Dude, in all honesty, I will tell you why Obamacare is bad and everything Obama does or is tied to is evil/bad/wrong/socialist is because...
Obama is black.
What If ObamaCare is Found Constitutional
- Thread starter beenthere
- Start date
Obama is black.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
it's hard for me to answer your question because you are new here and I have not formed an opinion whether you are a liberal/progressive or a dirty rat bastard. If you would please self identify I will try to answer your question.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Kindly disregard my previous question, you are obviously on the side of the angels.
It does. But does it have a right to tax dollars for funding, financial aid, grants, and other benefits? Does it have a right to enjoy the protections of the US military in this nation? What about the benefit of our tax dollars in the form of roads and other things?
Why can the church engage in politics but pay no taxes?
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/06/protests_against_obama_health.html
What about the churches role in politics as well as aiding and abetting criminals?
So that would make me a Republican? I mean they always talk about angels and God and how God and Jesus are on their side. So I take it you think I am a Republican?
By the way, you never answered my question about whether insurance companies should pay for cancer treatments or illnesses or injuries. Should they? If an employer has a moral objection to chemotherapy and curing cancer, should they be forced to pay for it? What about killing a virus? Do they not have the right to say that their religious freedom is being over trodden by Big Daddy Government?
JJFOURTWENTY
Well-Known Member
^^Oh! Oh!! Oh!!!
Can someone please make a front & back style t-shirt out of this quote??
desert dude
Well-Known Member
No, judging from your enlightened comment regarding Obama's ethnic heritage being the source of disagreement with his policies, (duh, that should be obvious to any enlightened individual) I assumed you were liberal. I apologize for aligning you with angels. I meant the comment as a high compliment and praise of your political inclination, and certainly not to confuse you with those dastardly right-wingers who we all know just want to see poor women die birthing a child that could have been prevented if only they could have afforded birth control pills.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
No, no, no! A thousand times no!! Churches and religion should be banished to some totalitarian right-wing country where they belong!!!
I disagree. This country has a need for religion to exist in it. We just don't want to be governed by it.
I have to ask, do you support the drug policies in this nation? The war on drugs? Do you support marijuana being illegal and a criminal activity? I would assume you do but I wanted to ask.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
No, of course not, liberals (most) and libertarians (almost all) support the right of self ownership. What you put into your own body is your business.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Perhaps I went too far. I get carried away in liberal ecstasy sometimes. What you said.
InCognition
Active Member
I understand the bill. The difference is I understand it logically & ethically, while you seem to just understand it from a self-centered view on "morality".
"Everyone will be insured" - sure, at the cost of the haves.
"All patients will be profitable to treat now" - sure, at the cost of the haves.
"Good for doctors" - yes, because they can profit more from the haves.
"Good for the patients" - yes, because the irresponsible & "have-not" patients will benefit at the cost of the haves.
"This will create jobs too" - yes, and their salaries will be paid by the haves.
"America needs more docs" - yes, and the haves will pay their salaries.
"Insurance companies will have a bonanza" - yes, at the cost of the haves.
"Less people will die from preventable causes" - yes, at the cost of the haves.
See a pattern?
America - It's ok to rape and pillage the haves & responsible, if it's in the name of morality for the unlucky, irresponsible, and have-nots. America - when someone doesn't give a fuck about themselves or gets a little unlucky, America will make someone give a fuck about them, and give them some luck by taking it from someone else who has it.
Life isn't "fair", nor should America be in regards to what's stated above.
beardo
Well-Known Member
I answered your question and you chose to ignore my response
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you still never answered the guy's question, and could have saved precious key strokes by simply posting the following:
InCognition
Active Member
I can appreciate that... we have someone with an appreciation for rational logic.
It's almost amusing to see these people disregard rational logic, in order to justify their own pre-determined morality codes. These "pre-determined morality codes" always seem to revolve around the premise that, justifying perceived immorality with direct immorality, is ok if the result is someone's life being saved or bettered.
Committing robbery in order to preserve life or enhance it, will never be justifiable in the realm logic. It's a complete fallacy, but the minds of the non-logical flourish at conjuring up these fallacies, in the name or morality
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
watching poor people die is the righteous thing to do.
InCognition
Active Member
If they need to debit someone else's bank account to prevent death, yes it iswatching poor people die is the righteous thing to do.
.
canndo
Well-Known Member
So what we have here is another Roe V Wade decision. The result may be acceptable to those on the left, we may even gloat over it but the decision is wrong headed. just another tax? really? under the perview of the commerce clause? really?
To those on the left, what have we really gotten here? The results really do further an anti-rights agenda and I am surprised at Robert's decision. I am almost willing to believe that he is furthering some heinous agenda that we know nothing of at present. This court has done more to bring about the destruction of our country as we know it than any other in the last hundred years. It may be fun to rub the right's nose in this decision but it bodes poorly for our future.
The right gets what it deserves, we could have had the sort of health care the right wanted during the Bush years when the right ran the show, but true to form all they did was all they ever do, cut taxes and complain. Only AFTER Obama presented a "solution" that echoed the "solution" of the rightist think tanks and Romeny's healht care reform for his own state, did the right start addressing not the problem itself but any approach to solving it. Had they looked, at the time, for any sort of reform rather than leaving it to the Dems to try, they would never have opened the door to this sort of open ended decision by the court.
But there is nothing new here, the right does as it has always done - nothing.
To those on the left, what have we really gotten here? The results really do further an anti-rights agenda and I am surprised at Robert's decision. I am almost willing to believe that he is furthering some heinous agenda that we know nothing of at present. This court has done more to bring about the destruction of our country as we know it than any other in the last hundred years. It may be fun to rub the right's nose in this decision but it bodes poorly for our future.
The right gets what it deserves, we could have had the sort of health care the right wanted during the Bush years when the right ran the show, but true to form all they did was all they ever do, cut taxes and complain. Only AFTER Obama presented a "solution" that echoed the "solution" of the rightist think tanks and Romeny's healht care reform for his own state, did the right start addressing not the problem itself but any approach to solving it. Had they looked, at the time, for any sort of reform rather than leaving it to the Dems to try, they would never have opened the door to this sort of open ended decision by the court.
But there is nothing new here, the right does as it has always done - nothing.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Egoist philosophy seeks to logically defeat morality.