Community > Posts By > raiderfan_32

 
raiderfan_32's photo
Tue 11/10/09 12:35 PM


And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man.
6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

-Genesis



Cool but he says only he can do it since vengeance is his alone.


wrong. read again..

Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed

raiderfan_32's photo
Tue 11/10/09 12:27 PM

so the DC Sniper is due to be executed tonight at 9. any thoughts?

i'm all for capital punishment, especially in cases where the perpetrator is as demented this one seems to be. drinker


any thoughts?

yeah. I got a few thoughts..

are tickets sold out?

are there good seats still available?

are there flights still available to get there?

and finally,

Does Maryland get to kill him too?

raiderfan_32's photo
Tue 11/10/09 11:01 AM
Edited by raiderfan_32 on Tue 11/10/09 11:25 AM
Ok.. So people want a "public option"? Fine. Let them go down and sign up with the local health department and let them buy a policy for themselves with the weight of numbers to help leverage a lower cost policy..


since the left is in love with the auto insurance alanolgy, let's extend it to it's logical conclusion. Not everyone pays the same for auto insurance..

Males 16-25 years of age are far more likely to make a claim against their insurance policies because they drive more hazardously. Correspondngly, the rates that group gets charged for auto insurance is WAY higher than, say, mothers of three driving minivans. Give that teenage male a muscle car, a two door coupe or just paint it red and he (or more likely mommy and daddy) will be paying many hundreds of dollars a month in insurance premiums (premia?). The male testosterone is, in this context, a pre-existing condition..

You want "pre-existing conditions" covered in your medical insurance? Ok, that's cool. We can mandate that insurance companies cannot exclude things like cancer, diabetes, heart conditions, etc.. and must offer folks with such conditions policies. But just like the 18 year old with a mustang, it'll cost a bit more because those conditons represent a near guarantee that a claim will be made on the policy.


Want to encourage people to carry insurance? Great! I'm all for it. the question is how..
Q: how do you encourage activity in a free market?
A: make it tax beneficial.. make it tax deductible.. let people write the cost of their health care off their income..

why not take a free market approach? why not allow people in this free country to be free of government interference in their lives?

Why force people making 400% or more of the povertyline to shell out 20% of their income to pay for up to 97% of the the health care premiums (premia?) of those below them on the tax table? All while getting no benefit from the government?

Why do this other than to engage in social engineering and government-directed resource redistribution?

Why do this other than to engage in Karl Marx's political philosophy, taking from each according to his means, and giving to each according to his need?

raiderfan_32's photo
Tue 11/10/09 10:26 AM
<------wants a picture of a protest poster that reads, "Relying on Government and Living off the wages of others is easy. Self Reliance takes Courage"

raiderfan_32's photo
Tue 11/10/09 10:06 AM
Edited by raiderfan_32 on Tue 11/10/09 10:09 AM
what? you sayin it isn't true?

you think the flatbelly behind the counter at the tanning salon knew anything about his arrest record or nefarious and unsavory past? You think she got the film reference?

highly doubtful.. all she knew was that some "creepy old guy" was hitting on her and she didn't like it..

I guarantee you that if you replace "creepy old guy" with a Tom Brady-type, the cops never get called and no one ever knows about this..

raiderfan_32's photo
Tue 11/10/09 08:27 AM
anyone ever consider that this guy might just be socially clumsy?

not know how to converse with women?

maybe he has some mental disturbance that inhibits him from being smooth with the ladies..

or maybe jumping to the conclusion of mental illness is only reserved for jihadis in US Army uniforms who shoot up rooms full of fellow soldiers after recording a history of anti-American rhetoric and attempting to convert injured soldiers to islam..

raiderfan_32's photo
Tue 11/10/09 12:54 AM
an no mention of Reagan...

what a bunch of dumbf$^@s...

"Mr Gorbechev, Tear down this wall"

raiderfan_32's photo
Tue 11/10/09 12:52 AM
rather than quoting the various posts in this thread that I find ridiculous.. I'll just offer a generic response..

If you're an "adult" and you can't out compete an 17 year old... sorry but you suck.. and there should be no laws that protect you from being outplayed by a 7yr old in high school..

why should it be put to the government to have to force a 16/17 yr old to prove some form of hardship to be able to work a part time job.. give me a break..

if you're in your mid 30's and still haven't figured out how to make a living.. I'm sorry but you shouldn't expect too much symapthy from society.. down on your luck is one thing but an entire decade of being worthless.. you had all of your 20's to figure out something to do with your existence.. if all you can manage to do is change tires, then change tires... if you're 33 and you can't outcompete a 17 yr old.. sorry dude. it sucks to be you...

raiderfan_32's photo
Mon 11/09/09 06:17 PM


PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
JCT Confirms Failure to Comply with Democrats’ Mandate Can Lead to 5 Years in Jail

Friday, November 06, 2009


Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

In response to the JCT letter, Camp said: “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.”

Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:

“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]

- - - - - - - - - -

“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]

- - - - - - - - - -


“Criminal penalties

Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]

When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.

“The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration. Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates. Fortunately, Republicans have an alternative that will lower health insurance costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare,” said Camp.

According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker’s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016.

###

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153583


This is not true.

Verify it before you believe it because it is not valid information.


it quotes from the bill..

exactly what's not true? care to elaborate? or just toss out broad accusations and bland talking points?

raiderfan_32's photo
Mon 11/09/09 05:29 PM
Edited by raiderfan_32 on Mon 11/09/09 05:31 PM



flowerforyou This nation will have Universal Healthcare.flowerforyouIt is the morally right thing to doflowerforyouGet used to it.flowerforyou


Interesting that you invoked morals. That's quite funny..

Selective morality... HAHAHA
:thumbsup:I think its a fair deal.:thumbsup:The opposition can have their stories about deathcamps and secret alien invaders and whatever else they dream up,and my side can have our Universal healthcare.biggrin All a person has to do (if they do not want healthcare) is move to a country that doesnt have any,although that might be tough since most of the other first world countries have Universal Healthcare.biggrinI will never regret taking care of sick Americans.bigsmile


a fair deal? what's fair about confiscating 40% of some people's hard earned income and using it to secure the political security of the democrat party?

what's fair about laying some moral claim to 12 minutes out of every hour of the working men and women of the country to pay for entitlement programs?

what's fair about laying the burden of the well being of the entire society on the backs of the producers?

It's not about wanting or not wanting healthcare.. It's about standing up to a government that continues to lay claim to an ever increasing proportion to the labor and livelihood of some the American people to buy votes from the remainder..

get a grip, dude.. and take a look at the tax table that goes along with HB 3962.. it places a heavy tax burden on people making ~$50K/A and up.. (with zero subsidy, I might add, for the Federally mandated insurance policy everyone will be required to purchase, through and with the approval of the Fed.Gov..)

Shouldn't the Obamatons in the crowd be upset about his breaking his oft-repeated campaign promise not to raise taxes on people making less than $250K/A??

raiderfan_32's photo
Mon 11/09/09 02:44 PM

I had a 72 Super Beetle and a 71 bus.
Fun to own.





Same style and color as bus I owned.






superbeetles suck!! Real bug owners wouldn't be caught dead in one! Standard beetles RULE!

raiderfan_32's photo
Sat 11/07/09 03:28 PM
beg your pardon, it wasn't SD but local PD that helps out with base security, traffic duty and such, apparently. which comes to me as a surprise..

She and her partner were first on the scene and was the one who shot Hasan.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6907235.ece


whats this about a sherrifs deputy? I have not seen that report yet, and the first question that comes to mind is what is a sherrifs deputy doing on fort hood, in the first place, let alone in the capacity to engage this guy. She had no authority (dont get me wrong I am all for her opening fire back, but she had no legal juisdiction or authority in the matter).

raiderfan_32's photo
Sat 11/07/09 02:39 PM
that's cool. I'll stipulate you that if it'll make you happy.

I'm not saying there's positively no possibility of his being disturbed.. no one who commits premeditated murder is.. but it's no defense to prosecution to be angry, depressed or what have you.

I object to the notion that he's some kind of victim here.. If we find out he's schizophrenic or bipolar, that's another story.. But I have a hard time going with that theory given his background

Of course, there exists a multitude of possibilities and we don't have all the details..

what we do know.. that morning he emptied his apartment, told his close friends goodbye, spent the morning handing out copies of the Q'uran.. then at some point loaded up a couple pistols, made his way to the processing center, where he vocalized a religious epitaph associated with Islam (and in the context, Jihad) and began to fire into a crowd of unarmed human beings, knowing armed people would show up eventuallty to take him down..

sounds like a suicide mission to me. could be wrong but that's how it looks, prima facie.

It's just unfortunate that the sheriffs deputy that shot him wasn't able to group her pattern a little more tightly. she did an admirable job, though, considering she was being shot at and took one in the leg.


I am not trying to say he IS definitely unequivocably insane or out of his mind. I am trying to get you to admit that the POSSIBILITY that he is out of his mind is there.

I have specifically stated that I am not saying he is crazy nor am I saying he is another Hitler. I am saying I don't have the facts, nor do you or anyone else outside of the government at this point, to make such a decision.

If investigation proves he is another Hitler then I most certainly agree he needs to be punished (though not murdered; I do NOT believe in the death penalty). BUT if they show that he was as much a victim as his victims were, then he needs hel pin that respect FIRST.



he knew exactly what he was doing..

he was very much attatched to reality. he knew he was about to get on plane and land with his boots in the sand..

he was determined to do whatever he thought was within his means, up to and including murder, clearly, not to get deployed to the sandbox.

If it got him killed, then all the better in mind..

Too bad for him, it didn't.

What's your empathy for this cold blooded killer anyways?

You seem to be bent on the conclusion that he's mentally ill which is as much based on conjecture and hearsay as youlambast others for..

He'll get his due process and then if justice is to be served, he'll get the needle or a straight jacket.. just so long as his perverted, amoral, criminal _ss doesn't ever see the outside of a box again, I don't care whether it's above ground or below..


raiderfan_32's photo
Sat 11/07/09 01:53 PM
he knew exactly what he was doing..

he was very much attatched to reality. he knew he was about to get on plane and land with his boots in the sand..

he was determined to do whatever he thought was within his means, up to and including murder, clearly, not to get deployed to the sandbox.

If it got him killed, then all the better in mind..

Too bad for him, it didn't.

What's your empathy for this cold blooded killer anyways?

You seem to be bent on the conclusion that he's mentally ill which is as much based on conjecture and hearsay as youlambast others for..

He'll get his due process and then if justice is to be served, he'll get the needle or a straight jacket.. just so long as his perverted, amoral, criminal _ss doesn't ever see the outside of a box again, I don't care whether it's above ground or below..

raiderfan_32's photo
Sat 11/07/09 01:31 PM
no legalistic retort? no more idiomatic contortions to try?

I'm disappointed.


raiderfan_32's photo
Sat 11/07/09 01:25 PM

So under HB 3962, the law will mandate how 15% of incomes over $50,100 are to be spent, that's if you're single.

If you're married and have a combined income over $102,100, this new law will mandate how 20% of your income is spent..

so for every hour you work, the government OWNS the first 9 to 12 minutes.. just to pay for healthcare..

that's in addition to the already mandatory Federal Income Tax which can be as much as another 20% off the top.. with the highest published tax rate at 35%..

So this law is going to make a claim on as much as 40-55%% of your fiscal year.. that's before you pay state and local taxes.. property taxes, gasoline taxes, school taxes, and every other tax you can imagine..

which means that every hour you work, now the government OWNS the first 24 to 33 minutes.. before you begin to pay all the other taxes you see in your local life..

So you you may have to work until the middle of May or June to start putting money in your pocket after the federals are done looting your wallet..

Meanwhile the least productive get their healthcare subsidised at a rate of 96 or 97%..

go ahead.. look at the table

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10691/hr3962SubsidiesRangelLtr.pdf


mirror.. I'll save you the trouble

:smile:sounds good to me!!:smile: drinker

raiderfan_32's photo
Sat 11/07/09 12:50 PM
Edited by raiderfan_32 on Sat 11/07/09 12:53 PM
So under HB 3962, the law will mandate how 15% of incomes over $50,100 are to be spent, that's if you're single.

If you're married and have a combined income over $102,100, this new law will mandate how 20% of your income is spent..

so for every hour you work, the government OWNS the first 9 to 12 minutes.. just to pay for healthcare..

that's in addition to the already mandatory Federal Income Tax which can be as much as another 20% off the top.. with the highest published tax rate at 35%..

So this law is going to make a claim on as much as 40-55%% of your fiscal year.. that's before you pay state and local taxes.. property taxes, gasoline taxes, school taxes, and every other tax you can imagine..

which means that every hour you work, now the government OWNS the first 24 to 33 minutes.. before you begin to pay all the other taxes you see in your local life..

So you you may have to work until the middle of May or June to start putting money in your pocket after the federals are done looting your wallet..

Meanwhile the least productive get their healthcare subsidised at a rate of 96 or 97%..

go ahead.. look at the table

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10691/hr3962SubsidiesRangelLtr.pdf

raiderfan_32's photo
Sat 11/07/09 12:01 PM
Edited by raiderfan_32 on Sat 11/07/09 12:15 PM


PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
JCT Confirms Failure to Comply with Democrats’ Mandate Can Lead to 5 Years in Jail

Friday, November 06, 2009


Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

In response to the JCT letter, Camp said: “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.”

Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:

“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]

- - - - - - - - - -

“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]

- - - - - - - - - -


“Criminal penalties

Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]

When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.

“The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration. Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates. Fortunately, Republicans have an alternative that will lower health insurance costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare,” said Camp.

According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker’s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016.

###

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153583



Way too many sensationalist inaccuracies, erroneous associations and leading arguments to deserve investing in a direct reply.

You provided a link to the most dogmatic and propagandish
'... Committee on Ways & Means Republicans...' website, when the only factual references, which help clarify all the confusion of this post, are stated black and white in a reply letter from 'Douglas W. Elmendorfis', Director of the Congressional Budget Office, to questions presented by Charles B. Rangel, of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Here is the link to the actual source document:
http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/webreturn/?url=http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10691/hr3962SubsidiesRangelLtr.pdf

To those whom prefer using facts rather than outlandish proaganda to form their opinions, simply read the letter of the above link, string the facts together, and like I, you will most likely come out of it with a completely opposite understanding than that of the highly biased propaganda of the 'Committee on Ways and Means', and carried over (IMO) by raiderfan.

While there is room for a serious and responsible debate to take place on the question of the health care reform proposition from the current administration, grossly unfounded and erroneous propaganda will never help forward such a debate.





you impune my reference then give the exact same one?

what exactly is sensationalised and propagandised?

the fact that the House bill will place a mandate to carry "approved" coverage?

that failure to carry such coverage places a further income tax burden on the citizen?

that such a tax burden, or rather failure to pay it, can result in jail time and 6 figure fines?

what exactly are you refering to?

The fact that they're now mandating as much as a 20% additional mandate on incomes in "Premium + Cost Sharing".. on a highly graduated scale? $50K and you're out of subsidy.. $50K isn't that great an income.. that's barely above what a new college graduate can expect coming out of school..

and subsidizing at a rate of 97% the lowest income earners...

Please show me how this isn't direct redistriution.. from each acc'd to his means, to each acc'd to his needs..

I just don't get how this is justified under the Constitution..

raiderfan_32's photo
Sat 11/07/09 10:11 AM


Careful now.

I can see them using this as a justification for their Big Brother surveillance of everybody, not just GI's. They will say 'he was against foreign policy' so now everybody who doesn't agree with the Fascist NWO is a potential terrorist.


Too late. Napolitano's Homeland Security aldready does consider those opposed to its policies as potential terrorists


Another reason this may have been staged - war support and troop moral is at an all time low. So now - go get them terrorist Mulsims, see what they did. A mini 9-11.

And nobody wants to deploy. I still say anyone who goes AWOL is a hero. We should have a national system of safe houses for them - like the Underground Railroad.

No comment, other than those in uniform are there by choice. Do you duty or be a conscientious objector.. but uphold your oath

I still think this has everything to do with DRUGS. This guy would have had easy access. Self-medicating? Why does NOBODY ever ask that?


May well be that theres a linkage to the use of psych drugs.. as I read it though there are differences in the ways that those drugs affect the juvenile brain, as in the case of Columbine et al, and the way they affect the adult brain..

No doubt, our soldiers deserve the best treatment available. Unless I was dying, I would give up my seat at the emergency room for a soldier. They deserve the very best there is.

I have a suspicion that this Hasan was fast-tracked up the ranks and that potential issues with him were overlooked, perhaps on account of his religiuos affiliation. I understand that it typically takes a considerable time longer than it did for him to reach the rank of Major. So either he was an exemplar soldier, which we know not necessarily to be true, or there were certain things in his jacket overlooked for the sake of speeding him up the ranks.

raiderfan_32's photo
Sat 11/07/09 09:16 AM
Edited by raiderfan_32 on Sat 11/07/09 09:37 AM


lolol,,,,oh good grief.....the sky is falling
i pay 600$$ a month for crap insurance,for me the sky has fallen.Im not lookin' for a bailout,i simply want protection from the pirates on the open seas of capitalism.


the "open seas of capitalism" aren't all that open.. Federal restriction prevent yo from carrying your coverage from one state to another.

they also prevent full blown competition from taking place by allowing companies from selling in all 50 states..

Did you know that besides Baseball (MLB) the insurance industry is maybe on of the only other one that enjoys an anti-trust exemption?

Yep.. and that's by virtue of federal law..

from wiki
In short, while not changing the opinion of prevailing law, the Court stated that the conclusion that insurance was not commerce under the law rested with Congress, and that the Court would follow the lead of Congress.

As a result, on March 9, 1945, the McCarran–Ferguson Act was passed by Congress. Among other things, it allows for:

-exempts health insurance companies from the federal anti-trust legislation that applies to most businesses[1]
-the state regulation of insurance
-allows states to establish mandatory licensing requirements
-preserves certain state laws of insurance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran%E2%80%93Ferguson_Act


i don't know why that link isn't working but the act is called the "McCarran-Ferguson Act" check into it..


So don't listen to the fearmongers and populists that attempt to rally us, the nonpriviledged, against the forces of the free market.. it's all a scam.. they don't care about covering you and you kiddos against healthrisks.. they just care about controling your access to it, so that when election time comes, they can say "if you vote for the other guys, they'll take your healthcare away"

Don't fall for it..

If choice and competition was all they were interesting on promoting, they would strip the healthcare insurance industry of it's anti-trust exemption and set reasonable minimum standards that allowed for people with pre-existing conditions to buy into high-risk pools the way that 16 year old boys are allowed to buy car insurance.

But "Choice and Competition" is just a nice sounding phrase that gets people to think that they have benevolent motives.. But the FedGov's Public Option is the only option that will be available in all 50 states..

is that "Choice and Competition"? or is it a Federal Monopoly?

Pelosi's plan will force you to pay $1250/month for a family of 4 and you get to go to the DMV/DPS to get seen by a doctor..

you have to carry medical insurance that they have the priviledge either to approve or disapprove..

in effect, you get another mommy.. is that how you see the role of the Federal Government? a surrogate, substitute mommy?

2 4 5 6 7 8 9 24 25