13,861 Forum Posts by "Memorize"
At 10/2/13 04:25 PM, Feoric wrote:
Nice! I love knocking out 2 birds with one stone.
If you were capable of actually aiming.
You seem to be under the impression that I didn't consider Congress to be granting themselves sweetheart deals before. There's no reason why members of congress should be receiving that bonus ON TOP of what they're already paid.
"When Obamacare was passed into law, Sen. Charles Grassley, the Iowa Republican, attached language to the bill that mandated members of Congress and their staffers would have to buy health insurance on the newly created health insurance exchanges. What nobody accounted for at the time was that members of Congress and their staffers currently have health insurance through their employer – the federal government. No other employer has been legally required to drop its employee’s health care plan and have them buy coverage on the exchanges."
So they were now finally being treated like everyone else! Hurray!
Oh wait...
" What the Obama administration has done is ruled that the congressional workers will continue to receive the employer contribution to help them buy their insurance on the exchange."
So what congress and Obama did was change the law after the fact so a bunch or rich, whiny, assholes didn't have to pay like everyone else.
Because see, here's the kicker... Healthcare exchanges are only meant for individuals not covered by their job.
They, after the fact, granted themselves an exemption so they could have both and not lose their perk.
So it is an exemption, dumbass.
2. The Obama administration has delayed implementation of the employer mandate for a year for obvious political reasons
Because when a democrat grants exemptions for giant corporations due to either being in their pocket or being a coward... it's "ok"
By the sounds of things your employer seems like an asshole and this has more to do with that than the actual law.
I love how you idiots seem to think that businesses operate on an endless money supply.
At 10/2/13 01:52 PM, 24901miles wrote:
House of Representatives... isn't that the one full of Republicans who won their seats in gerrymandered voting districts in the 2010 congressional elections, despite a majority of votes being cast for Democratic Representatives?
Correct me if I'm wrong.
translation: "I'm pissed because they're doing exactly what the democrats did before them."
At 10/2/13 02:51 PM, Feoric wrote:
Well technically it's more generally Congress, which includes the Senate. And the Senate, as we all know, isn't going to repeal the ACA. So the Senate has the right to block the bill, just like the House has the right to play dirty with the CR.
Exactly. So when the Senate has been offered numerous bills to keep the government funded aside from 1 program the public wants repealed anyway where said Senate won't even allow a 1-year delay like they freely gave to giant corporations while exempting themselves from the bill...
why are you bitching about the Republicans again?
And, as we all know (well most of us, it seems), no matter who controls the House and/or the Senate isn't going to repeal the ACA past January 2014, at least not without a viable replacement plan, since that would entail removing health insurance from millions of people who otherwise wouldn't have it. Which, I'm sure you can see very clearly is not a very viable political strategy.
Then explain people in my situation who now cannot work more than 30 hours a week and be covered by their employer.
At 10/2/13 02:56 PM, Feoric wrote:At 10/2/13 12:09 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: ask that to my insurance I been paying $150 extra because of itThat is really weird, considering the law isn't in effect yet.
You do realize that business change decisions and prices based on what will happen in the future, right?
Besides, he's probly talking about being notified that his prices will increase by $150. Like what happened to my aunt because Obamacare mandates coverage she doesn't need and can't use.
At 10/2/13 12:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
So? There are lots of laws the public doesn't support. There are ways to remove them.
One way is for the house of representatives to not allocate any money for any specific program since they're Constitutionally in charge of the purse strings....
Oh wait, what were you bitching about again?
Those ways have been more or less exhausted meaning the law stays. That is our system and that is the Constitution.
Actually the Constitution has this entire section on adding and repealing amendments along with federal Government function... you know, the standard things you ignore.
You would rather be able to go all Ayatollah on the law and impose your will over that of the People and the Constitution.
Isn't that what you did by passing a law the public never supported and deemed it "constitutional" based on Congress' ability to tax even though the legislation never refers to itself as such?
At 10/2/13 11:53 AM, Feoric wrote: Don't do it Camarohusky! My alt has become self aware!
Oh look. A liberal backing out.
It'd be shocked if it wasn't so... predictable, lol.
At 10/2/13 11:51 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
You have been drinking the stupid peoples' kool aid.
Here's the REAL story.
Public never supported the law.
SCOTUS upheld the law by legislating from the bench by labeling it a tax even though the law itself never refers to it as such.
House holds the purse strings and public voted in Republicans to the house.
Cry more, noob!
At 10/2/13 10:56 AM, Feoric wrote:
Through an amendment attached to a continuing resolution.
and...?
Through an amendment attached to a continuing resolution.
and...?
So that they can get more concessions.
and...?
Funny how you liberals bitch and whine about Republicans not compromising while simultaneously bitching about liberals "giving in."
This is not the hope and change I voted for!!!!
Considering how nothing has changed from Bush....
No shit, hypocrite. lol
Yes you're right, nobody wants to finally be able to have health insurance.
But people would like to keep what they have, not see an increase in premiums, or would like to work full time.
I'm already covered outside my job, but i'm not allowed to work more than 30 hours now. So thank you, dipshit.
Damn it! I was so close to having everyone here grounded in reality! Damn you Memorize!
I love the fantasy fuckers like you live in.
That's actually not true:
"When open enrollment begins on the online, state-based marketplaces established under Obamacare, premiums nationwide are expected to be around 16 percent lower than originally predicted, the U.S. Health and Human Services Department said in a new report released Wednesday.
I love the play on words.
"Originally predicted" doesn't mean "lower than what it is."
For instance. I have a teacher who had insurance for himself and his kids, but not his wife because they immigrated from Taiwan.
Because she still pays into it and because Taiwan has "universal coverage", they opted to not pay the extra money for her to get insurance.
But now, thanks to Obamacare, she is required to be insured in this country. So now even though shes covered, he still has to pay an extra $200 - $250 a month to get her covered.
Nearly 6 In 10 Uninsured Americans Can Pay Less Than $100 Per Month For Coverage In The Health Insurance Marketplace
For minimum coverage of which plans like that already existed.
You're such a fucking moron. lol
House passes bill defunding Obamacare... Senate blocks it.
House sends over bill delaying Obamacare for a year like how Obama did for big business... Senate blocks it.
House offers bill to fund the Government for a little while for negotiation... Senate blocks it.
Obama then vows to veto any bill that would even partially fund the government.
And all over a very unpopular bill that no one wanted in the first place.
And yet, the shutdown is still ALL the Republican's fault. LOL
At 9/27/13 07:06 PM, Feoric wrote:
The United States government can never go bankrupt so this is not a possibility,
I love it when liberals believe in their own naive form of American Exceptionalism.
At 8/30/13 02:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Another reason I don't like this argument is that they use a cherry picked case of a sentence that is way too low as an argument for a proper sentence to be lesser. The sentence of this crime should always and only be judged by this crime, and not others.
It's insane that when no one was hurt by this, that not a single person was shown to be put in jeopardy with this; still somehow amounts to an even more severe sentence than someone actually being harmed.
Funny how whistleblower protection laws don't extend the way they do with Corporations to the Government.
At 8/29/13 10:50 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: The mans a coward why not leak that shit while in america than hide like a bitch in Russia.
Because the States is surely trustworthy enough to do that...
Do you honestly believe he wouldn't be in prison? Bradley Manning's case took 3 years before it went to trial and he was subject to some harsh treatment during that time.
Even when he was found not guilty of aiding the enemy and when the Government couldn't produce a single piece of evidence that ANYONE was actually harmed by his leaks, he still got a higher prison sentence than even murderers.
Why would any sane person stay in the US and do that?
And my pencil gave me an 'A' on my paper.
At 8/15/13 04:40 AM, Feoric wrote:
I was specifically referring to you trying to mock the "if you don't want to be accused of rape, then keep it in your pants" statement; ie, drawing a comparison between that as a justification for an abortion when the original discussion was about rape. So are you trolling or are you just functionally retarded? Don't bother answering, it's a rhetorical question. We all know the answer is both.
You: "There's a pretty big difference between having an abortion and getting raped."
He wasn't talking about getting raped, nor was I talking about someone being sexually assaulted.
HE was specifically talking about being FALSELY ACCUSED of rape, and that if you are, then "you brought it on yourself."
English mother fucka, can you read it?
At 8/15/13 12:19 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
Are you trying to say that we wouldn't tell a woman to not have sex as it lead to rape or false accusations of rape against her?
... You can't read for shit.
At 8/14/13 09:05 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
A man who wants to reduce and lower their chances of being falsely accused of rape should avoid casual sex. Casual sex invites such accusals either through providing a factual basis from which they can arise (consentual sex) or it can result in situations where consent is questioned, openly iffy, or falt out nonexistant. In short keep it in your pants and you don't add fuel to the potential fire.
Which is my point: You wouldn't accept this argument under a different scenario.
At 8/14/13 08:57 PM, Feoric wrote:
There's a pretty big difference between having an abortion and getting raped. Can you figure out what it is, and why your strawman makes no sense?
He wasn't talking about being raped. He was specifically talking about being falsely accused of it.
Way to go, dumbass.
At 8/13/13 11:48 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
I'm not taking any position like that. If the woman says no, it's rape. If the man says no, it's rape. The scenario the OP presented is not compatible with a defense. The only way it's defensible is in a case where both parties agree, and then one party turns around after the fact and says there wasn't consent, this rarely happens, but it does happen.
Exactly!
But you should really go back and re-read his initial posts.
They didn't have anything to do with the law. It was "if you don't want to be accused of rape, then keep it in your pants."
I just pointed out that he would never accept that argument for 85% of abortions. I found that funny.
My reply to him had nothing to do with anyone saying "no."
At 8/10/13 10:13 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
If you had knowledge that the man would not give it to you sober, and you intentionally targetted him when he was drunk in order to bypass his normal response, than yes. In ANY crime that requires consent, or when using the defense of consent (as you would be in your example) the person consenting must have the capacity to consent. A person who is intoxicated rarely has legal capacity to do much at all, let alone consent.
I'm just tired of you people attempting to have it both ways.
On one hand, your voluntarily being drunk and making an idiotic decision such deciding to steal, drive, and fight can't be used as a defense for your stupid behavior.
But one other hand, if you agree to doing certain other things (like Sex... because with you idiot left wingers, somehow the most ridiculously of stupid excuses become legitimate when it comes to anything sex related) it magically becomes a solid excuse to avoid your own personal responsibility.
The only reason why you people are even taking that position is because you're imagining it happening to a woman rather than a man.
But even still...
All of what you said sounds wonderful... now how do you prove it?
At 8/9/13 03:38 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 8/9/13 10:24 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: And no, alcohol wouldn't excuse any other crime,WRONG!
Voluntary intoxication is a valid defense to NUMEROUS crimes.
DUI. DWI. Manslaughter. Hit and run...
If you were to walk up to a drunk guy in a bar and ask him for $100, and he gives it to you... should the police arrest you and charge you with theft?
At 8/9/13 01:57 PM, Warforger wrote:At 8/9/13 08:53 AM, Memorize wrote: I love the irony of how the "keep it in your pants" argument only works with you if it's a man, but not when it comes to women or abortions!.....Wow. Yes deciding whether or not to have an Abortion is exactly the same thing as deciding to rape someone.
LOL!
Nice deflection.
Go back and re-read his post.
He was talking about how there are false accusations of rape, but that the "men brought it on themselves for sleeping around."
Point being: His "keep it in your pants" argument isn't something he would accept on the issues I brought up.
So before I go, here's a tip: Learn to read.
At 8/8/13 10:32 PM, Camarohusky wrote: \Those who face false accusations do so because they put themselves in a position the be accused (such as having promiscuous sex with the type of girls most guys wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.) Keep it in your fucking pants and you should have very little to worry about.
I love the irony of how the "keep it in your pants" argument only works with you if it's a man, but not when it comes to women or abortions!
LOL!
At 8/7/13 03:33 PM, Memorize wrote:At 8/7/13 03:23 PM, 24901miles wrote:I think that crowd got jobs and families.Right, all these people who protested war for years under Bush all magically got jobs and families within months of Obama's election.
Allow me to add to that...
...all these people who protested war for years under Bush all magically got jobs and families within months of Obama's election and the housing crash of '08.
At 8/7/13 03:23 PM, 24901miles wrote:
I think that crowd got jobs and families.
Right, all these people who protested war for years under Bush all magically got jobs and families within months of Obama's election.
It's like watching all those teachers protest in Wisconsin over Walker's cuts... until Summer vacation started and they didn't have to show up for work.
At 8/7/13 01:11 PM, 24901miles wrote:
You do realize there are tons of protests when either a Democrat or a Republican is in office, right?
Do you realize that most of the protests during the Bush-Cheney years were anti-war protests? I really hope you do.
Exactly!
I supported those protests.
So my question is: Where are those massive protests now?
Silly poster...
Protesting is only for when a Republican is in office.
At 7/31/13 11:12 AM, laughatyourfuneral wrote: Only in Ireland,USA and the 3rd World is this still a debate, i hope you people realize that the rest of the civilized World is laughing at your nation.
Ireland is talking about it because of how strict they are when it comes to abortion which resulted in the death of a woman who wasn't allowed an abortion even after being told the fetus would cause serious complications.
The US still has this conversation because people have been born alive well before 24 weeks which highlights the blatant contradiction on how you can abort a fetus at 23 weeks before birth, but be put in prison if you kill the same fetus if it were born alive.
Almost all of Europe, even France, bans abortion after 12 weeks. And even then, you need several doctor's approval, plead your case, and go through a week long waiting period.
Ironically, the States is among the least restrictive countries on abortion in the Western world.
At 7/30/13 05:54 PM, Warforger wrote:
That's opinion.
Your counter-argument is to just restate what was already disproven...
Genius.
..........So if someone's heart isn't working and their brain is not functioning in any capacity they can still be alive to you?
Go back... did I ever say "alive?"
Then why are you bringing up heartbeat detection and cognitive function?Because that's why they don't think it's murder?
Clearly not.
Or they wouldn't be basing their position on 40 year outdated data on viability from 1973.
For example: If you wanted to go with heartbeat detection, then abortions would have to be outlawed after 6 weeks, not 24.
You're assuming I'm pro-Choice. I'm just pointing out you don't understand the Pro-Choice side at all.
I understand it clearly because I have zero faith in either people in general or their so called motivations.
If i'm wrong, then explain to me why the pro-choice side still clings to 24 weeks despite advances in medical technology.
You're an idiot. That's not what I was talking about. The Supreme Court should be the institution which determines when life begins, they're the ones who determine what the Constitution does, not some retard on the internet like you who thinks that just because they have an opinion it means it's fact.
It is fact, dipshit.
I gave you the very scientific definition of a cell.
I gave you fetal development stages.
I gave you the SUPREME COURT'S definition of viability.
You're the dumbass who refuses to accept this.
Try to figure this out...
Supreme court defines viability as fetal survival outside the womb MEDICALLY ASSISTED. In 1973 that was 24 weeks...
Since it was based on medical technology at the time, then that doesn't change today.
So since medical technology has advanced in 40 years, guess what that means... It means viability is sooner.
So it still fits in with the Supreme courts definition.
Though I do like how you support a group of 9 people artificially deciding what class of humanity is justified in being killed... like Dredd Scott.
That's not what the data says at all. What if most of those are prostitutes? Rape victims?
>1% of all abortions are done out of rape.
And I also believe prostitution should be legal...
Around 10-15% are done due to the parent's life being threatened from the pregnancy.
Even if every one of them counted for the 50% range... you're still left with 35% who are doing it out of convenience.
Furthermore this doesn't mean that abortions are fun or tolerable. That's like assuming that just because a woman has more than one child that giving birth isn't that big of a deal.
I never said it was fun.
But when you can go back, over and over again for the same thing, WILLINGLY; then to that individual it is certainly tolerable.
My point isn't that giving birth is easier after the 14th kid. I'm only asking that you not bitch about having kids as "intolerable" when you have fucking 14.
In the same manner, I only ask that you don't bitch about abortions being a "horrible, TRAUMATIC, awful" procedures when you willingly go in for more than 1 while treating it as just a more in depth morning after pill.
All the data says is that it happens, it does not say why. You're filling in the blanks to fill your view of the world.
You... don't know that we have that data?
.........So "they're not an earlier stage of life, the fetus is just an earlier stage of life in the human life cycle".
*sigh* ... You can't read for shit.
So if someone donates blood, or an organ, or bone marrow, is that a unique human being as well? Are you saying that a Zygote is a human being?
Fuck's sake.
Your blood... is your blood.
Your organ... is your organ.
Your bone marrow... is your bone marrow.
Because they are YOU, YOU can donate whatever the hell you see fit.
I'm talking about when you have a fully recognizable and GENETICALLY SEPARATED human genome that differentiates you from your biological parents at the point when human life development begins.
How many times do I have to mention your genes before you understand the point?
Are you saying that if you were to take a Zygote out of the womb that it would survive?
Are you saying that if you take a 6 week old fetus out of the womb that it would survive?
Oh wait... it wouldn't... and yet you bring up a functioning heartbeat as if you ever gave actually gave a shit about physical development.
Funny how you talk about viability and how we need to have it set by the supreme court at 24 weeks when there are people alive today born at 20... cuz... fuck science!
Allow me to run this by you again. I don't consider humanity to be of anything significant or special. Everyone is just a cluster of cells when run under a microscope.
So I don't consider you or anyone else to be fundamentally different from a blastocyst or fetus when both of you are physically developing individual human entities genetically separated from your biological parents.
You are not special. So quit acting like you belong to some superior class of human being.
lol go back to school. Each sperm and egg has a unique set of RNA. This is why it is impossible for two children to be identical unless they're twins.
No... Fucking... Shit.
*facepalm*
Hey, here's a question, smart one: Where does RNA derive from and what is it's purpose?
At 7/26/13 02:59 PM, Warforger wrote:
That's your opinion.
It's a Scientific Fact for fuck's sakes...
If that persons heart was not beating and their brain not sending out brain waves THEY'RE DEAD and not living.
You do know that clinically dead isn't actually dead, right?
Yes the Pro Choice groups care about having control over when you have a child or not. Much like how the Pro Life groups don't give a shit about that. That's why they can't agree.
Then why are you bringing up heartbeat detection and cognitive function?
They obviously don't matter to you.
They don't even care about "viability" because even though medical technology has advanced in 40 years, they still cling to 24 weeks even though that standard is based on fetal survival rates from 1973.They shouldn't because the Supreme Court has already determined that.
Idiot... listen...
The Supreme Court defined in Roe v. Wade that viability was the survival rate of a fetus outside the womb that was medically assisted...
That was 24 weeks in 1973 (year of Roe v. Wade).
That was 40 years ago.
Translation: Advances in Medical Technology lowers the age viability. Meaning, if viability was 24 weeks in 1973, then it would be lower today because of those advances based on the Supreme Court's decision and legal definition.
How very scientific of you, using outdated 40 year old data to base your position on.
Seriously? Seriously? That doesn't prove anything nor does it relate to what you said. There's nothing in that statistic which implies that.
"Omg, an abortion is such a Traumatic experience!"
...
...
...
"Time for another one!"
Stop saying "demonstrate" you didn't. You said "it's an early stage of life therefore it's life" I respond with masturbation because it's the same thing.
You... are you truly a dumbass...
I never said that they were life just because "it's at an earlier stage." I said they were the smallest units of life and that the fetus is just an earlier stage in the human life cycle.
Allow me to explain this again...
Cells are the smallest unit of life. They are living. They are what make YOU and every other living entity on this planet, life.
What, biologically, separates you from your parents? You are composed of LIVING CELLS that contain a COMBINATION of a HUMAN genetic code that you got from your biological parents.
That makes you a genetically separate, living, independent, human individual.
What is a fetus made up of? LIVING CELLS that contain a combination of a HUMAN genetic code that it got from its biological parents.
That means that a fetus, biologically speaking, is a separate, living, independent, human individual.
Why does masturbation not work as a counter argument in this setting?
Because they're still just YOUR cells, dumbass.
That doesn't change my point about how everyone who disagree's with you is 'an idiot'.
You didn't even know that cells were the smallest unit of life which is practically taught in the front page of every elementary school science text book.
You are an idiot.
At 7/26/13 12:29 PM, Warforger wrote:
No you didn't. Learn to read your own posts.
Referring to an earlier one.
Right that is your opinion. Other people on the other hand say it's merely a sack of cells, it has no functional brain, no heartbeat or anything to indicate life. At the end of the day it's all opinion because there's no scientific definition of life in this case.
Cells are life, idiot.
That's what makes you 'living.'
That's why I didn't mention anything about organ function. If you're genetically independent of your parents, then that means you're a separate living human individual, regardless of whether or not you have cognitive functions (ex. We still consider someone who's unresponsive and on life support as a living human individual - why do you think they call it 'LIFE support?')
But even still... The pro-choice groups don't actually care about those things, because they occur earlier in the pregnancy than "viability." Why else would they still claim "it's my body" when you can detect a fetal heartbeat in 6 weeks that's pumping blood through it's own body while being genetically unique?
They don't even care about "viability" because even though medical technology has advanced in 40 years, they still cling to 24 weeks even though that standard is based on fetal survival rates from 1973.
And?
It proves it's not the "overwhelming, life-altering, traumatic" experience you claim it is.
Or rather. It proves that those getting abortions don't see it as such.
That's fine, it seems anyone who doesn't strictly agree with your point of view is a 'fucking idiot'. I mean that accounts for like 99% of people, from Bill Gates to Albert Einstein.
I demonstrate how a fetus is scientifically it's own separate, living human individual. You responded with masturbation.
Or does someone need to go back to elementary school?
At 7/25/13 07:52 PM, Warforger wrote:
So every time someone masturbates it's a whole lot of abortions? I mean every single one of those sperm are an early stage of a human individual.
Learn to read, dipshit.
I said Genetically independent.
Your sperm is YOUR sperm. It's your genetic marker.
What separates you from your biological parents is the fact that you're comprised of the combination of a human genetic code that you received from your parents. Which makes you a genetically separate, living, human entity.
Gee, now what do you think a fetus is composed of?
I wouldn't call a life altering decision a "convenience".
50% of all abortions every year are done by individuals who have had AT LEAST 1 previous abortion.
Nor would I say that these people are trying to argue that fetus's are not alive because they feel it's more convenient. Poor analysis.
Correct analysis: You're a fucking idiot.
At 7/25/13 08:15 PM, Earfetish wrote:
http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/martin.asp
Snopes says the famous picture was just 7 months before his death.
Snopes.
"According to Martain family Attorney...."
Although I love how it still doesn't change anything.
Because even if it were true, it only proves my point being that everyone believed it was anyway.
Nice try. Dumb fuck.
At 7/25/13 02:37 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:
Relevance?: A man who does a terrible thing may also do a good thing. It is a mistake to assume someone is all evil, or all good. It is also a mistake to assume a good act washes away a bad act.
But apparently a picture of said person when he was 12 years old is good enough to wash away the today's bad acts.
