General Politics Thread

[btbam]

lol..Don't know if he is racist but he clearly has some issues. Anyone can see that. He appeals to extreme so he won't be leaving Faux anytime soon.

lets take his interview last night as an example. Basically his guest was a muslim who wrote a book on islam etc. Hannity basically said "i'm not racist because i draw a distinction between radicals and normal muslims..." but then went on to say "pretty much all a radical" He has a really skewed version of what shariah law actually is. He really needs to be sacked.

[weskurtz81]

I have a client that, if Obamacare isn't over turned, won't be able to legally offer health insurance to it's employees unless it pays for 100% of the costs. Oh wait, I have a ton of clients like that now, they have employees that don't want to spend a dime on health insurance and decline participation which ends up leaving the companies below the minimum participation levels. And, since carve outs are made illegal by Obamacare, the only options are to eat 100% of the costs for all eligible employees OR don't offer health insurance to ANYONE.

So, the end result, many small businesses simply stop offering health coverage to any of their employees... seems like a good law so far doesn't it?!

[btbam]

I have a client that, if Obamacare isn't over turned, won't be able to legally offer health insurance to it's employees unless it pays for 100% of the costs. Oh wait, I have a ton of clients like that now, they have employees that don't want to spend a dime on health insurance and decline participation which ends up leaving the companies below the minimum participation levels. And, since carve outs are made illegal by Obamacare, the only options are to eat 100% of the costs for all eligible employees OR don't offer health insurance to ANYONE.

So, the end result, many small businesses simply stop offering health coverage to any of their employees... seems like a good law so far doesn't it?!

Which forces them into dear daddy governments arms. Total reliance leads to total obedience...

[weskurtz81]

Which forces them into dear daddy governments arms. Total reliance leads to total obedience...

It's pretty clear that his goal is to drive private insurers out of the market so that way everyone is forced to turn to big brother for help. Not to mention he basically said that was his plan back in 2008.

[Sub-stance1]

Which forces them into dear daddy governments arms. Total reliance leads to total obedience...

How dare he do that! What a snob...lol

[weskurtz81]

How dare he do that! What a snob...lol

Profound thoughts, thank you for sharing.

[Sub-stance1]

lets take his interview last night as an example. Basically his guest was a muslim who wrote a book on islam etc. Hannity basically said "i'm not racist because i draw a distinction between radicals and normal muslims..." but then went on to say "pretty much all a radical" He has a really skewed version of what shariah law actually is. He really needs to be sacked.

Are you surprised that people over at faux try to out right wing each other every other day?....lol We are talking about the party who has Donald Trump and Rush Limbaugh as surrogates....

[Sub-stance1]

dbl post...

[weskurtz81]

Are you surprised that people over at faux try to out right wing each other every other day?....lol We are talking about the party who has Donald Trump and Rush Limbaugh as surrogates....

LOL, looking at the other side for comparison... Rachael Maddow and Ed Schultz, just to name two! Great representation!!!!

[btbam]

It's pretty clear that his goal is to drive private insurers out of the market so that way everyone is forced to turn to big brother for help. Not to mention he basically said that was his plan back in 2008.

I don't know if it is the means to get people dependent on the government, but it is the end result. I'd have to go look that up cus i don't remember that in 08. It really surprises me, government can't do anything right, why would anybody want to give them more power and control over our lives?

[Sub-stance1]

dbl post

[Sub-stance1]

I don't know if it is the means to get people dependent on the government, but it is the end result. I'd have to go look that up cus i don't remember that in 08. It really surprises me, government can't do anything right, why would anybody want to give them more power and control over our lives?

Government isn't controlling lives. Thats BS.

[weskurtz81]

Government isn't controlling lives. Thats BS.

There are plenty of examples that can be cited which show the profound impact the government has on our lives. Seriously, the INTENTION might not be based solely on the control of our lives, but it certainly can be argued that it is the end result. Especially when we start moving into the realm of dependency on government social programs, simply look at the cycle of dependence that takes place with some of the social programs, it goes on for generations.

[btbam]

Government isn't controlling lives. Thats BS.

I didn't say the government is, i said it is centralizing power. It is increasing dependence for sure, not yet controlling, but i don't want it to get to that point. Before you realize government will control education through loans, government will control the healthcare you receive as the provider, government will control your pocketbook through entitlement programs. It doesn't yet control us so much, but i don't want them to get that power.

[Sub-stance1]

I didn't say the government is, i said it is centralizing power. It is increasing dependence for sure, not yet controlling, but i don't want it to get to that point. Before you realize government will control education through loans, government will control the healthcare you receive as the provider, government will control your pocketbook through entitlement programs. It doesn't yet control us so much, but i don't want them to get that power.

You are totally overreacting. Besides, Dubya and Reagan increased the size of government more than anyone else. So why is it a problem now? You will be fine. You have nothing to fear...lol

[btbam]

You are totally overreacting. Besides, Dubya and Reagan increased the size of government more than anyone else. So why is it a problem now? You will be fine. You have nothing to fear...lol

NO president should be doing it ever. Nothing to fear, we have everything to fear. The government grows under each administration, the people become more dependent on the government under each administration. People get lulled into a sleep and think that the government is right no matter what. We'll forget about rights we have, if we don't exercise the right do we really have it?

[Sub-stance1]

NO president should be doing it ever. Nothing to fear, we have everything to fear. The government grows under each administration, the people become more dependent on the government under each administration. People get lulled into a sleep and think that the government is right no matter what. We'll forget about rights we have, if we don't exercise the right do we really have it?

lol...You want a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.Government hasn't taken away anyone's rights.

[weskurtz81]

lol...You want a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.Government hasn't taken away anyone's rights.

So, our rights haven't been restricted at all with the Patriot Act? How about the law Obama signed that allows the US government military to arrest potential terrorists on American soil, hold them without trial for as long as they choose, etc? No big deal right? But, what if that person is wrongly arrested? There was a man that spent over 7 years in Guantanamo and was tortured who was eventually set free by the Supreme Court because the government didn't have any material evidence that proved he was a terrorist.

If you don't think rights have been stripped away over the past 10 years and aren't continuing to be stripped away, then you simply don't understand the constitution.

[btbam]

So, our rights haven't been restricted at all with the Patriot Act? How about the law Obama signed that allows the US government military to arrest potential terrorists on American soil, hold them without trial for as long as they choose, etc? No big deal right? But, what if that person is wrongly arrested? There was a man that spent over 7 years in Guantanamo and was tortured who was eventually set free by the Supreme Court because the government didn't have any material evidence that proved he was a terrorist.

If you don't think rights have been stripped away over the past 10 years and aren't continuing to be stripped away, then you simply don't understand the constitution.

Ditto.

How about that Tsa? Hmm. Can't fly unless your groped or go through the scanners, tsa wants to expand to trains and busses to. Mobility is a fundamental right IMO. The freedom to move, now that is regulated by the government which restricts freedom of movement. How bout killing American citizens on foriegn soil if they are labled a terrorist? Terrorist or not their citizenship is supposed to grant them a trial. What if they have a vague definition of terrorist? What is stopping the government from assassinating any undesireables.

[Sub-stance1]

Ditto.

How about that Tsa? Hmm. Can't fly unless your groped or go through the scanners, tsa wants to expand to trains and busses to. Mobility is a fundamental right IMO. The freedom to move, now that is regulated by the government which restricts freedom of movement. How bout killing American citizens on foriegn soil if they are labled a terrorist? Terrorist or not their citizenship is supposed to grant them a trial. What if they have a vague definition of terrorist? What is stopping the government from assassinating any undesireables.

Totally ridiculous examples IMO.

No rights have been taken away because we raise security or have no pity on foreign or domestic terrorists who's intentions are to do harm to our country and its citizens. Is that all you can come up with? If you look at the big picture those are quite small.

[weskurtz81]

Totally ridiculous examples IMO.

No rights have been taken away because we raise security or have no pity on foreign or domestic terrorists who's intentions are to do harm to our country and its citizens. Is that all you can come up with? If you look at the big picture those are quite small.

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It goes from, "the government hasn't taken anyone's rights away" to examples being provided and saying "Is that all you can come up with? If you look at the big picture those are quite small.".....

Really dude? It honestly doesn't matter what example anyone comes up with, you will just say "oh, that's it?.... pfffft".... right after you said "no rights have been taken away".... Get your ass thrown in Guantanamo for 7 years with a side of torture only to have the supreme court say there is no proof to hold you AFTER 7 YEARS.... and then say your rights weren't taken away.

[Bigdoggy]

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It goes from, "the government hasn't taken anyone's rights away" to examples being provided and saying "Is that all you can come up with? If you look at the big picture those are quite small.".....

Really dude? It honestly doesn't matter what example anyone comes up with, you will just say "oh, that's it?.... pfffft".... right after you said "no rights have been taken away".... Get your ass thrown in Guantanamo for 7 years with a side of torture only to have the supreme court say there is no proof to hold you AFTER 7 YEARS.... and then say your rights weren't taken away.

just ignore him, I caught onto his act quite a few pages back, in fact a few months ago. just have to ignore him, don't answer his questions, but if you really want a closer look, he is repeating every single thing over and over again. it doesn't matter if you provide clear evidence, he wont believe it regardless of the research thrown into it, regardless of how spot on the point is, it will always be beneath him. o.O

[Sub-stance1]

just ignore him, I caught onto his act quite a few pages back, in fact a few months ago. just have to ignore him, don't answer his questions, but if you really want a closer look, he is repeating every single thing over and over again. it doesn't matter if you provide clear evidence, he wont believe it regardless of the research thrown into it, regardless of how spot on the point is, it will always be beneath him. o.O

What clear evidence? I'm still waiting on proof that the government is taking away rights. Using scanners in airports is more of a inconvenience than anything else. Killing known terrorist on foreign soil isn't infringing on any rights. Terrorism is a act of war, not a crime. Do you really think we were going to put bin laden on trial?....lol Like i said before you guys are just overreacting. Where is your concern for congress giving this the OK instead of playing the usual blame Obama game.

[weskurtz81]

What clear evidence? I'm still waiting on proof that the government is taking away rights. Using scanners in airports is more of a inconvenience than anything else. Killing known terrorist on foreign soil isn't infringing on any rights. Terrorism is a act of war, not a crime. Do you really think we were going to put bin laden on trial?....lol Like i said before you guys are just overreacting. Where is your concern for congress giving this the OK instead of playing the usual blame Obama game.

So, what you are saying is, in this case since it's Obama, Congress should be blamed, but in cases when it's a different president you blame the President....

None should get a pass, but clearly you think the President SHOULD. Unfortunately, for the President, he gets blame and credit many times when he does and does not deserve it.... that's just life.

And, I did provide an example and could provide more, but you simply read and ignore them because that's much easier than discussing it! Just ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist, that's a good way to live life!

[Bigdoggy]

What clear evidence? I'm still waiting on proof that the government is taking away rights. Using scanners in airports is more of a inconvenience than anything else. Killing known terrorist on foreign soil isn't infringing on any rights. Terrorism is a act of war, not a crime. Do you really think we were going to put bin laden on trial?....lol Like i said before you guys are just overreacting. Where is your concern for congress giving this the OK instead of playing the usual blame Obama game.

see, even though I quote what you say, I am not wasting my time reading it. debating with you is like arguing to a brick wall, the answer is always the same and the answer is always nothing.