Conquer Club

Night Strike wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:If there is a contradiction between the Constitution and the Bible, which side do you take?

The Bible is The Truth, so of course it takes moral precedence. But as far as legal aspects of this country goes, the Constitution comes before any other law or executive order.

PLAYER57832 wrote:No, they actually have to cover people now. Before, they did not.

Why do you have the ability to dictate what products a company sells? Where is any person other than the owner of the company given that ability?

Disturbing stuff, and I suspect a little more hyperbolic than what you actually believe.

Symmetry wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:If there is a contradiction between the Constitution and the Bible, which side do you take?

The Bible is The Truth, so of course it takes moral precedence. But as far as legal aspects of this country goes, the Constitution comes before any other law or executive order.

PLAYER57832 wrote:No, they actually have to cover people now. Before, they did not.

Why do you have the ability to dictate what products a company sells? Where is any person other than the owner of the company given that ability?

Disturbing stuff, and I suspect a little more hyperbolic than what you actually believe.

What's disturbing? That people get to pick which products they sell? I thought that was the basics of a free market system.

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:If there is a contradiction between the Constitution and the Bible, which side do you take?

The Bible is The Truth, so of course it takes moral precedence. But as far as legal aspects of this country goes, the Constitution comes before any other law or executive order.

PLAYER57832 wrote:No, they actually have to cover people now. Before, they did not.

Why do you have the ability to dictate what products a company sells? Where is any person other than the owner of the company given that ability?

Disturbing stuff, and I suspect a little more hyperbolic than what you actually believe.

What's disturbing? That people get to pick which products they sell? I thought that was the basics of a free market system.

That indeed, one would hope that even your good self accepts that a company should not be entirely free to sell whatever it wants. Hence hyperbole.

I suppose there is a chance that you actually believe the extreme argument, in which case my company has a bridge to sell you. Also some heroin, blood diamonds, state secrets, and nuclear fissile material.

Caveat Emptor.

Symmetry wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:If there is a contradiction between the Constitution and the Bible, which side do you take?

The Bible is The Truth, so of course it takes moral precedence. But as far as legal aspects of this country goes, the Constitution comes before any other law or executive order.

PLAYER57832 wrote:No, they actually have to cover people now. Before, they did not.

Why do you have the ability to dictate what products a company sells? Where is any person other than the owner of the company given that ability?

Disturbing stuff, and I suspect a little more hyperbolic than what you actually believe.

What's disturbing? That people get to pick which products they sell? I thought that was the basics of a free market system.

That indeed, one would hope that even your good self accepts that a company should not be entirely free to sell whatever it wants. Hence hyperbole.

I suppose there is a chance that you actually believe the extreme argument, in which case my company has a bridge to sell you. Also some heroin, blood diamonds, state secrets, and nuclear fissile material.

Caveat Emptor.

Yeah, because there's no difference at all between banning certain products and forced-production/supply of certain products.

Are you backing down from your hyperbole? That almost seemed like you were going for a degree of nuance NS. I ain't gonna beat you up on this- you and I both know that your statements were over the top here, and we both know why.

Symmetry wrote:Are you backing down from your hyperbole? That almost seemed like you were going for a degree of nuance NS. I ain't gonna beat you up on this- you and I both know that your statements were over the top here, and we both know why.

There are clear differences between making a company provide a product and preventing a company to make a product. Obamacare is clearly the former, and it's clearly an infringement of freedom.

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Are you backing down from your hyperbole? That almost seemed like you were going for a degree of nuance NS. I ain't gonna beat you up on this- you and I both know that your statements were over the top here, and we both know why.

There are clear differences between making a company provide a product and preventing a company to make a product. Obamacare is clearly the former, and it's clearly an infringement of freedom.

And that is different again from arguing that a business should be free to sell whatever it wants. If you want to nuance your hyperbole, I'll happily engage, but don't say that it's just "clear" if you can't explain it.

f*ck you people with preexisting conditions! Now give me your money!

Sounds a lot like the relationship between George Lucas and fans of his series.

GreecePwns wrote:f*ck you people with preexisting conditions! Now give me your money!

Sounds a lot like the relationship between George Lucas and fans of his series.

Episode 1 certainly constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

GreecePwns wrote:f*ck you people with preexisting conditions! Now give me your money!

See, that's the thing, if you are paying premiums for insurance but then the insurance company drops you when you need coverage, then that company should be held accountable by the government (because enforcing contracts is a proper role of the government). However, if a person knowingly lies about a pre-existing condition that the company, or that specific policy, doesn't cover, then the insurance is within their rights to deny coverage (because the contract was agreed to on false pretenses).

And don't forget, Obamacare doesn't allow insurance companies to charge people different rates based on their lifestyles or pre-existing conditions. That means that ALL people have to pay more simply because the insurance companies can't charge more to the people who are more likely to use more.

Night Strike wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:f*ck you people with preexisting conditions! Now give me your money!

See, that's the thing, if you are paying premiums for insurance but then the insurance company drops you when you need coverage, then that company should be held accountable by the government (because enforcing contracts is a proper role of the government). However, if a person knowingly lies about a pre-existing condition that the company, or that specific policy, doesn't cover, then the insurance is within their rights to deny coverage (because the contract was agreed to on false pretenses).

And don't forget, Obamacare doesn't allow insurance companies to charge people different rates based on their lifestyles or pre-existing conditions. That means that ALL people have to pay more simply because the insurance companies can't charge more to the people who are more likely to use more.

You use this word "all," but I don't think it means what you think it means.

spurgistan wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:f*ck you people with preexisting conditions! Now give me your money!

See, that's the thing, if you are paying premiums for insurance but then the insurance company drops you when you need coverage, then that company should be held accountable by the government (because enforcing contracts is a proper role of the government). However, if a person knowingly lies about a pre-existing condition that the company, or that specific policy, doesn't cover, then the insurance is within their rights to deny coverage (because the contract was agreed to on false pretenses).

And don't forget, Obamacare doesn't allow insurance companies to charge people different rates based on their lifestyles or pre-existing conditions. That means that ALL people have to pay more simply because the insurance companies can't charge more to the people who are more likely to use more.

You use this word "all," but I don't think it means what you think it means.

Oh yeah, you're right: Obama's friends get waivers.

Night Strike wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:f*ck you people with preexisting conditions! Now give me your money!

See, that's the thing, if you are paying premiums for insurance but then the insurance company drops you when you need coverage, then that company should be held accountable by the government (because enforcing contracts is a proper role of the government).

Nope, its about having a gap in insurance.

A few years ago, a law WAS passed forcing companies to continue to cover people who had kept their insurance without a gap. This was supposed to protect people from getting dumped when they got sick. However, have a gap of even 24 hours (though usually the gap will be a month or more... there is no such time limit specified) and the insurance company did not have to cover you AT ALL. No breach of contract was involved, this was fully legal. If you saw a doctor, then lost insurance -- then you were no longer insurable because you almost always had some or other "pre-existing condition". No lying was needed.

Night Strike wrote: However, if a person knowingly lies about a pre-existing condition that the company, or that specific policy, doesn't cover, then the insurance is within their rights to deny coverage (because the contract was agreed to on false pretenses).

The insurance company's have abused that bit about "lying" quite a bit. The companies were allowed to go back and "investigate" people and "find" obscure minor issues that might have been neglected. Most people are not doctors, don't remember each and every little thing that happened in their entire life. We remember surgaries, major illnesses, but not every last stitch or minor illness. So, insurance companies give you this form to fill out, where you are supposed to list everything.. so detailed that even when you get your doctor's assistance, it is very much STILL possible to miss a couple of small details.... and I DO mean "small details", not major issues. THAT is what the insurance companies began using to deny coverage. Of course, these "reviews" were strangely cooincidental with impending serious illnesses or injuries. So, if you were basically healthy -- no review. If, however, you got cancer... your records were reviewed with a fine-toothed comb.

Of course, there are plenty of people who really do commit insurance fraud. BUT, there are far more honest people who wind up losing their life savings just to fight for coverage they thought they had.

Night Strike wrote: And don't forget, Obamacare doesn't allow insurance companies to charge people different rates based on their lifestyles or pre-existing conditions. That means that ALL people have to pay more simply because the insurance companies can't charge more to the people who are more likely to use more.

You keep ignoring that we ALREADY pay more.. we pay for covering those without insurance or who think they have insurance and who then get dumped because of "pre-existing conditions" right when they need to use the insurance.

Again-- you keep pretending that our current system is cheap. In fact, we pay more, per person, than in any other industrialized nation. We plain and simply cannot afford to keep on with things as they were!

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:f*ck you people with preexisting conditions! Now give me your money!

See, that's the thing, if you are paying premiums for insurance but then the insurance company drops you when you need coverage, then that company should be held accountable by the government (because enforcing contracts is a proper role of the government).

Nope, its about having a gap in insurance.

A few years ago, a law WAS passed forcing companies to continue to cover people who had kept their insurance without a gap. This was supposed to protect people from getting dumped when they got sick. However, have a gap of even 24 hours (though usually the gap will be a month or more... there is no such time limit specified) and the insurance company did not have to cover you AT ALL. No breach of contract was involved, this was fully legal. If you saw a doctor, then lost insurance -- then you were no longer insurable because you almost always had some or other "pre-existing condition". No lying was needed.

Night Strike wrote: However, if a person knowingly lies about a pre-existing condition that the company, or that specific policy, doesn't cover, then the insurance is within their rights to deny coverage (because the contract was agreed to on false pretenses).

The insurance company's have abused that bit about "lying" quite a bit. The companies were allowed to go back and "investigate" people and "find" obscure minor issues that might have been neglected. Most people are not doctors, don't remember each and every little thing that happened in their entire life. We remember surgaries, major illnesses, but not every last stitch or minor illness. So, insurance companies give you this form to fill out, where you are supposed to list everything.. so detailed that even when you get your doctor's assistance, it is very much STILL possible to miss a couple of small details.... and I DO mean "small details", not major issues. THAT is what the insurance companies began using to deny coverage. Of course, these "reviews" were strangely cooincidental with impending serious illnesses or injuries. So, if you were basically healthy -- no review. If, however, you got cancer... your records were reviewed with a fine-toothed comb.

Of course, there are plenty of people who really do commit insurance fraud. BUT, there are far more honest people who wind up losing their life savings just to fight for coverage they thought they had.

Night Strike wrote: And don't forget, Obamacare doesn't allow insurance companies to charge people different rates based on their lifestyles or pre-existing conditions. That means that ALL people have to pay more simply because the insurance companies can't charge more to the people who are more likely to use more.

You keep ignoring that we ALREADY pay more.. we pay for covering those without insurance or who think they have insurance and who then get dumped because of "pre-existing conditions" right when they need to use the insurance.

Again-- you keep pretending that our current system is cheap. In fact, we pay more, per person, than in any other industrialized nation. We plain and simply cannot afford to keep on with things as they were!

So we pay more now and will pay YET MORE because of Obamacare. That makes a whole lot of sense. There are plenty of ways to lower costs without governmental mandates of purchasing and banning different rates based on a person's actual lifestyle and needs.

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:You are not allowed to limit free speech simply because you don't like anyone other than candidates speaking about political issues.

The idea that money = free speech is disgusting in the extreme.

Then allow all political ads in newspapers, on the radio, and on tv to be free of charge.

When did freedom of speech change its meaning to "freedom to advertise", and why is that a good thing to try to maintain?

Night Strike wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:Using the example of other countries, a huge pool of money is collected and given to each party/candidate in proportion to their vote (I think in Canada a party gets $2 per vote in the previous election? I'm not sure on that).

I prefer the money be partially evenly distributed to all parties and candidates, and partially given out in proportion of votes.

So incumbents are the big beneficiaries.

Yes, they would, but only because more people voted for them. If you think a candidate should receive more funding, vote for them. It's a way of forcing people to vote with their votes, rather than with their bank accounts; ensuring that everyone has an equal say in their representation.

I really don't understand the concept of favouring a system in which the richest have the most influence in politics. Well, I understand when people who have the money to benefit from such a system support it, but otherwise, it's dumbfounding.

Even if he disagreed with that, what's wrong with giving all parties with a candidate the same funding?

GreecePwns wrote:Even if he disagreed with that, what's wrong with giving all parties with a candidate the same funding?

Which organization would control the funding?

Night Strike wrote: So we pay more now and will pay YET MORE because of Obamacare. That makes a whole lot of sense. There are plenty of ways to lower costs without governmental mandates of purchasing and banning different rates based on a person's actual lifestyle and needs.

You keep claiming this, but ALL projections based on data show that its most likely costs will go down.

Further, even IF it doesn't, it won't be due to the Healthcare reform act, it will be because the cost of healthcare -- materials, equipment, transportation, etc is going up. Everything is going up, but healthcare more so because technology is advancing in medicine and that costs a lot of money.

And yes, I did post the data.. in the healthcare thread.

Oh, and since this is the immigration thread.. no, the bill does not provide for illegal workers. All policies regarding them were long since established.

Timminz wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:You are not allowed to limit free speech simply because you don't like anyone other than candidates speaking about political issues.

The idea that money = free speech is disgusting in the extreme.

Then allow all political ads in newspapers, on the radio, and on tv to be free of charge.

When did freedom of speech change its meaning to "freedom to advertise", and why is that a good thing to try to maintain?

Actually, this is one of the oldest arguments of our country. You may not be aware, but the right of people to know information, to hear more than one side of issues is part of why we have a national postal service, why magazines and such have reduced rates.

It will take some digging to get a copy of the arguments, and I won't bohter unless you are really interested, but one side argued that to charge for mailing periodicals at all was to interfere with free speech, would mean that the passage of political information would be controlled by a few. The other side argued that a charge was OK, but it should be kept low.

There was even an argument that the state should actively support the 3 top views. The idea was that if you had only 2, then it would basically be a "white/black","yes/no" argument, really not a different opinion at all. Three sources were needed to truly give a different point of view.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote: So we pay more now and will pay YET MORE because of Obamacare. That makes a whole lot of sense. There are plenty of ways to lower costs without governmental mandates of purchasing and banning different rates based on a person's actual lifestyle and needs.

You keep claiming this, but ALL projections based on data show that its most likely costs will go down.

Citation needed.

john9blue wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:

Spoiler

--Andy

please. my problem isn't with liberals as a group, or leftism as a worldview. i have talked with very intelligent people elsewhere (and, admittedly, a few on CC) who have a left-wing worldview and are very knowledgeable and respectful. i even personally agree with certain aspects of the american liberal platform.

my problem is with the liberals on CC who have no respect for opposing opinions due to their extreme closed-mindedness

@woodruff: you're trying to tell me that their responses weren't knee-jerk reactions to nightstrike? they see him post and they don't even consider what he has to say. they never have. just because he says stupid shit sometimes doesn't mean he says stupid shit all the time. their ad-hominem bullshit is no better than nightstrike's overreliance on conservative news sources.

every one of the posts i quoted are making excuses for obama because "somebody else did it once". that is a terrible excuse.

Yeah, pretty much.

It's like someone shooting your dog, and when you complain, people say, "well, at least he used a .22 and not a .45."

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote: So we pay more now and will pay YET MORE because of Obamacare. That makes a whole lot of sense. There are plenty of ways to lower costs without governmental mandates of purchasing and banning different rates based on a person's actual lifestyle and needs.

You keep claiming this, but ALL projections based on data show that its most likely costs will go down.

Citation needed.

given already in the healthcare thread.

The latest source was factcheck.org

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote: So we pay more now and will pay YET MORE because of Obamacare. That makes a whole lot of sense. There are plenty of ways to lower costs without governmental mandates of purchasing and banning different rates based on a person's actual lifestyle and needs.

You keep claiming this, but ALL projections based on data show that its most likely costs will go down.

Citation needed.

given already in the healthcare thread.

The latest source was factcheck.org

Oh, my response which states that you're an idiot because of X, Y, and Z was made a few threads ago somewhere.

The latest source was conquerclub.com.

GreecePwns wrote:Even if he disagreed with that, what's wrong with giving all parties with a candidate the same funding?

In the past, the government has done this in various ways. They required each of the major TV stations to air equal time for each candidate, for example. That worked when there were only 3 stations. Now, it doesn't.

There is also a section of the US tax return that says you can choose or not choose to hav $1 of your already paid taxes diverted to the presidential campaign fund. This is the fund that you may have heard about, which some recent candidates have not accessed because the money comes with certain limits.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

john9blue wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:

Spoiler

--Andy

please. my problem isn't with liberals as a group, or leftism as a worldview. i have talked with very intelligent people elsewhere (and, admittedly, a few on CC) who have a left-wing worldview and are very knowledgeable and respectful. i even personally agree with certain aspects of the american liberal platform.

my problem is with the liberals on CC who have no respect for opposing opinions due to their extreme closed-mindedness

@woodruff: you're trying to tell me that their responses weren't knee-jerk reactions to nightstrike? they see him post and they don't even consider what he has to say. they never have. just because he says stupid shit sometimes doesn't mean he says stupid shit all the time. their ad-hominem bullshit is no better than nightstrike's overreliance on conservative news sources.

every one of the posts i quoted are making excuses for obama because "somebody else did it once". that is a terrible excuse.

Yeah, pretty much.

It's like someone shooting your dog, and when you complain, people say, "well, at least he used a .22 and not a .45."

So we know that john9blue and BigBallinStalin didn't really read the responses.

Bones' point alone was that it was stupid to call Obama a dictator, never mind the others.