tiger187126

Overall, this paragraph sums up the current conservative movement perfectly. Rambling nonsense filled with lies and distortions. Thank you for posting it.

no problem. but when both sides lie about the issue:

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/romney-obama-uphold-health-care-falsehoods/

(a great website by the way)

then the people are left to their own devices and those that speak the loudest.

and not to get too into SS, but they sent me a letter saying that i shouldn't plan on getting even 75% of the money i put into SS back and that's if everything stabilized. it was not a happy statement to say the least.

the one interesting point about the "buy or be taxed" is that there is no enforcement (or so i read somewhere). the only thing the IRS can do to actually enforce this tax is withhold any return money you may get, but they cannot enforce it with liens or anything like that. i'll try to look for the article.

edit;

here you go:

The law prohibits the IRS from seeking to put anybody in jail or seizing their property for simple refusal to pay the tax. The law says specifically that taxpayers “shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty” for failure to pay, and also that the IRS cannot file a tax lien (a legal claim against such things as homes, cars, wages and bank accounts) or a “levy” (seizure of property or bank accounts).

The law says that the IRS will collect the tax “in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68” of the tax code. That part of the tax code provides for imposing an additional penalty “equal to the total amount of the tax evaded, or not collected.” It also requires written notices to the taxpayer, and provides for court proceedings.

So it may turn out that the IRS will be suing those who fail to pay the tax for double the amount. But so far, the IRS has not spelled out exactly how it will enforce the new penalty with the limited power the law gives it.

as a side note to the thread since no one wants to answer any of points in the quote and would rather attack the (admittidly easy to attack) speaker, i have actually shot and missed a deer 4 consecutive times and hit it on the 5th. it was my first deer and i was so amped up i didn't notice that i had flipped my iron sites down. it wandered around while i was shooting at it and at one point it stood directly under my tree stand and looked up at me.

anyone want to tackle trump's rant:

Let me get this straight . . .

We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't, which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that didn't read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a... President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke!!!!

What the hell could possibly go wrong?

besides the fact that he is a fan of broader healthcare (from his book in 2000), how about someone break down his little rant.

where's yusurf when i need him?!

I've read a lot of this stuff and it really sounds like hyperbole to me because I can't think of a single time I have seen someone give specific, plausible examples. How, specifically, will this bill deprive you of your freedom, your safety, your equality, your personal welfare, etc? I mean specifics, not just vague slogans like "government overreach" or what not.

sorry i was off for a few days and this is a big matza ball to leave hanging.

this bill enforces (doesn't create) an article that says the government may tax us for anything it deems best for the people. this case will be used in the future for other laws like excess taxes on sugar/alcohol/tobacco etc. because if they say now that health care is an unacceptable cost, they will (and states already have) say that other things represent an unacceptable cost as well so the taxpayers will have to pay more and with the way our government works they could tax us 100% and ban everything and still wind up broke.

my post was saying that no matter who is president next year or anytime in the future we will continue to be run more and more like the government we tried to escape from to begin with.

the issue with the people who cheer at things is everything is hunkey dorey until it affects you personally, if it doesn't and you believe (or are led to believe) that it helps other people then why the hell not. if it's an issue you already have preconceived biased opinions about then double good.

guns are easily a polarizing issue (sweeping generalizations to follow). people who have them enjoy having them and would like to keep them and have the ability to legally obtain more. people who don't have them see no need for them and could care less if they were banned. looking at an issue like what kind of guns you're allowed to buy can lead the non-gun side to think that the gun side is a bunch of nutbags who want to shoot up a post office.

pot is another polarizing issue (ditto). people who smoke pot say there's absolutely nothing wrong with it and most of the time treat it as if it weren't illegal. non-pot smokers say that it is illegal and you shouldn't be doing it because of it's illegality and they should crack down harder on it. looking at this issue, smokers say pot laws are unfair and they're not hurting anyone, while non-smokers say you should shut your hippy ass up and cut your damn hair.

so only when an issue applies to you or you have strong feelings about it do you actually notice the agenda against it, or claim that there is one. i mean how many NFL fans shed a tear when goodell took our cap space? they all said who cares, that's what they get, look we get some extra cap money, goodell is great. then the bounty programs same deal. only the affected fans really cared enough to display outrage, while the other teams' fan's were pacified with cap money or the weakening of a possible opponent.

and for the usurping of power:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reorganization_Act_of_1939

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto#United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland_security

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Administration

etc.

some of those are old, and some more recent, but they all gave the executive branch and/or federal government more power and they all affect us today. it's not hyperbole, it's the truth. people applauded the new deal, but how many people now decry social security? patriot act was looked at as a way to stop 9/11 from ever happening again and now it's the ultimate spy weapon for our government. as long as we get one bust every few months the TSA is just a safety net, not an overbearing big brother.

i hope i avoided vague slogans, but this is just going to continue. remember how crazy and paranoid you would have sounded 15 years ago if you said that you would have to have a full body scan to get on an airplane?

everyone is a conspiracy theorist or nut until it comes true, but by then there's a dangling carrot to distract people who don't want to look hard enough.

Agreed. When I saw it, most seemed like folks just messing around. I am sure there are some stupid people who really said it and didn't understand the irony, but in the large scheme of things it is not a big deal.

I will say - Twitter is fun for days like this. The live reactions and awesome creative work (photoshop) and hilarious one liners kept me entertained all day. Then again, had the decision gone the other way I would say Twitter is evil and filled with trolls.

now we all know we should never judge a book by it's cover, but when i see a damn dirty hipster pic next to the profile saying i'm moving to canada i'm going to assume it's tongue-in-cheek.

splash some camo in there and they most definitely believe it.

and to asbury:

did you read the majority opinion? it's not like the man was cheerleading, he just took an unbiased stance that says if this is deemed a tax then it's legal. (obviously the "it's not a tax" proclamation holds no weight in this, strictly law cut and dry.)

like i said, i worry about the power we constantly hand over on what seems like a yearly basis. obama or romney next year won't make a difference, we'll be giving up something else in the name of freedom, safety, equality, welfare of the people, etc. all the while we move away from our checks and balances system.

Rush Limbaugh said if it past and stood he would move to Costa Rica.

Big problem is Costa Rica has a Single Payer system . . . ..

As for others, there was a blog (I can't find it right now) that listed tweets by people saying they would move to Canada.

well looks like we'll be tuning into limbaugh on the coast from now on.

it's not that big of deal, it just looked like one of those urban legends of the twitter-age.

anywho, my stance on all of this is yet again the president has gained more power and yet again the masses see it as a good thing.

edit:

nevermind, someone posted this handy link

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare

to be fair a lot of these don't look like stupid people, rather people trolling for attention or making jokes.

has anyone actually seen someone say that they're moving to canada because of this. that's all i saw on twitter and facebook today.

i never actually saw a reference to someone saying they're moving to canada because of this, just people saying "haha, stupid conservatives wanting to move to canada"

From what I gather NCL1054 saying, teams can basically have 3 uniforms. Most are Home, Away, Alternate. The Redskins the last few years have had their home (Burgundy Jersey / White Pants), their Away (White Jersey / Burgundy Pants), and a Gold pants alternate with no alternate jersey.

Since we are keeping the white pants, that means our home is the Burgundy / White combo, the Away is the White / Burgundy combo, and the alternate is the 80th. With this, there is no room for the alternate "gold" pants worn the last two seasons. I guess the rules will prohibit the team from having 4 pants (white, burgundy, 80th, and gold).

Unfortunately, it looks like the team decided to keep the white pants, which in my opinion, is a bad call. They should have dropped the white pants altogether while they had the chance, leaving the regular home uniforms the Burgundy / Gold that we've seen the past two seasons. Why people in the front office feels white is better is beyond me. I guess they think the team is Burgundy & White with a little bit of gold here and there.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2008091407/2008/REG2/saints@redskins#tab=recap

wasn't this the game when it was absolutely scorching outside? but here are the redskins comfortable in their white on white while the saints had to wear those black unis and had to be burning up.

this was a good game regardless though and i recommend you watch the highlights.

press one looks a little different

i like the matte helmets if they are matte.

your florida state redskins!

that toddler is going to have to work on his footwork and balance if he wants to see the field.

i hope they don't show it on the TV because this guy can't get the focus right.

you guys gotta try Dragon's Milk from New Holland.

absolutely delicious. it's a thick, creamy imperial stout with notes of vanilla and oak. shot into my top five immediately.

i had that a little while ago. iirc that has a little punch to it as well.

blue moon? is this a serious question?

i'm excited for these "no holding" collars. maybe orakpo won't have to expand his repertoire after all.

phillip daniels is going to make the team...

chase daniel is cut

^ Gene Wilder doesn't care about orange people!

we had a pretty good record with those all whites....