Watch the following video.
Here are some of the problems I foresee when Obamacare goes into effect:
First, he says I can keep my health insurance. That is, if my health insurance company doesn't go bankrupt, or worse, out of business, because of the prohibitive costs of Government regulation and red tape. If they don't go out of business, the expenses incurred by all the regulations and provisions demanded by the Obama administration's health insurance Department (yet another expense that will be borne by the tax payers), and, headed up by Obama's Insurance Czar, will necessarily make the costs of health insurance skyrocket, to the point where "middle class" Americans will not be able to afford their own insurance premiums.
So then, if the citizen can no longer afford their own health insurance premiums, Obama's plan will punish him with a tax. What if the citizen can't afford to pay the tax? Will he then have to go to jail?
He says our existing healthcare will be "more secure and affordable". How is this possible? As I've already explained, with all the new regulations and provisions, there is no way health insurance will be more affordable. And secure? Exactly how is higher costs and the threat of additional taxes, fines, and jail make us more secure?
There is also the possibility that Obama's new health insurance Czar will offer health insurance companies corporate tax breaks and incentives for their compliance. or possibly even to urge them to allow Obama to completely take over their industry (which, I believe, is the primary reason for Obamacare).
Nice for the insurance corporations, but who's going to foot the bill for these bribes? Do you suppose Obama will debit his personal bank account to pay them? No, I don't either.
Then, he says insurance companies can no longer impose limits on coverage or deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Well, that sounds just wonderful, doesn't it? But, how will that make health insurance more affordable?
Remember, health insurance companies are profit making entities.
The reason they haven't accepted pre-existing conditions up until now is because doing so would drive the costs of insurance premiums up to the point that only the super wealthy (and they can afford health care) can afford them. Does anyone think insurance companies will pay the benefits covering those conditions without increasing premiums to cover the loss?
If you do, you're either naive or willfully ignorant.
This is going to have to be part 1. I have to go to work now. I will post more on this anon.
55 comments:
I saw your comment to my post today, Mark. I can't fault you for thinking that I'm being too optimistic. Maybe I am. But I've been chewing on ideas ever since the SCOTUS ruling came down.
I invite you stop by my blog on Monday, July 9, when -- Blogger willing -- I'll have an analytical post that I spent most of today working on.
That is, if my health insurance company doesn't go bankrupt, or worse, out of business
Poor, poor insurance companies.
So then, if the citizen can no longer afford their own health insurance premiums, Obama's plan will punish him with a tax.
Not true. If they can't afford premiums they will receive subsidies to purchase insurance. The tax applies ONLY to those free-riders that can afford health care but want a free ride and don't buy insurance.
What if the citizen can't afford to pay the tax?
If they can't afford the tax, they can't afford the insurance and if they can't afford the insurance, they won't owe the tax.
Will he then have to go to jail?
No. See above. Also, there is no penalty for not paying the tax even if you are one of the few who would be subject to it.
with all the new regulations and provisions, there is no way health insurance will be more affordable.
There is no evidence that this is the case.
Exactly how does ... the threat of additional taxes, fines, and jail make us more secure?
No such threat exists.
There is also the possibility that Obama's new health insurance Czar will offer health insurance companies corporate tax breaks and incentives for their compliance
Guess it's possible, but what would be so wrong with that? Corporations have never had incentives before? And shouldn't we do SOMETHING for the poor, poor insurance companies?
possibly even to urge them to allow Obama to completely take over their industry
Why would either the companies or Obama have any reason to do this?
Does anyone think insurance companies will pay the benefits covering those conditions without increasing premiums to cover the loss?
If you do, you're either naive or willfully ignorant.
Speaking of naivety or willful ignorance, you apparently have missed the part about the anti-free rider, personal responsibility, risk diversifying concept called THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE.
This is going to have to be part 1.
Can't wait!
AOW, I read everything you write. Not every day, but when I have the time.
Jim,
"Poor, poor insurance companies"
Yes, Jim. What if you worked for an insurance company, and Obama drove them out of business? You may not like insurance companies. Heck, I don't like them, but putting them out of business puts an awful lot of people like you and me out of work. That's a job killer, not a job creation.
C'mon, you Libs generally only think of policies in terms if how they will effect you, personally. Walk a mile in some one else's shoes.
"f they can't afford the tax, they can't afford the insurance and if they can't afford the insurance, they won't owe the tax."
(Oh, this is good) So, what's the point of the tax? No, Jim, the whole point is if you don't buy the insurance, for whatever reason, they penalize you with a tax.
"there is no penalty for not paying the tax even if you are one of the few who would be subject to it"
So, how do they intend to enforce it?
"There is no evidence that this is the case."
Agreed. Not yet. But how can it possibly be more affordable with all the added expenses? Magic?
"Corporations have never had incentives before?"
Yes, they have. Who pays for it, Jim? The "pay-the-tax-for-us-fairy"?
"Why would either the companies or Obama have any reason to do this?"
Seriously, Jim?
I'm not very optimistic either. I think we are probably stuck with this. I know... vote Obama out... but I'm not hopeful that Congress will do the right thing.
The real question for me is "replace it with what?" Frankly, I do not have a problem if this law is simply repealed without a replacement. Supposedly, Heritage Foundation has a plan conservatives should like, but I haven't reviewed it yet. For myself, I'd prefer they repeal it and focus all attention on what caused the rise in costs that is supposed to be what provoked ideas such as Obamacare. I'd wager there are far more laws and regs that should be repealed which would reduce costs.
What if you worked for an insurance company, and Obama drove them out of business?
You are the only person I've ever heard of suggesting that insurance companies would go out of business with the personal responsibility mandate in place. Insurance stocks did not tank on the SCOTUS news.
Since ALL health care insurance outside of Medicare is private insurance, there is plenty of business to go around and 30 million new customers, too!
Insurance companies can still charge as much as they want for premiums as long as they spend 80% of those premiums on health care services. The only companies that will go out of business are the ones that aren't efficient enough to keep up with their private insurance company competitors. That's the free market in action, right?
So, what's the point of the tax?
Although it is constitutional under the taxing powers of Congress, the free-rider prevention penalty IS just that-a penalty for non-compliance. The penalty only applies to those who can afford it and don't buy it because they want to free-load on the system without taking personal responsibility. This is estimated to be around 4 million people out of over 300 million people in the US.
So, how do they intend to enforce it?
I have to say this is kind of weird but there is no enforcement at this time. No criminal penalties, liens or levies. Conscience?
See what you got yourself all worked out over? :-)
But how can it possibly be more affordable with all the added expenses?
What added expenses?
Who pays for it, Jim?
Who pays for oil company subsidies? Ethanol? My mortgage deduction, my dependent exemptions, my solar power credit?
Seriously, Jim?
Yeah, seriously. Before Obamacares, health care was provided primarily by for profit or non-profit PRIVATE hospitals, private doctors and nurses, private clinics, private radiology labs, private pharmacies with drugs from private pharmaceutical companies. Payment for all of this was done through PRIVATE health insurance companies (with the exception of Medicare part A).
The big difference after the enactment of Obamacares is health care is provided primarily by for profit or non-profit PRIVATE hospitals, private doctors and nurses, private clinics, private radiology labs, private pharmacies with drugs from private pharmaceutical companies. Payment for all of this is done through PRIVATE health insurance companies (with the exception of Medicare part A).
The point of Obamacares is to ensure that as many of the currently uninsured as possible have access to insurance, to reduce or eliminate the incidence of financial ruin due to health care expenses, and bend the curve of rising health care costs.
There is no logical reason to take over the insurance companies nor would there be any logical reason why they could be incented to allow themselves to be taken over.
The only way to drive the insurance companies out of business would be a single payer system. Since that was expressly left out of Obamacares, single payer would ONLY become a necessity if Obamacares had been thrown out.
So thank the Chief Justice for THAT!
So here is a link to the Heritage "plan". I've just skimmed through it, but I will note that they are not telling the truth about Social Security.
For instance, the "plan" says The only way that future retirees can collect all of the benefits promised to them is to make their children and grandchildren pay massive amounts
of additional taxes.
This is untrue. Simply raising the income cap from the current $106,000 or so will fully fund payments for the next 75 years.
Then they scare people by talking about trillions of dollars of "unfunded liabilities". You know what an unfunded liability is? Your mortgage and all the interest that is due until it is paid off. If you borrow $250,000 at 5% today, you have an unfunded liability of almost $600,000. Pretty scary, huh?
Notice also that the Heritage plan subsidizes the poor for health care premiums pretty much the same as Obamacares. CLEARLY redistribution of income.
Heritage plan relies on insurance exchanges (like Obamacare) for consumers to make choices in their coverage plans.
The basic difference I see is that Heritage handles the cost of pre-existing conditions and catastrophic expenses by putting those folks into a high risk pool, meaning they have to pay much much more for their insurance, while Obamacares spreads the cost over all participants using the mandate making insurance more affordable for all.
See, Obamacares is modeled off the Heritage plan they produced as an alternative to Hillary Clinton's health care plan in the 1990s, only the Heritage original plan included a mandate. They don't now because then it would be pretty much identical to Obamacares.
Assuming Jim is understanding the Heritage alternative, and there's no reason to accept that that is the case, it only cements my personal belief that the health care should not be handled by the federal government at all. Based on Jim's understanding, I'm not seeing anything that speaks to the real causes of rising costs, or more precisely, the speed at which the costs have risen.
Nor does Obamacare (nor, possibly, the Heritage alternative) deal with the cause of people being unable to afford or acquire insurance, which is unemployment, which Obamacare has already been shown to have enhanced.
And these are the two main issues that were used to force Obamacare on an unwilling nation. Both these problems were the result of gov't interference, as is so often the case with the negative aspects of our societal situation.
Using Jim's interpretation, whatever the SCOTUS says is Gospel and actual fact. Thus, since Roberts agreed that the Commerce Clause does not provide the gov't the right to mandate anything, there is a big problem with it presuming it can tell an insurance company how to run its business, particularly what it must or must not cover. Yet, it seems insurance companies are threatened by just that, as the costs of doing so make companies who patronized a given provider will stop doing business and default to the gov't plan instead. This puts companies in jeopardy of having to close their doors as customers drop them. Eventually, it is single payer by default, and even if all remaining companies can allow for a technical claim to the contrary, if they are all running and pricing according to gov't edict, then what the hell is the difference?
If the penalty applies to only those who can afford it, this means the the freedom to decide how to use one's own income is no longer a personal choice, particularly when it comes to health care. No enforcement means that the penalty is useless in compelling compliance with something one might not want or have need in the first place.
It is also important to note that unfunded liabilities, such a one's mortgage, are private contracts between private entities, i.e. a bank and a lender. Neither is compelled to do business at all. Not true with Obamacare. To try to conflate private, freely chosen activity with Obamacare is deceitful.
unemployment, which Obamacare has already been shown to have enhanced.
No it hasn't. Provide BLS statistics, please.
Both these problems were the result of gov't interference
Where is the proof of this? How has government "interference" caused rapid price increases?
since Roberts agreed that the Commerce Clause does not provide the gov't the right to mandate anything,
Clearly you don't follow or comprehend the news or the court's decision. The decision was that Congress could not mandate that individuals participate in a market under the commerce clause, but that they could be penalized for not buying insurance under the taxing power. Since all insurance companies are by definition participating in the market and health care is clearly interstate commerce, the government can obviously mandate a set of standards for health care coverage. The federal government mandates that automobiles have seat belts and air bags, bumper standards and mileage standards. The federal government mandates that children's toys not contain lead paint. The federal government mandates that airlines meet thousands of safety standards and conduct inspections of equipment on a regular basis.
All of this stuff did not go away on Thursday.
the costs of doing so make companies who patronized a given provider will stop doing business and default to the gov't plan instead.
Companies will compete among themselves to provide services at the most affordable cost.
There IS no "gov't plan".
Where did you come up with this notion that the insurance companies (who are happy as hell) are going to go out of business competing against something that doesn't exist?
this means the the freedom to decide how to use one's own income is no longer a personal choice
Income taxes used to wage war? To subsidize oil? Social Security tax? This is not the 1800s, you know.
Not true with Obamacare. To try to conflate private, freely chosen activity with Obamacare is deceitful.
Get your programs straight, Marshall. What unfunded liabilities are there in Obamacares? The so-called unfunded liabilities are in Social Security and Medicare.
Mark,
How kind of you to do so! Thank you.
"No it hasn't. Provide BLS statistics, please."
No, Jim. You just go ahead and pretend there have been no testimonies of business owners about delaying hiring decisions until they can sort out the ramifications of health care on their businesses.
"How has government "interference" caused rapid price increases?"
Been there and done that, Jim, and provided links as well. Not interested in trying to convince you of what you don't want to hear.
"Clearly you don't follow or comprehend the news or the court's decision."
Clearly you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. My statement is correct. What's more the Commerce Clause has been abused repeatedly but that doesn't make doing it again any less wrong.
From a piece by Walter Williams:
...the original purpose of the commerce clause was primarily a means to eliminate trade barriers among the states. They didn't intend for the commerce clause to govern so much of our lives. Indeed, as James Madison, the father of our Constitution, explained, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
"Income taxes used to wage war? To subsidize oil? Social Security tax?"
Waging war? You mean defending the nation and its interests, I'm sure. That's a Constitutional duty of our gov't. The oil is not the only industry subsidized and I don't recall stating I support the notion of the federal gov't subsidizing any industry the Constitution doesn't bestow upon them the duty. This is all about whether or not the federal gov't has a right to involve itself in private industry. Using examples of where it already has, when it shouldn't in the first place, doesn't make your case.
"Get your programs straight, Marshall. What unfunded liabilities are there in Obamacares?"
Get your comments straight. I didn't bring up unfunded liabilities. I merely corrected your weak argument of using private contracts between private citizens and businesses to justify the federal gov't's use of the practice.
delaying hiring decisions until they can sort out the ramifications of health care on their businesses.
Mostly they are delaying hiring decisions due to lack of demand. That said, now that PPACA has been upheld, there should be less indecision.
Been there and done that,
I don't believe you have, but if you point to one or more of your posts with links, I'll be happy to read them.
My statement is correct.
It is NOT correct. The government can, does, and will mandate all kinds of things, Social Security, seat belts, aircraft safety inspections, just to name a few.
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined."
Yes, indeed. And among those few are the power to tax and the power to regulate interstate commerce.
You mean defending the nation and its interests, I'm sure.
You said, "this means the the freedom to decide how to use one's own income is no longer a personal choice," and my point is that as long as people have paid taxes it never was.
...justify the federal gov't's use of the practice.
What practice?
"Mostly they are delaying hiring decisions due to lack of demand."
This is anecdotal certainly. And unthinking libs like yourself and those lib politicians you support will dismiss it as a result. But it is but one example of many I've seen since this abomination was forced upon us. And then, there are accurate explanations as found here of the negative impact upon business that libs will also ignore because they just don't think.
"I don't believe you have..."
You know I have but I've no doubt you dismissed everything that conflicts with what you DO believe and wish were true. I don't have time to rehash it again just so you can dismiss it again without justification.
"Yes, indeed. And among those few are the power to tax and the power to regulate interstate commerce."
That does not justify the belief that they are Constitutionally permitted to tax and regulate everything. Try to use the brain God gave you.
"You said, "this means the the freedom to decide how to use one's own income is no longer a personal choice," and my point is that as long as people have paid taxes it never was."
The people ratified a Constitution that restricted federal power. Thus, the people freely chose to pay taxes. Leftist's have decided to pervert the meaning of the Constitution in order to make it mean something it doesn't in order to tax and regulate as they see fit, rather than what the Constitution actually allows.
"What practice?"
Why not read the freakin' comments, Jim, instead of asking stupid questions?
The anecdotal link is suspicious, only has one unnamed source, and sounds like bs about rules that may not go into effect for another couple of years.
The "accurate explanations" are not. First, the penalty for non-participation is not $750. Second, the penalty is not meant to fund health care.
Third, the CBO estimates that about 1.2% of Americans would be subject to the penalty. Fourth, she says people who can't afford insurance should get refundable tax credits so they can buy it themselves. Bingo. PPACA does exactly that.
Fifth, she implies that parents MUST pay for a policy that includes their children to age 26 even if they don't want to or even if they don't have children. This is untrue. Insurance companies must provide this coverage if the purchases wants it.
Hence, the article is flawed from beginning to end.
That does not justify the belief that they are Constitutionally permitted to tax and regulate everything.
You said "anything", not "everything". I know of nobody who has ever suggested regulating or taxing everything.
Thus, the people freely chose to pay taxes.
If that's true, then your argument collapses. If people freely choose to pay taxes then they still have the choice of how to use their personal income.
rather than what the Constitution actually allows.
You mean like the Constitution allows corporations to spend as much money as they like for political candidates? It says that in the Constitution? Or the leftists perverted the constitution to make it so?
The federal government does not "practice" unfunded liabilities. Unfunded liability is not a practice. It is a promise to pay something in the future with money that is not currently set aside for that purpose.
Like a mortgage. Like a car loan. Like a new jet fighter program. Like a US Treasury Bond. Like an unfunded war.
Borrowing creates an unfunded liability. People do it. Companies do it. Cities do it. States do it. The Federal Government has been doing it since the late 1700s.
You pay off your liability as you earn the funds to do so. Social Security has been doing that since day one.
The point of claiming trillions of dollars of "unfunded liabilities" is to scare the shit out of ignorant people.
I know this is pointless as Jim likes to sift for things he can repudiate that don't really have any relevance or are such tiny portions of the point being made that one is diverted from the point in trying to explain, and then the jackass will find something else there in order to make himself feel like he's on to something. Case in point:
"You said "anything", not "everything". I know of nobody who has ever suggested regulating or taxing everything.'
Where this began shows no sign of me saying "anything" in regards to taxing and regulation. I spoke of mandating, as in mandating that one should buy insurance for which one has no use or desire to buy. But what is the worst part about this is that Jim believes that pointing to a case where the federal government has already stepped well beyond its Constitutional authority, well then that means, to Jim, that it is just dandy for the fed gov to do it again and again. With a belief system like that, I don't know why I waste my time. He likes being told what to do, including paying more and more taxes, being denied rights to do more things through regulations, because Jim hasn't the spine to live a peaceful and productive life without the gov't telling him how.
Then there's this stupidity:
"If that's true, then your argument collapses. If people freely choose to pay taxes then they still have the choice of how to use their personal income."
But my argument is not simply whether or not one is to pay taxes, but why. I spoke of the federal gov't doing only that for which it has a Constitutionally defined duty to do, such as wage war in defense of this country and its interests. To choose to pay taxes for such things is not carte blanch for the Barry Obumbles in Washington to spend like a drunken liberal and then tax us to pay for it. The same goes for the gov't borrowing money. It wouldn't have to borrow if it didn't spend on things on which it has no authority.
"You mean like the Constitution allows corporations to spend as much money as they like for political candidates? It says that in the Constitution?"
Yeah, jerk, it's called "freedom of speech" and the SCOTUS that can do no wrong in your eyes and makes truth and fact, decided that campaign donations are a form of speech, which anyone plainly knows if their heads aren't up their asses. Please liberate your head and use it to think. What's more, the Constitution is in place to restrict the federal government, not the people, whether they are individuals or formed together in groups, such as corporations. The Constitution doesn't "allow" people to do anything, but protects their God-given rights, such as freedom of speech. Indeed, this freedom was original aimed mostly AT political speech so as to prevent government from denying people the ability to speak out on issues and policies and such. Support for the "wrong" ideas or people was commonly punished in one way or another so freedom of speech was important. This is basic stuff. You should study more.
"People do it. Companies do it. Cities do it. States do it."
Typical of Jim and the rest of the lefties is the absence of that part of the mind that questions whether it should be done at all. People who borrow least are less likely to have trouble with debt. Doesn't that elementary notion ring true to you Jim? Yet you have no problem with the federal gov't doing it, because so many others do it, too? Typical. No wonder the country's so f'd up with idiots like you being able to vote.
Marshall Art...great job.
Mark, your problems are ones many Americans have with this 'care bill'...
Re private ins. companies...the biggest lie's been "You can keep your insurance if you like it"..yes, we could if it existed anymore.
Small businesses are already quaking about what's next and not hiring, that information's everywhere; imagine them deciding to keep the Blue SHield Ins which is maybe $2oo higher PER employee? No, they'll have to succumb even if they know the care isn't as good... Voila, Blue Shield dies in not too long a time.
I, a private person who insures herself, won't have Blue Shield anymore.
Repeal is the answer; but the Left paints it as if the Republicans just want it GONE with no changes whatsoever, which has never been the case; in fact, many of the better ideas in this stinking bill were Republican ideas...
It's going to be a really tough summer and we have to hope and pray people start listening to all the media, not just the mainstream obama sycophants.
z
I rec'd this email today.."I was talking to a friend of ours who is a physical therapist and she told me that the electronic medical records software doesn't even work but they're forcing doctors to buy it at a cost to the doctor of $90000! 45k of it is reimbursable if the doctor can prove he's getting the government required demographic data even if the doctor himself does not require said data."
THIS is why this bill has to be stopped; Americans don't know these things and, even if repealed, who thinks the docs will be reimbursed for having HAD TO SPEND that much money? Unbelieveable.
z
There's more that I just got;
I asked my friend what data? and got this:
"She said race height weight etc. The issue she said was that she works at a spine place and most of the data isn't required. Some doctors were refusing to notate all of it even putting down that the patient declined....then some govt flunky started calling patients to see if doctor asked the questions."
they're CALLING to make sure docs comply. threatening now...what's next?
z
Equating buying gum to health care.. wtg mark! Pretty much nailed it!
Yah, that's right, Parkie. It's all about gum, not taxes.
I'd explain the equation to you, but you're too much of an idiot to understand it.
Coming from somebody that cant figure out the internet that almost means something.
Coming from someone who doesn't understand Obama is screwing him, that means nothing.
lol.. you are dumb.
Yes... and.. a program that helps the poor is actually a secret plot by African-Americans to steal white people’s money.
Its a fine bunch of associates you guys have there on the right.
Ben continues to show how little he understands what any conservative is saying, and thus, he continues to suffer from his clinical idiocy. It's really sad.
Mark, I'm sorry to see that he's chosen to darken your virtual doorway these days. He adds nothing but feelings of sadness in all who read his pathetic attempts at cleverness. I'm still hoping that someday he chooses to explain ANY of his nonsensical remarks in a manner that provides new insights into the leftist mind. Sure, it is remarkable to imagine that there is anything but a vast wasteland in the mind of this particular leftist, but hope is a funny thing. I'm convinced that if all leftists suddenly turned 180 degrees politically, he'd turn with them simply because he's a sheep with no mind of his own, and not because he believes or understands anything at all about anything at all.
marsha marsha marsha.
I am saddened by your complete lack of understanding of The Google. Try it sometime. Its handy to look things up. You know.. do a little research.. ect.
Equally remarkable is your ability to side with and make disparaging comments about everybody and everything. This ranges from the pathetic daily abuse that you dish out under the guise of common discourse to the all to frequent postings that expose your homophobia and occasional racism.
Interesting that you mention a test of changing positions.. when.. in only a few months time.. you will be casting your vote for Mitt Romney. I guess you have to be used to flip flopping to support him.
Little Bennie,
Typing more words does not equate to posting an actual thought. I don't understand your "The Google" statement and how it is in any way relevant to the topic here. I'm quite sure you don't either. If it is true that I make disparaging remarks about everything and everybody, please find one I've said about, say, Mark or Neil or Frank Sinatra or Sandy Koufax or Raquel Welch. "Everybody"? What a sad loon you are.
If it is true that I make disparaging remarks about everything, please find one that I've made about going to the movies or taking vacations or conservative philosophy or pets. "Everything"?
You can't even prove I'm either homophobic or racist, despite numerous requests for such proof. No. Instead you say something cowardly (and stupid) such as "Just read your own posts" as if something will magically appear that nails the accusation.
What's more, you now suppose I'm a flip-flopper for supporting Romney. That's pretty funny (in a sad, pathetic sort of way) when you couldn't possibly find any example of flip-flopping on my part if a gun was held to your head. The irony here being that I've often stated I blog to persuade as well as to be persuaded. I'm sure a desperate troll like yourself would view any situation where an opponent has been persuaded to hold an opposing position as flip-flopping, which demonstrates your lack of understanding on what a flip-flopper is.
Perhaps it's just that you see yourself as everybody and everything, in which case it is true. You've proven yourself to be a contemptible little troll with nothing to say but with an extreme desire to be insulted. Why would I refuse such ardent desires? Each comment you post is akin to you screaming loudly, "Hey world! Look at me! I'm a freakin' idiot! Mock me! Mock me! Point at me and laugh!" I admit I am not proud of my inability to resist. It must be my orientation, so it's OK if I indulge it, isn't it? I'd much prefer a serious discussion, but you've never made any attempt at that. Instead, it's that loud screaming that provokes me to give you what you want and, apparently, so richly deserve. The saddest part is that I can't delete your childishly inane comments anywhere but my own blog. Pity. I'm still hoping that someday, maybe when you're 12 or 13, you'll realize that if you aren't clever enough to engage in real discussion, expressing thoughtful opinions backed by something substantive, then you certainly aren't clever enough to properly insult anyone without looking like such a sad and pathetic creature. I hope without true expectation. Please prove me wrong.
How do you do that? Thats amazing.. Im not even mad.
You're like the Energizer Bunny when it comes to making asinine comments.
Pot, meet Kettle.
I won't further sully Mark's blog with more back and forth with you, Bennie-boy, though I'm sure you will continue to embarrass yourself. You can't help yourself. You're a troll.
Wow.. I've pointed out to you 1,000 times how you are racist and homophobic. Even better, other people have done the same. To suggest that we are the same is a bit more than hopeful on your part.
Keep dishing out the hate marsha.. We all enjoy a good laugh.
OK. One last time.
To begin, little troll, to say "it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black" is not a comparison, but an indictment of the person (in this case,you) suggesting that another (in this case, me) is guilty of some transgression (in this case, making asinine comments). As you are so skillful and accomplished at making asinine comments, to suggest that it is I who is making them is just such a case. Like it is notable that a black pot is calling a kettle black, so are you notably an idiot for suggesting that anyone else makes asinine comments. A similar phrase I could have used would have been, "It takes one to know one".
Next, you can say 1,000 times that you've pointed out 1,000 times how "racist and homophobic" I am, and then do it 1,000 times more. But it still wouldn't be true because accusations, especially from the likes of you, are not proof of anything other than one believes something about another. In your case, you WANT to believe I'm racist and homophobic. You NEED to believe I'm racist and homophobic. But NEVER have you supplied any proof, NEVER have you ever explained what in any of my comments even hints at such a thing. Nor has anyone else. Ever.
Rather, like most on the left, and particularly the clinical idiots of the left like yourself, you can't refute or find any real fault with the positions conservatives take on issues of race and human sexuality, so you default to name-calling like the petulant children you are.
Hate? Hardly. Abject pity? Absolutely. How can anyone hate people like yourself who are so lost, so stupid, so morally bankrupt? When you graduate middle school, and hopefully make it through high school and into the real world, hopefully you will come to some understanding. I won't hold my breath.
"you default to name-calling like the petulant children you are."
Classic! Keep it coming..
I'm beginning to wonder if ultra-liberalism is not a mental disorder, maybe within the scope of the autism spectrum. That would explain why seemingly well intentioned and intelligent leftists are blind to facts and logic and embrace ideas and thought processes that are so blatantly ridiculous to sane people. If explained in the context of a brain disorder, liberalism could be understood and perhaps treated by normal society. I wonder if they re-animate like the "walking dead" so they can suck our blood like they suck out the fruits of our labor when they are alive? Perhaps frontal labotomy would be an appropriate treatment to prevent them from contributing to the fall of human civilization...
T-Rick,
Your comments brought to mind this Bob Hope gem.
"accusations"
Hmm.. not really accusations when I point it out to you. You shouldnt be upset that you're homophobic / racist. I mean, you're not going to change, so just accept it.
How can it be an accusation if it isn't pointed out? By telepathy (your mind not being anywhere near advanced for routine mental exercises)? But worse, they remain completely unsubstantiated accusations; lies in fact. What's more, nothing you do upsets me, except in the sense of being terribly saddened that you walk around in public (assuming your mother lets you out of the house) as if you are not the clinical idiot your comments strongly suggest you are. And THAT won't change until you do. Get help.
Marsha.. I have offered mountains of evidence. Actually, you generate all the hate speech, I just copy and paste it back to you. Unsurprisingly, you dont see how it is offensive / derogatory. Lets just agree that comprehension isnt your strong suit. Perhaps thats why you and Traitor Rick are conservatives.
Parkie,
You're like a herpes.
You are also, as I cannot help but conclude, a clinical idiot. A true case of someone with mental issues. You claim to have offered mountains of evidence. This is untrue. In fact, it is an outright lie. In every case where you claim to have done so, I have damn near begged for an explanation of what makes my comments racist, homophobic or hateful. NEVER have you taken any time to offer even a bad, Parkie-like explanation. Thus, I can in no way be faulted for lacking in comprehension what you refuse to explain. Indeed, you haven't ever even explained why you favor whatever it is you favor. Just answer this one simple question, and if you don't find it easy to understand, say so and I'll re-phrase it:
Do you have any intention of ever submitting a single thoughtful and substantive comment anywhere where I might stumble upon it? I'd really like to see what one from you looks like, never having ever seen one before, even after devoting a blog post to you.
Umm... Did that. Pointed out your homophobia many times. Again, I'm sorry you are homophobic, but its a "you" problem. I suggest you either address it or embrace it.
Im tired of slogging through your.. what was it.. "sewer of bigotry and hatred" that passes for a blog.
"even after devoting a blog post to you."
Im flattered!
You shouldn't be flattered if you wasted the opportunity to truly express you opinions and explain why you hold them. And once again, troll, pointing out homophobia is only an accusation, not proof it exists. As I have explained why I refer to you as I do many times (troll, clinical idiot, etc), you simply engage in name calling without explaining why the names are appropriate. But even if I should concede to the charge of "homophobe", I can assure you it isn't a problem. It's a badge of honor to stand firmly against sinful behavior and the sad individuals compelled to engage in it.
lol.. Only I engage in name calling? Now that comment only points to your idiocy.
Im not asking you to "concede" anything. In fact, I would be slightly disappointed if you woke up one day and realized what a douche bag you are.
The funny part is how you like to pretend I have problems with comprehension, Benny-boy. Where did I say "only" you engage in name-calling? Read it again and sound out the words. Ask you mother to help you so that you understand what is clearly written.
It's a badge of honor to stand firmly against sinful behavior and the sad individuals compelled to engage in it.
Have you found that cape and tights for your ongoing crusade?
Truth, logic, reason, honesty, facts...these are the only pieces of armor (or cape and tights) I need don.
EAT MOR CHIKIN!!!
Ahhh.. Traitor Rick!
Good to see you!
I'm sure Parkie's ass is jealous that so much more shit comes out of his virtual mouth.
Whats the fascination with my ass?
The fascination? That your head is so far up it. That audible farts that emanate from within it possess so much more substance than any of your comments.
Stay classy marsha..
Stay repugnant, Benny.
Post a Comment