August 2013 Pilot Discussion

[767one]

Need health care coverage? Just dial 1-800-F**KYO to reach Obamacare’s national hotline

Need [background=transparent]health insurance[/background]? The Obama administration has you covered. Simply dial 1-800-F*CKYO to reach the next available health-care provider.
Far from being a mistype, that’s the official number that Health and Human Services wants Americans to dial when seeking [background=transparent]health care[/background]. Obamacare’s national call center really did list its number as 1-800-318-2596, helpfully spelling out President Barack Obama’s tendency to blatantly flip the bird in plain view.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/03/need-health-care-coverage-just-dial-1-800-fuckyo-to-reach-obamacares-national-hotline/#ixzz2ggBlRe47

Trader,
I'm not a big fan of obamacare but I don't think it is worth shutting down the country . I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that is what was intended with that phone #. It's like saying that playing certain songs backwards will bring out some satanic, evil message.

All the best,

Bob

 

[Phoenix]

The House of Representatives is the most "We the People" body of government at the Federal Level. The Senate, the SCOTUS, and the President, in increasing order are the least representative of "We the People".

There is a reason appropriations originate in the House.

Obama Care was passed into law in 2010 by a procedural trickery in which the House of Representatives never voted on Obama Care (If you can't remember the phrase "shall be deemed to have been passed by the House of Representatives" then look it up).

Following that fraud, the midterm elections of 2010 resulted in the largest upheaval in the House of Representatives since 1938. Sixty three seats switched parties. A new graphic is below.

It is these representatives that are being maligned by the President, the Senate, and the Media.

Truth be told, the House of Representatives are not shutting down the government. They have passed bills to fund all of government, and have asked to delay the individual mandate (just as President Obama unilaterally issued delays for big business).

But the real fight will come later this month when the Senate and the President need another thing that belongs to the House... the authority to raise the debt ceiling... 🙂

 

[traderjake]

I'm not a big fan of obamacare but I don't think it is worth shutting down the country .

The country no, non essential government services, yes.

 

[PullUp]

That's what slaves think.

If the Supreme Court says the Second Amendment does not give individuals the Rigth to Bear Arms that don't make it so.

The Declaration of Independence says, in part

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

The authority to govern is derived from the constent of the people.

Dude, the SCOTUS is charged with intepreting the constitution. If the people don't like it, they change the law or the constitution through their elected representatives.
That's the way it's supposed to work.
One person's 'reading' of a document can be understood one way, and another person's yet another.....
Cheers.

 

[PullUp]

But the real fight will come later this month when the Senate and the President need another thing that belongs to the House... the authority to raise the debt ceiling... 🙂

Great, so we know whom to blame for the current situation AND the next unnecessary financial disaster when election day rolls around.
No incumbent Repubs get my vote...not after this stunt.

 

[traderjake]

Dude, the SCOTUS is charged with intepreting the constitution. If the people don't like it, they change the law or the constitution through their elected representatives.
That's the way it's supposed to work.

My rights are inalienable and not dependant on who sits on the Supreme Court at the time.

The Supreme Court can rule that I don't have the right to bear arms but that don't make it so.

That's the way it is.

 

[CaptChill]

Great, so we know whom to blame for the current situation AND the next unnecessary financial disaster when election day rolls around.
No incumbent Repubs get my vote...not after this stunt.

So I guess this means you are okay with all representatives of Congress (and all their staffers) being given a waiver for having to adhere to the "law of the land" and enroll in the ACA. My strong feelings are if it's so great, why are they also not willing to participate in this program? They knowingly excluded themselves. Also, I'm no fan of either political party, but if big business and major political contributors are granted waivers for one year... why not the average Joe, i.e. the American citizens?... which was one of the pieces of legislation sent to the Senate by the House... and was promptly shot down by Reid.

 

[Phoenix]

Dude, the SCOTUS is charged with intepreting the constitution.....
.

Reference please.

 

[traderjake]

No incumbent Repubs get my vote...not after this stunt.

Maybe Jimmy Hoffa will cancel your vote.

"On behalf of the millions of working men and women we represent and the families they support, we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans."

James P. Hoffa
General President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/25/we-have-a-problem-heres-the-anti-obamacare-letter-from-union-president-jimmy-hoffa-that-ted-cruz-keeps-quoting/

 

[EastUS1]

.....however, those of us who understand that ACA is only about controlling the populace...

Indeed. How anyone could miss that obvious truth simply amazes me. This isn't about taking care of people, but rather of taking yet more control of them. Note that ALL the political "royalty" are exempt...and that tells no one ANYthing at all? In any case; if it's such a great idea to force onto the American people....well...why's it magically NOT such a great idea for those that dreamed it up, and are doing the forcing?

PS: Naturally; we all "know" that those trusted "representatives" in our government would NEVER, EVER even consider using any control over healthcare to target their foes, impose their will on anyone, or deny equal treatment to all. Heck!...Just look at the IRS for a shining example!...Umm...Nevermind. 😉

 

[Phoenix]

Great, so we know whom to blame for the current situation AND the next unnecessary financial disaster when election day rolls around.
No incumbent Repubs get my vote...not after this stunt.

The Constitutional authority for taxes, appropriations and debt belongs to the House.

 

[EastUS1]

So I guess this means you are okay with all representatives of Congress (and all their staffers) being given a waiver for having to adhere to the "law of the land" and enroll in the ACA. My strong feelings are if it's so great, why are they also not willing to participate in this program? They knowingly excluded themselves. Also, I'm no fan of either political party, but if big business and major political contributors are granted waivers for one year... why not the average Joe, i.e. the American citizens?... which was one of the pieces of legislation sent to the Senate by the House... and was promptly shot down by Reid.

Well said sir.

 

[PullUp]

My rights are inalienable and not dependant on who sits on the Supreme Court at the time.

The Supreme Court can rule that I don't have the right to bear arms but that don't make it so.

That's the way it is.

So laws are only applicable to those that agree with them?

 

[traderjake]

So laws are only applicable to those that agree with them?

Only the ones that I agree are just and Constitutional.

In his “letter from Birmingham jail” Martin Luther King jr. writes

“One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws”

“A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.“

http://themoderatevo...1JtQLzqwedEM.99

 

[Piedmont1984]

Trader

I find the last few posts you have made to be interesting. Perhaps you will concede that those of us who consider longevity to be a foundational and self evident principle in the context of unionism should at the very least be acknowledged as holding a legitimate point of view, regardless of what an arbitrator rules.

'84