T1B

Funny, until just this week we were not allowed to read the bill. Heck, Obama wasn't allowed to see it. If he had he would not have promised as recently as Saturday that effectively immediately insurers would be prohibited from denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions. Now we know that's false as the measure doesn't come into effect until 2014.

Like Pelosi said, we'd have to pass it before knowing what was in it...

Nonetheless, what about the CBO score? I guess you're down with double-counting Medicare savings? Not counting the so-called doc fix which fixes the 21% cut in Medicare reimbursements that this bill cuts in the first place? No problem with raiding money from the attached student loan bill? No problem counting on raiding the presumed increases in Social Security revenues that supposedly result from this bill?

Fuck you, moron.

BTW, mvscal was absolutely correct in his assessment that had the Senate Parliamentarian done his job then Obamacare would not be passed via reconcilliation. But Reid's hand-picked guy wanted to keep his job and permitted reconcilliation to move ahead.

BSmack wrote:Because if he hadn't, I am absolutely certain that a search for mvscal posts containing the words "Democrat" + "2006" and "Not a fucking chance" would have yielded more than enough proof.

And I am equally certain that you are lying...again.

You did not just "overestimate the intelligence of the average Democrat". You said that the party leaders would step in to overturn the will of the electorate and install Hillary as the nominee.

Yep.

And you also said that Americans wouldn't vote for him.

Not because he is a n...igger (which is the only thing he had going for him), but because he was woefully unqualified for the job. Sarah Palin had a better resume and she was only a vice presidential candidate.

You mean other than opining that Obama was an ineffectual fucktard who would get chewed up and spit out by Washington like a low calorie version of Jimmy Carter?

Are you still honestly still disputing the fact that he is a tool? He has sucked off bankers. He has sucked off insurers. He has sucked off auto unions. He has sucked off public sector unions. He has sucked off Hugo Chavez. He has sucked off Amaniodot in Iran. He has sucked off Chimpy Magnus by continuing his foriegn policy. If you haven't been sucked off by this pathetic asshat, you just need to be a little patient. He'll get around to you soon enough.

But it did pass. It is law.

And?

The bill errr THE LAW is 2000 pages long. Read it yourself if you are really interested in the payment mechanisms. Or read the CBO scores.

And you aren't interested in how we're going to pay for it or what you're going to get out of it? Thanks for emphasizing the point that you are a colossally stupid fuckwit.

JMak wrote: But Reid's hand-picked guy wanted to keep his job and permitted reconcilliation to move ahead.

Nice try. He was most recently appointed by Trent Lott.

Mikey wrote:

JMak wrote: But Reid's hand-picked guy wanted to keep his job and permitted reconcilliation to move ahead.

Nice try.

You have an alternate explanation?

Look up one post, dipshit.

Mikey wrote:Look up one post, dipshit.

Nice edit, dipshit.

JMak wrote:

Mikey wrote:Look up one post, dipshit.

Nice edit, dipshit.

Doesn't make you any less of an ignorant dumbfuck.

Mikey wrote:

JMak wrote:

Mikey wrote:Look up one post, dipshit.

Nice edit, dipshit.

Doesn't make you any less of an ignorant dumbfuck.

It doesn't make Frumin any less of a Democrat tool either. Trent Lott was such a pussy he let himself get run out the position for trying to say something nice about an old coot on his birthday.

Mikey wrote:

JMak wrote:

Mikey wrote:Look up one post, dipshit.

Nice edit, dipshit.

Doesn't make you any less of an ignorant dumbfuck.

The fact that Frumin's judgment was absolutely wrong leads only to the conclusion that he's loyal to the $.

Handpicked by Reid? Nice backpedal.

Mikey wrote:Handpicked by Reid? Nice backpedal.

I was wrong about that...I thought you made that clear, already.

Mikey wrote:Handpicked by Reid?

Of course he was handpicked by Reid, you fucking dolt. The parliamentarian serves at the pleasure of the majority leader.

How long has Reid been majority leader?

mvscal wrote:

Mikey wrote:Handpicked by Reid?

Of course he was handpicked by Reid, you fucking dolt. The parliamentarian serves at the pleasure of the majority leader.

How long has Reid been majority leader?

Yea, like anybody is listening to you. You are technically correct. However the real answer is that the parliamentarians and their staffs are a de facto institution unto themselves. Were Reid to unseat the parliamentarian, he would no doubt have unleashed a political shitstorm.

IndyFrisco wrote:10% tanning tax? But of course.

What they should do is quadruple the tax on tobacco and alcohol. Of course, that would hit the pockets mostly of the poor lazy fucks who can't control their vices.

This bar I eat lunch at all the time is always full of unemployed barflies bitching about how they can't find work while they are drinking beer and chain smoking at 11:30 AM. Every last one of them should be lined up and shot for being stupid ass, lazy, irresponsible wastes of oxygen. Instead, I get to help subsidize their health care when they have lung cancer and cirrhosis of the liver. I'd much rather buy the gun and bullet for them.

How about a tax on fatty, and unhealthy foods...as deemed by the gubmint, of course....to pick up the slack in all the health care costs incurred by taxpayers to take care of lazy, fat fucks with poor dietary choices? I'm sure you're all for this since obesity and obesity related illnesses kills more people annually than smoking by a factor of 5. Or would that put a crimp on your cheetohs, pron, and orange dick times?

smackaholic wrote: This kind of property confiscation by the state should result in somebody being stood against a wall and shot. Instead, it is applauded by morons who think it promotes health and lowers healthcare costs.

So you are in favor of pot clubs, whorehouses, casinos and the like? Glad to hear it.

Moving Sale wrote:

smackaholic wrote: This kind of property confiscation by the state should result in somebody being stood against a wall and shot. Instead, it is applauded by morons who think it promotes health and lowers healthcare costs.

So you are in favor of pot clubs, whorehouses, casinos and the like? Glad to hear it.

why yes, actually, i am.

smackaholic wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:

smackaholic wrote: This kind of property confiscation by the state should result in somebody being stood against a wall and shot. Instead, it is applauded by morons who think it promotes health and lowers healthcare costs.

So you are in favor of pot clubs, whorehouses, casinos and the like? Glad to hear it.

why, yes, actually, i am.

Rack the bitter dwarf for helping suckaholic and me find some common ground.

BSmack there was no shitstorm when Lott replaced a Senate Parliamentarian. And given that the press is carrying the Obama's water...well, they wouldn't have reported on such a shitstorm anyway.

Goober McTuber wrote:Rack the bitter dwarf for helping suckaholic and me find some common ground.

good to hear you are for freedom in at least a few areas. too bad you libs are so inconsistent on it. you are no better than hypocritical religious nut job conservatives, you just happen to be on the opposite side of most things.

i think people should be free to do as they wish, so long as they do not impose on others in their pursuits no matter how fukked up they are. demanding others to pay for their services is such an imposition. telling someone that his private bidness is finished because you are concerned over people smoking somewhere is a gi-fukking-gantic imposition.

telling someone that his private bidness is finished because you are concerned over people smoking somewhere is a gi-fukking-gantic imposition.

What about condemning someone to lung cancer or other health issues from working in a toxic environment like a stuffy, smoky bar? That's what smoking bans are all about, idiot. Wait: "They can find somewhere else to work." Go fuck yourself, idiot.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

telling someone that his private bidness is finished because you are concerned over people smoking somewhere is a gi-fukking-gantic imposition.

What about condemning someone to lung cancer or other health issues from working in a toxic environment like a stuffy, smoky bar? That's what smoking bans are all about, idiot. Wait: "They can find somewhere else to work." Go fuck yourself, idiot.

If they want smoke-free workplace they should become teachers. The money is great, the hours are short, and smoking isn't allowed in most classrooms. Of course, maybe that can be changed because it infringes on the students' constitutional right to smoke.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

telling someone that his private bidness is finished because you are concerned over people smoking somewhere is a gi-fukking-gantic imposition.

What about condemning someone to lung cancer or other health issues from working in a toxic environment like a stuffy, smoky bar? That's what smoking bans are all about, idiot. Wait: "They can find somewhere else to work." Go fuck yourself, idiot.

yes they can you mouth breathing tard. if they are insistent on working in a bar, let them save their pennies and open their own place. were i to decide to open such an establishment, i would prefer to give it a go as a smoke free one. i would market it as such and hope that i could draw enough clientele who would prefer such a place. i know i would as i hate cigarette smoke. i just don't hate it as much as i do meddlesome thieves.

different careers have inherent risks. if you chose to work in a bar where the owner of the fukking bar decides to allow smoking, you must accept the fact that there will be second hand smoke. there are far more dangerous occupational hazards. you might splash an aids filled drop of cum into your eye someday which could result in a worse fate than a scratchy throat or burning eyes from second hand smoke.

so, how 'bout the people who lost their life savings because their bars/restaurants/pot clubs/whorehouses closed? I guess "they can find somewhere else to work" as well, right, dumbfukk?

Screw_Michigan wrote: What about condemning someone to lung cancer or other health issues from working in a toxic environment like a stuffy, smoky bar? That's what smoking bans are all about, idiot. Wait: "They can find somewhere else to work." Go fuck yourself, idiot.

There's not one scrap of credible evidence to suggest that secondhand smoke (known as ETS in the research world) poses ANY greater risk of respiratory illness...


ZERO.

But the Nannies don't let that little inconvenient truth stop them from dictating how other people live their lives.


BTW -- don't even try to bring up the EPA study. It's been laughed out of court, and laughed out of any credibility by the people who did the study (since the researchers didn't come to the conclusion that Big Brotherwas looking for, Big Brother rewrote it to reflect a more "favorable" outcome).

By far the largest study done was by the WHO, whose only statistcally significant finding was that children raised in smoking households were slightly less likely to incur certain respiratory illnesses. Of course, the WHO tried to bury their findings aswell, but the cat got out of the bag.

But this does lend some insight into why you're such a douchenozzle -- a complete inablility/unwillingness to actually educate yourself, instead relying on what the Do Gooders tell you, even if it's an outright lie, such as this one you cited.


http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html

smackaholic wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:Rack the bitter dwarf for helping suckaholic and me find some common ground.

good to hear you are for freedom in at least a few areas. too bad you libs

Yes, you are still a fucking idiot. Time for your daily apology for being stupid.

smackaholic wrote:hypocritical religious nut job conservatives

Redundant in the extreme.

mvscal wrote:Trent Lott was such a pussy he let himself get run out the position for trying to say something nice about an old coot on his birthday.

Actually, he was run out of his position for stating that the country would've been better off if it had elected an avowed segregationist as President in 1948. Classic Freudian slip.

H4ever wrote: How about a tax on fatty, and unhealthy foods...as deemed by the gubmint, of course....to pick up the slack in all the health care costs incurred by taxpayers to take care of lazy, fat fucks with poor dietary choices? I'm sure you're all for this since obesity and obesity related illnesses kills more people annually than smoking by a factor of 5. Or would that put a crimp on your cheetohs, pron, and orange dick times?

I've seen your pic fatty (and please don't post it again) and have posted mine plenty of times. I'm perfectly fine with additional tax on fatty, unhealthy foods as I don't partake in those too often.

IndyFrisco wrote:I'm perfectly fine with additional tax on fatty, unhealthy foods as I don't partake in those too often.

What about a huge tax on large homes, since they take more energy to heat/cool than more modest homes, and as a country, lowering overall energy use reduces the cost which provides a benefit for everyone?

Would you be "perfectly fine" with that?

Or maybe, everyone should mind their own fucking business, and eat whatever they want, and live in whatever size house they want, and drink and smoke whatever they want, without someone attempting to charge them extra money for those choices, so that money can be redistributed to other people who have been deemed more worthy of that money by someone else?


You know, that whole "freedom" thingy we used to have?

smackaholic wrote: why yes, actually, i am.

I know you are dumb but even you had to see this coming?

Pig farm in the middle of town?
Smoke crack on the dance floor?
Combination stripclub/gun range/bar and brothel?
A-bomb store?

Lights yet you vapid fuckhole?

Dinsdale wrote:

IndyFrisco wrote:I'm perfectly fine with additional tax on fatty, unhealthy foods as I don't partake in those too often.

What about a huge tax on large homes, since they take more energy to heat/cool than more modest homes, and as a country, lowering overall energy use reduces the cost which provides a benefit for everyone?

Would you be "perfectly fine" with that?

Funny you should ask that. I was just reading this site 10 minutes ago.

http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/hom ... ermal.html

$600 in utility costs per month has got me considering this.

In any case, this part...

Or maybe, everyone should mind their own fucking business, and eat whatever they want, and live in whatever size house they want, and drink and smoke whatever they want, without someone attempting to charge them extra money for those choices, so that money can be redistributed to other people who have been deemed more worthy of that money by someone else?


You know, that whole "freedom" thingy we used to have?

I agree with. I mentioned the smoking/drinking thing as an example of targets for tax rather than someone who wants to get a fucking tan in a machine. Someone else said those people are idiots and deserve the tax. While I agree they are idiots, they need not be taxed just for being idiots.

Oh, and my property taxes of $8000/year IS a huge tax on my home already.

IndyFrisco wrote:Oh, and my property taxes of $8000/year IS a huge tax on my home already.

That's all? I have a friend who got nailed with an 18k property tax bill after she and her husband finished their dream home. Of course they live outside Saratoga Springs. But even so, they probably went overboard with the 3rd floor observatory and the 8 bed/5 bath layout.

IndyFrisco wrote: $600 in utility costs per month has got me considering this.

Good god you must be stupider in real life than you are in here... and that is saying something.

BSmack wrote:

IndyFrisco wrote:Oh, and my property taxes of $8000/year IS a huge tax on my home already.

That's all? I have a friend who got nailed with an 18k property tax bill after she and her husband finished their dream home. Of course they live outside Saratoga Springs. But even so, they probably went overboard with the 3rd floor observatory and the 8 bed/5 bath layout.

Yeah, I was paying 5k in Dallas on a much smaller home. The taxes on this home jumped to 14k a few years back (before I owned it). This was when Indiana decided to completely fuck many homeowners on their property tax. It dropped back down to 8k a couple years ago. It was a major ordeal here in the state that thankfully got fixed.

Still, my last home taxes are around 1.5k so jumping to 8k was significant for this area.

Moving Sale wrote:

IndyFrisco wrote: $600 in utility costs per month has got me considering this.

Good god you must be stupider in real life than you are in here... and that is saying something.

Oh please do explain, wee one. Going geothermal is not only a decent tax break but dropping energy costs, which are rising constantly, by 30+%, will pay itself off within 10 years.

IndyFrisco wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:

IndyFrisco wrote: $600 in utility costs per month has got me considering this.

Good god you must be stupider in real life than you are in here... and that is saying something.

Oh please do explain, wee one. Going geothermal is not only a decent tax break but dropping energy costs, which are rising constantly, by 30+%, will pay itself off within 10 years.

I believe that the vertically-, mentally- and socially-challenged one was questioning your having a $600-a-month utility bill in the first place. He might not be aware of the fact that your hose makes Al Gore’s look like a hovel.

IndyFrisco wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:

IndyFrisco wrote: $600 in utility costs per month has got me considering this.

Good god you must be stupider in real life than you are in here... and that is saying something.

Oh please do explain, wee one. Going geothermal is not only a decent tax break but dropping energy costs, which are rising constantly, by 30+%, will pay itself off within 10 years.

You do realize that site is for California residents only, don't you? Expect to be hit with a 75% export tax for gaining access from out of state.

Moving Sale wrote:

smackaholic wrote: why yes, actually, i am.

I know you are dumb but even you had to see this coming?

Pig farm in the middle of town?
Smoke crack on the dance floor?
Combination stripclub/gun range/bar and brothel?
A-bomb store?

Lights yet you vapid fuckhole?

you can't possibly be this fukking stupid and pass the bar.

pig farm in the middle of town would certainly be a huge imposition on people. i am for reasonable zoning restrictions. the thing is, zoning laws must respect existing establishments. if the pig farm is already there and indy builds his palace a 1/4 mile down wind, too fukking bad for indy.

smoking crack on the dance floor? how is this different from getting bombed on jack and coke on the dance floor?

stripclub/gun range/bar/brothel? hell fukkin' ya!!!!!! sounds like a fun night out.

A-bomb store? i though PUSFAG and the messicans killed that dude.

Goober McTuber wrote:He might not be aware of the fact that your hose makes Al Gore’s look like a hovel.

Good job, Gazos McTuber.

mvscal wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:He might not be aware of the fact that your hose makes Al Gore’s look like a hovel.

Good job, Gazos McTuber.

now see goobs, that is typo smack done with style.

rack it!