Bignugget

Anti-Christian actions like: not raping altar boys. saying gays wont burn in hell, and speaking out for their civil rights. not invading countries to spread democracy because God told you to. Yea traditional biblical Christianity is scary as fuck. I for one would be perfectly happy with an atheist president. But none of those "quotes about Islam" were anything special. Most of them are taken terribly out of context, and a couple are from opinion pieces where people just claim he said something.... Where do you guys find this crap? Oh and for the record, I don't consider America a Christian nation. I would like to think the nation is led by reason and intellect as opposed to religious prayer.....personally.

I take that as a complement. Gopers? They view entitlements as temporary financial help, and not a life long dependence on the US Government.. So every elderly Republican on Social Security and Medicare is a moocher in your eyes. Got it. That's the problem, Professor, liberals view Social Security and Medicare as an entitlement. For the people who worked all their lives contributing, it is not exactly an entitlement. It's a return on their own money. The freeloaders view it, among other social handouts, as an entitlement; merely something the government owes them. Lol huh? How many people do you think actually go through their entire life with no job? Excluding those people, everyone has paid into SS, and medicare, so are they freeloaders? Or just getting paid back?

Yours DID change. Mine also changed. Price went up and the services went down. UPS employees lost the ability to sponsor a spouse. So things DID change. Nice selective edit. Instead of answering your question, I will ask you to go back and copy the actual context.

Getting closer, but still not what he said. And you are an individual, not a family.

but we agree if i dont like the title i can stop right there and vote no. if i do like the title, i have to read the entire bill word for word to make sure there is nothing i do not like, before it is acceptable to vote yes. In addition to often being misleading, titles are inoperative, so there's never any reason to make a decision based on the bill's title. In fact, the entire forward/summary you see at the beginning of legislation that supposedly tells you what the bill does is inoperative. It's the team that wrote its sales pitch. It's not until you get down to the part where it starts talking about adding, removing, and changing parts of sections of various legal code that bills start doing anything. Gotcha. But under no circumstances should you start by reading the entire bill, and then form an opinion on its entirety? Just read until you see something you don't like. But not the title, or the intro, they don't count. Slow learner ain't ya? He clarified . . . something UNACCEPTABLE not something he didn't like. unless unacceptable is too large a word for you. then it makes sense. ok.... Gotcha. But under no circumstances should you start by reading the entire bill, and then form an opinion on its entirety? Just read until you see something you find unacceptable. But not the title, or the intro, they don't count. There you go.

No, its not. Not surprisingly you don't even quote your own video properly.

but we agree if i dont like the title i can stop right there and vote no. if i do like the title, i have to read the entire bill word for word to make sure there is nothing i do not like, before it is acceptable to vote yes. In addition to often being misleading, titles are inoperative, so there's never any reason to make a decision based on the bill's title. In fact, the entire forward/summary you see at the beginning of legislation that supposedly tells you what the bill does is inoperative. It's the team that wrote its sales pitch. It's not until you get down to the part where it starts talking about adding, removing, and changing parts of sections of various legal code that bills start doing anything. Gotcha. But under no circumstances should you start by reading the entire bill, and then form an opinion on its entirety? Just read until you see something you don't like. But not the title, or the intro, they don't count.

I'm speaking of health care That makes no sense. You didn't want to pay for health care you aren't using? In what sense? Do you think I get random doctor bills or something because I carried insurance for years? I of course understand that paying for health insurance before you get sick is the whole idea.... If everyone could just wait until they got sick, then sign up for something that gives them 80% off the bill it would be great. A pretty shitty business plan for companies selling insurance though, might result in not so many companies offering insurance....So people carry insurance all the time, IN CASE something happens. Those premiums go to pay for the shit that DOES happen to other people. SO of course you aren't paying for healthcare....you are paying for the option to not pay full price when you need healthcare

Isn't that what I said? Why did you say nope? Steps to deciding on whether to vote yes/no: 1) Read bill until you read something you do not like. 2) If you find something you do not like, vote no. If that is the title, no problem, if its on page 2 no issue, if its the very last sentence, cool beans. 3) If you have read the entire bill word for word and agree with every word of it, vote yes.

The title of pretty much any legislation is the least useful part of it to read. (see: Defense of Marriage Act, Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, etc.) but we agree if i dont like the title i can stop right there and vote no. if i do like the title, i have to read the entire bill word for word to make sure there is nothing i do not like, before it is acceptable to vote yes.

I don't? I do actually, but if that screws your image of me up, just ignore that fact. Reality is I am grandfathered in since I have had health insurance for years and years. (anything prior to 2010). So if you had been more responsible and paying your way all this time you would be grandfathered in as well, and your coverage wouldn't be changing, and your premiums barely increasing.

212/mo Evidently there are a lot of extra costs involved with Obamacare. Evidently I have to start paying for everyone else's pre-existing conditions. Huh? Call your insurance company and ask them why your policy is changing. You also avoided the premium question. What was the coverage and premium before, without that, how could anyone make a valid comparison of the two? If your policy is the same and just the premium increased. Yep, that isn't news to anyone.... Mine didn't change. Premium rose $40 a month, I was paying $276/month now its $319 Maybe they know I am not a republican so they aren't screwing me over as badly?

As opposed to those who voted against it and didn't bother to read it? A thousand times yes. I only have to find one unacceptable thing in a contract to not sign it. In order to sign it, I have to ensure it is devoid, in its entirety, of unacceptable things. That's why my advice on state ballot measures is always "if you didn't even read it, don't vote on it. If you read it and you either disagree or part of it doesn't make any sense to you, vote no. If you read it, understand it, and agree with it, then vote yes." Now, that said... good point. I can just read the title and already know I am against it. No need to read on. How can I support it by just reading the title? Impossible. Gotta read all 20,000 pages.

"The verdict: While there are legitimate concerns about President Obama’s health care law — much of which kicks into gear Oct. 1 — this isn’t one. Critics of Obamacare want it both ways. When Congress and its staff were treated like workers for any other large employer, the president’s health care plan was deemed faulty because Congress didn’t have to use the plan. So then after a Republican amendment forced Congress to participate, critics still want to call it faulty because … well, because of a flat-out falsehood that Congress really is still exempt. This is the type of claim that merits the lowest truthmeter rating, signifying willful or malicious disregard for the truth. Truthmeter: 0 (out of 10)" Bolded for comedy. http://www.rgj.com/article/20131001/NEWS1801/131001004/Fact-Checker-Is-Congress-exempted-from-Obamacare-

How do you know they didn't read it? We had testaments from those who voted FOR it that they didn't read it. Besides, not reading it and not trying to make it law is a lesser evil than just voting for it and not knowing what is inside it. To put it in car sales speak.... Why should I read all of the loan documents if I AM NOT buying a car? Who in your opinion should read all the loan documents? a). The person signing them. b). A guy NOT buying a car. ***In this case "they" is everyone including Congress, they would be screwing everyone, which includes themselves FALSE, they are exempt.... Read the bill. No, they aren't. None of you can link anything that says Congress does not have to carry health insurance. Its a blatant lie. I already linked something that shows quite clearly not only are they not exempt, but they damn near had FEWER options than the rest of America and were nearly forced to leave the plan their employer offers.

No. They didn't.

Uhhh...they voted that they are exempt....so no they aren't screwing themselves. Did you miss that part? That is untrue. They still have to carry insurance or pay a fine just like everyone else, so they aren't exempted from anything. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/27/is-congress-exempt-from-obamacare/2883635/ "But the provision was silent about who would pay for that insurance, or how those payments would be treated. The exchanges were intended for uninsured people who couldn't get health insurance through their employer or qualify for Medicaid. Those who had access to health benefits meeting minimum coverage levels could still purchase insurance on the exchanges — but without a subsidy and using after-tax income. INTERACTIVE: Breaking down the Affordable Care Act Holding members of Congress and their staffs to that standard would have the effect of stripping them of the employer-paid health coverage they currently get, which is the same as any other federal employee. So the Office of Personnel Management issued a proposed rule in August making clear that the government would continue to pay the employer contribution for congressional health benefits at the same rate as if members were still on the federal plan." Also, do you really think a member of Congress is going to be walking around without health insurance because their premiums are going to rise a bit?

No, we are not saying they DO. We are saying they SHOULD. If your client buys a car from you and does not bother to read the details... Who is on the hook? THEM. But if congress does not read the details we ALL are on the hook. Potentially 313M people. And again, (you didn't answer this before)... When the person buying a car from you finds out that since they didn't ready the fine print... Who is at fault for the higher interest rate? You or them? Who pays for it, you or them? ***Didn't one crazy right winger go on a 22 hour binge speech against the ACA? ....Why didn't he read it out loud for everyone? You would have to ask him. But why don't you ask why those who voted FOR it... Didn't bother to read it? As opposed to those who voted against it and didn't bother to read it? Solid point. "And again, (you didn't answer this before)... When the person buying a car from you finds out that since they didn't ready the fine print... Who is at fault for the higher interest rate? You or them? Who pays for it, you or them?" Rhetorical, but for fun. They do. In this case "they" is everyone including Congress, they would be screwing everyone, which includes themselves.

I don't know but I think it's creepy you sit around thinking about him so much.

Great, so if I understand the consensus.... You guys believe Congress operates above the bar as far as things like making sure the I's are dotted etc. go. I wish I shared that faith, you have listened to these guys speak before right? Didn't one crazy right winger go on a 22 hour binge speech against the ACA? Why didn't he read it out loud for everyone? Think it was because he had already read it 3x himself and was bored with it?

YES, and you are an idiot if you don't. And that is just for ME, I'd be a hell of a lot more detailed if my actions effected the people who elected me to represent them. ***It is the equivalent of asking a Supreme Court Justice if they have read every law and concluding they must be worthless if they haven't. And they do read every law relating to a case they are presiding over. While they might have helpers, how much you wanna bet that check the information? IME the vast majority of people never read contracts completely top to bottom every word. I have sold well over 1000 vehicles in the last 4 years with financing and I cannot remember a single person who sat down and read all 50 pages of the contract and assorted forms. Of course it was explained what each form was, and they indicated they understood, but I can't think of a single person who did more than skim, certainly not anyone who sat down and read 50 pages of fine print. Most people aren't serving the public as their representative, are they? I have read every word of every contract I am involved in, either as the contracto or the contracted. You are arguing that members of congress are by and large more intelligent than the average american? I have seen it 0/1000 times, admittedly a small sample.....how many have you witnessed sit down and read word for word 50 pages of contract fine print?

MLP baby, MLP. Got it embroidered on my rig. Look for me.

YES, and you are an idiot if you don't. And that is just for ME, I'd be a hell of a lot more detailed if my actions effected the people who elected me to represent them. ***It is the equivalent of asking a Supreme Court Justice if they have read every law and concluding they must be worthless if they haven't. And they do read every law relating to a case they are presiding over. While they might have helpers, how much you wanna bet that check the information? IME the vast majority of people never read contracts completely top to bottom every word. I have sold well over 1000 vehicles in the last 4 years with financing and I cannot remember a single person who sat down and read all 50 pages of the contract and assorted forms. Of course it was explained what each form was, and they indicated they understood, but I can't think of a single person who did more than skim, certainly not anyone who sat down and read 50 pages of fine print.

No....I would have just ran you over. Little hostile, considering GM wasn't there. The NYC bikers were. How far did you have to go to hunt him down and run him over? I see your point, in that situation I would probably run out of gas before I found him. That being said, thank GOD none of his gun loving friends pulled a gun and shot the poor family to death in "self-defense" After all he did hit one of them with his car, attempting to murder that poor innocent soul. Though it would sure have made for some entertaining SC threads.

stop with your propaganda. don't make us call a death panel on you.