITS. Why we let these people (both democrats and Republicans) sit up there for 10, 20, and 30+ years to make a living, get health benefits, get a really sweet retirement plan, and not have to worry about social security and/or medicare for themselves is beyond me. Why do we allow them to get away with this? Again...this should not be a democrat or Republican issue, it should be an American issue. But I digress....
    In many cases, there's no difference between our politicians and a ruling aristocracy except the small formality of being re-elected.
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    So, apparently not rolling over and taking whatever the politicians want is a good idea? As Toby pointed out, because of these citizens expressing their concerns the potential bill is being tweaked and folk's concerns are actually being addressed. Otherwise, we would have gotten a bill that Obama and democrats would have voted through and not read. I think this is an amazing example of how we must demand more from our politicians....what is sad is this demand is to request 1) they read their bills before voting and 2) that we the people be able to see bills before they vote on them. Seems like these "demands" should be common sense.
    Well let's not get carried away. A lot of these loud mouths at the town hall meetings are totally clueless. Many are ignorant of many of the facts and are just repeating what they hear on the radio or tv. IMO, the majority are there to do nothing but disrupt the meetings. Don't get me wrong, I believe in the freedom to protest, but what I've seen there were just ridiculous.

    TERM LIMITS....TERM LIMITS....TERM LIMITS. Why we let these people (both democrats and Republicans) sit up there for 10, 20, and 30+ years to make a living, get health benefits, get a really sweet retirement plan, and not have to worry about social security and/or medicare for themselves is beyond me. Why do we allow them to get away with this? Again...this should not be a democrat or Republican issue, it should be an American issue. But I digress....
    I agree with this sentiment. However as long as money talks, not much is going to change unfortunately. Politics isn't much about the people anymore as it is about personal wealth. A pay off here or there and a company has that congressman in their pocket.
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    In fact, the focus of the discussion was Clinton escorting some reporters back home. Then you and Ben lost focus and started bringing Bush and other things into the discussion.
    And you didn't lose focus, but were just participating in our lost focus right?

    I didn't say they fabricated the numbers. My example was only pointing out how easy it was to hit their numbers.
    You were implying that the info I posted was not trustworthy because it wasn't first hand, hence the reason for my comment.


    No, following my logic, you should have read through the entire bill. I'm not the one passing out a url and telling others to read it.
    We were only discussing a small portion of what's in the bill, there was really no reason to read the entire bill.


    I did. You posted a url with the bill telling others to read it. Then when someone said they had read significant portions and asked if you had read it, you said you didn't have the time.
    What?? LOL. I can't remember that being posted anywhere. I said I wasn't going to sift through a 1000 pages to find the info I needed. So I found a consolidated version from a reputable source. And in reality it wasn't relevant anymore because it was at least 3 weeks old. BTW I became aware of the new info. from second hand sources.

    There are consolidated deciphered versions of the bill on the web that are much easier to understand. No need to torture oneself trying to understand what the original bill says.

    How long is your day? Do you not live on Earth?

    I usually have less free hours than that. I guess I'm just using my time more efficiently.
    Can't be that efficient, you haven't read the bill yet. Remember I'm not the one standing on the soapbox.


    Seems like it's a good thing they didn't rush it through before the break then. If that's only one little snippet out of 1000+ pages, imagine how many other things they might find.
    That's old info, I need to find a copy (or consolidated copy) of the new draft. Anyway they're debating back and forth and that's how congress is supposed to operate. At least the dems are willing to compromise. Hopefully they don't stall or end up compromising too much.

    Here's a few:

    http://www.classicalideals.com/HR3200.htm

    http://sweetness-light.com/archive/w...-actually-says
    Last edited by darreno1; 08/14/2009 at 10:51 PM.
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    And you didn't lose focus, but were just participating in our lost focus right?
    I never claimed to have the focus.
    You were implying that the info I posted was not trustworthy because it wasn't first hand, hence the reason for my comment.
    I implied no such thing.
    We were only discussing a small portion of what's in the bill, there was really no reason to read the entire bill.
    I agree, which is why I'm not the one that proposed that others read it.
    What?? LOL. I can't remember that being posted anywhere.
    Egad. Your recall is truly horrible apparently.
    I said I wasn't going to sift through a 1000 pages to find the info I needed. So I found a consolidated version from a reputable source. And in reality it wasn't relevant anymore because it was at least 3 weeks old. BTW I became aware of the new info. from second hand sources.
    Duly noted.
    There are consolidated deciphered versions of the bill on the web that are much easier to understand. No need to torture oneself trying to understand what the original bill says.
    I can stand the torture if it means actually understanding the real source.
    Can't be that efficient, you haven't read the bill yet.
    Have you?
    Remember I'm not the one standing on the soapbox.
    No. You've placed yourself a little higher. I never told anyone else to read the bill without actually having read it myself.
    That's old info, I need to find a copy (or consolidated copy) of the new draft. Anyway they're debating back and forth and that's how congress is supposed to operate. At least the dems are willing to compromise.
    Willing or have no choice? They have the majority in both sides of the legislature. If they had a workable plan, what opposition would they have?
    Hopefully they don't stall or end up compromising too much.

    Here's a few:

    The Health Care Bill

    What The Health Care Bill Actually Says | Sweetness & Light
    And yet, you're still putting faith in others for interpreting the bill while denigrating a faith-based position elsewhere.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I never claimed to have the focus.
    You didn't have to.

    I implied no such thing.
    Quit being in denial


    I agree, which is why I'm not the one that proposed that others read it.
    I'm not the one whining about people not being able to read it before it being pushed through congress either. Context goes a long way.

    Egad. Your recall is truly horrible apparently.
    No where as bad as your reading comprehension.


    I can stand the torture if it means actually understanding the real source.
    Hmm so you'd rather take the path of most resistance? Interesting.


    Have you?
    The relevant parts.

    No. You've placed yourself a little higher. I never told anyone else to read the bill without actually having read it myself.
    No but you were quite willing to put in your 2cents without having read it yourself.

    Willing or have no choice? They have the majority in both sides of the legislature. If they had a workable plan, what opposition would they have?
    If all the dems unite, the opposition would not matter. Apparently they can't seem to do that.

    And yet, you're still putting faith in others for interpreting the bill while denigrating a faith-based position elsewhere.
    Facts are facts. It doesn't matter who wrote them. Faith based positions don't deal in facts. Again you need to brush up on your reading comprehension. Or maybe you need to quit reaching so hard.
    Last edited by darreno1; 08/15/2009 at 01:51 AM. Reason: grammar
    Sony Clie --> Tungsten t2 --> iPhone3g --> Palm Pre --> Droid
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions