Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: Kombiguy
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 217 next>>
Apr 26, 2017 15:42:29   #
RixPix wrote:
That's wanton destruction...not the same thing.


It's exactly the same thing. Both groups tearing down that which offends them. Gone too will be Robert E. Lee, that notorious racist and ne'er-do-well.
Go to
Apr 25, 2017 17:59:04   #
Destroying statues? Isn't that what the taliban and isis do?
Go to
Mar 21, 2017 12:46:17   #
Keenan wrote:
Hey Hondo, I can't post on your threads or send you a PM as you have me blocked, so I will say it here. Publishing false and serious accusations of criminal behavior constitutes defamation, making you liable for civil penalties. You published a libelous accusation against me earlier today:

"Keenan admits to being pedophile"
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-449003-1.html

This is crossing the line. Here's what you need to do to resolve this matter to avoid civil action against you:

1) Immediately contact the admin and request that the thread be deleted
2) Post an apology and an admission that the accusation is completely false
Hey Hondo, I can't post on your threads or send yo... (show quote)




Let us know how that lawsuit comes out, OK?
Go to
Mar 15, 2017 09:24:40   #
Bazbo wrote:
Your specific complaint was that the health care is not mentioned in the Constitution. Now you are changing your argument.

Your rebuttal re: Justice Taney is irrelevant. Maybe someday Justice Roberts will be over turned, but in our time and place, we have current rulings that define the playing field. And my guess is that Justice Roberts is a more credible source on Constitutional law that either you or me. I don't agree with Citizens United, but I don't challenge its current Constitutionality. Nor do I whine about it.
Your specific complaint was that the health care i... (show quote)


Didn't change my argument at all. Health care insurance isn't mentioned in the constitution, therefore should not be in the purview of the federal government. You know, that whole tenth amendment thing. That's my argument.
My Taney comment was precisely on point. Roberts is as likely to be as wrong as Taney was. The fact that a justice says something is no guarantee that he or she is correct. As to whether he is a more credible source on constitutional law, maybe, maybe not.
And I'm not whining, I'm disagreeing with the position that the federal government should be involved in health care. Unless, of course, you characterize all disagreement as whining.
Go to
Mar 15, 2017 06:03:30   #
GeorgeH wrote:
I was speaking in the most general sense. You are speaking of rating a prospective insurance purchaser, which is commonly done. Certainly if your auto driving record is dismal you can expect to pay more for auto insurance. To borrow an old adage, "Speed kills" your bank balance.

In health care insurance, as we have seen to our sorrow, rating can easily result in an individual being unable to buy health insurance AT ANY PRICE. While this may be a reasonable, even desirable outcome speaking strictly of the profit/loss statement, try justifying it to the parent of a child with, say, cystic fibrosis or one of many chronic conditions requiring extensive care and therapy.
I was speaking in the most general sense. You are... (show quote)


If the goal of insurance were to spread the risk, then the simplest form of insurance would be to add up all the costs of illness in this country, and divide by the population, and have everyone pay an equal share. That's not really the way we want to deal with the issue, is it? Why should someone who is in perfect health pay as much for insurance against future illness as someone who is in abysmal health?
And it is worth noting that as to car insurance, one cannot but it to cover an already existing condition.
Go to
Mar 15, 2017 05:58:53   #
Bazbo wrote:
The Constitution is not designed to be a repository for all Federal statutes which I suspect (or hope) you already know. As for the Constitutionality which I suspect you are trying to challenge with your back handed snark, ask Chief Justice Roberts.


Of course not. But it is designed as a limit on the power and scope of the federal government. As to asking a justice, that argument didn't work so well as regards justice Taney, did it?
Go to
Mar 13, 2017 18:59:37   #
GeorgeH wrote:
The idea of insurance is that your purchase covers the cost of those who need the funds for a covered event.


No, the idea of insurance is that the insurance company bases your premium on the likelihood of you making a claim, not someone else making a claim. If it weren't so, there would be no need for actuarials, just people who could do division.
Go to
Mar 13, 2017 18:57:27   #
GeorgeH wrote:
I know that the analogy with auto insurance has been used before, but it still applies. The idea of insurance is that your purchase covers the cost of those who need the funds for a covered event. Since I've never been able to predict an auto accident, I buy insurance, AND in most states drivers are required to buy insurance.


It's a bad analogy, although people keep using it. Car insurance is required if, and only if, on owns and registers a car to be driven on public roadways, and one does not self-insure. My grandparents had no car insurance, nor did my dad for years, nor I until I moved out of NYC. It was only when I finally bought a car that I was required to buy insurance.
There are many people that go without auto insurance. I bet Trump is one, and it wouldn't surprise me if Warren Buffet was one.
The mandate to buy health care insurance applies regardless of choice, which makes it different in kind, not merely degree, from auto insurance.
Go to
Mar 13, 2017 18:53:08   #
One does wonder where in the constitution federal involvement in health care is mentioned.
Go to
Feb 1, 2017 12:18:06   #
Frank T wrote:
The Democrats need to stop the appointment of any Supreme Court Justice, just like the GOP did. This vacant position was stolen and the entire process is now illegitimate.
The Supreme Court seems to be operating with eight and quite frankly, I'm good with going down to three if we have to as long as we do not allow Trump any of his appointments.
We must resist. It is our duty as patriots.


I think we should go with eleven, and give Trump 2 more justice nominations. If it was good enough for FDR...
Go to
Jan 31, 2017 20:36:22   #
green wrote:
LOL what are you saying? You're not charging me?


Consider it my pro bono for the month!
Go to
Jan 31, 2017 20:35:45   #
Keenan wrote:
LOL! Are you joking? You actually think we might be assuming an attorney-client relationship with you??? You're a funny man.

You mean to tell me that you have in the past served as an attorney? Just wow. I guess all types have gone to law school. However, I couldn't imagine trusting you to be an attorney given your consistently screwy interpretations of the law.


That's quite alright. Aside from the fact that I avoided insane clients and imbeciles, you probably could not have afforded me.
Go to
Jan 31, 2017 20:34:46   #
Keenan wrote:
I'm quite frequently mystified by your "logic" whenever you talk about the Constitution.


I'm not surprised. Your ignorance is not only invincible, it is apparently limitless.
Go to
Jan 31, 2017 14:43:16   #
OK, fine. You win the internet. Yay! Good for you.
Go to
Jan 31, 2017 13:34:52   #
Frank T wrote:
If we are going to exempt churches from paying taxes then we should also exempt them from receiving the benefits of those taxes.
If you pay no taxes you should not receive sanitation services
If you pay no taxes, the road in front of your church should be paid for by you.
If you pay no taxes, police, fire and EMS should not be required to respond to your building.
If you pay no taxes, you should be forced to pay your share of any infrastructure that is commonly paid for by taxpayers.
Further, the home of your pastor should not be tax exempt, nor should his salary or benefits.
If you don't believe in any of the above, please join my church and send me money. God is all knowing and all powerful but he can't figure out how to make a dime so I need you to send me your money.
Thanks.
If we are going to exempt churches from paying tax... (show quote)


Yes, because churches provide no valuable social services at all.
Go to
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 217 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.