# We're too stupid



## lazydaisy67 (Nov 24, 2011)

So amid the thousands of recent letters that people are receiving about cancellations and premium increases, Johnathon Gruber, the MIT professor hired as a consultant for the Obamacare bill gets video taped saying that they HAD to lie about it in order for the bill to get passed? The American people are too stupid for them to be transparent in writing a bill that will effect every single one of us?? OH MY GOSH!!! 

Supreme court to hear case against subsidies. I can't even claim to understand how that all works. If there's only 7 million people on Obamacare right now, how is this THAT big of a deal? Guess I am one of the 'too stupid'. 

Republicans apparently have no plans to repeal Obamacare. Um.....:scratch


----------



## weedygarden (Apr 27, 2011)

lazydaisy67 said:


> Republicans apparently have no plans to repeal Obamacare. Um.....:scratch


Surprise, surprise, surprise!


----------



## oldasrocks (Jun 30, 2012)

lazydaisy67 said:


> Supreme court to hear case against subsidies. I can't even claim to understand how that all works. If there's only 7 million people on Obamacare right now, how is this THAT big of a deal? Guess I am one of the 'too stupid'.
> 
> Republicans apparently have no plans to repeal Obamacare. Um.....:scratch


AND 80% of those on obozocare have 100% subsidies! So 5.6 million freeloaders and 2.4 million payers--besides the taxpayers. Yep this should work fine.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

Even if it doesn't get repealed, make it easier to swallow!


----------



## readytogo (Apr 6, 2013)

oldasrocks said:


> AND 80% of those on obozocare have 100% subsidies! So 5.6 million freeloaders and 2.4 million payers--besides the taxpayers. Yep this should work fine.


Please explain the freeloader part, I'm eager to learn something new today.


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

The Republicans do not need to go after Obamacare, the Supreme Court should be throwing it out. After all it's unconstitutional in its present form and the judiciary does not have the authority to revise legislation that has been enacted into law. They cannot simply remove the unconstitutional portions and leave the rest be.


----------



## lazydaisy67 (Nov 24, 2011)

But didn't they already rule that the 'tax' wasn't a tax? what other part of it aren't constitutional? I tried to read portions of the bill once. It made my head hurt and I had to quit. I have no idea what it says, which is what they wanted for us stoopid folk.


----------



## FatTire (Mar 20, 2012)

So Obamacare is a tax, but requiring an ID to vote isnt a poll tax? Yup, appropriate thread title.


----------



## tsrwivey (Dec 31, 2010)

readytogo said:


> Please explain the freeloader part, I'm eager to learn something new today.


According to the dictionary, *free·load verb \-ˌlōd\
: to get or ask for things (such as food, money, or a place to live) from people without paying for them*. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freeloader

So, by definition, those who pay nothing in federal taxes (about half the population) but get services, such as free or subsidized healthcare, are freeloaders.


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

FatTire said:


> So Obamacare is a tax, but requiring an ID to vote isnt a poll tax? Yup, appropriate thread title.


The SC said the "penalty" was legal as long as it is a tax which was strange because all along Obamao insisted it was not a tax. Even after the decision he insisted it was not a tax. At least the SC saw through that fraudulent claim! Still, it was not one of the shining times for the SC.

In what way could requiring ID be considered a poll tax?


----------



## oldasrocks (Jun 30, 2012)

readytogo said:


> Please explain the freeloader part, I'm eager to learn something new today.


freeloader==someone who gets free health insurance because of subsidies


----------



## FatTire (Mar 20, 2012)

An ID costs money. If one is required to pay money to vote, that is by definition a poll tax. Just like being required (forced by the state under threat of death) to pay for insurance is by definition a tax.


----------



## jeff47041 (Jan 5, 2013)

readytogo said:


> Please explain the freeloader part, I'm eager to learn something new today.


When my insurance premium more than doubled, (I haven't used it EVER and haven't been to a doctor for more than 7 years)  and a girl down the road gets her insurance for $14 per month.(But better insurance than I have) I feel like I'm paying for mine and hers.

There was no reason for my insurance rates to raise, other than the fact that I have to chip in and pay for insurance for others.


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

FatTire said:


> An ID costs money. If one is required to pay money to vote, that is by definition a poll tax. Just like being required (forced by the state under threat of death) to pay for insurance is by definition a tax.


Defining an ID as a tax is stretching things quite a bit unless the cost is outrageous. I've yet to see anyone who doesn't waste enough money that they could have afforded an ID card without causing hardship on them. I could find enough loose change in a parking lot or pick up enough aluminum cans in one day to afford an ID.


----------



## tsrwivey (Dec 31, 2010)

FatTire said:


> So Obamacare is a tax, but requiring an ID to vote isnt a poll tax? Yup, appropriate thread title.


What government service can you utilize without an ID? You can't even get a library book or use their computers without a picture ID. How can the poor be applying for jobs without an ID? You can't cash a check without an ID.


----------



## jeff47041 (Jan 5, 2013)

Are there really people that don't have ID's? How the heck do they buy the lifegiving force...BEER?

I have an ultra democrat brother in law that is just totally against this showing your id to vote. I REALLY want to beat him to the poles and claim I'm him and vote straight down republican for him. That way, I'm cancelling out his ridiculous democrat votes and voting properly for him. ( I wouldn't do this, but really would love to) 

I would just like to see him go in and be told that he already voted and would like to hear his argument of "How could you let someone else vote in my name?" UH, they wouldn't if they were allowed to see an ID right? 

I just don't get why people are against showing an ID to vote. I've never heard this extra tax argument because an ID cost something. Hey, maybe we can subsidize the cost of an ID. We probably already do.


----------



## tsrwivey (Dec 31, 2010)

FatTire said:


> An ID costs money. If one is required to pay money to vote, that is by definition a poll tax. Just like being required (forced by the state under threat of death) to pay for insurance is by definition a tax.


You have to have transportation to the polls, that costs money. You have to have clothes on to get in the poll, that costs money. The integrity of our elections is important. How else would you ensure each person only gets one vote & everyone that votes is entitled to do so? :dunno:


----------



## FatTire (Mar 20, 2012)

So if its affordable its not a tax? Why then do we just not take all assets above a hundred grand then? Its easy to live quite comfortably on a hundred grand a year after all... 

Again, if you are required to pay to vote, it is by definition a poll tax. So, either we care aboit principles, or we do not.


----------



## FatTire (Mar 20, 2012)

Library books and cars and beer are not rights folks. Voting is. Why is it so hard for wrongwingers to be intellectually consistent?


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

FatTire said:


> So if its affordable its not a tax? Why then do we just not take all assets above a hundred grand then? Its easy to live quite comfortably on a hundred grand a year after all...
> 
> Again, if you are required to pay to vote, it is by definition a poll tax. So, either we care aboit principles, or we do not.


In typical liberal non-logic you're going down some rabbit trails trying to justify your position. First you admit that the price of an ID card is not the problem then go off on some tangent about confiscating assets if a person has "too much."

So, in the interests of being consistent, if the ID's were free you would support having an ID to vote? I'd be okay with that. Then we could safeguard the integrity of the voting system and it wouldn't be, in your opinion, a "tax."

But do you really believe that requiring an ID is a tax! That's stretching logic even for liberals. Especially when comparing it to the penalty tax in Odumbocare which was specifically meant to cause pain and hardship to those who do not comply.

Of course we all know by simple logic that the "ID/poll tax" argument is a just a smoke screen to cover voter fraud.


----------



## tsrwivey (Dec 31, 2010)

FatTire said:


> Again, if you are required to pay to vote, it is by definition a poll tax. So, either we care aboit principles, or we do not.


It costs money to live. It's not a poll tax, it's just life. In many places, it's against the law to even be out in public without a valid ID. In Texas, you can get a free ID, I'd venture to guess that's the case elsewhere, but I'm sure the rabid left doesn't give out that little tidbit of info. Wouldn't want to complicate things with all the facts, after all, the Democrats think we're too stupid to handle them. In reality, the voter ID law made it where you can get yet another freebie, you think that would make the the Dems happy, apparently they can't get over losing all those illegal votes. What are they afraid of? Could it be what just happened in the elections?


----------



## FatTire (Mar 20, 2012)

What voter fraud? Its statisticly irelevant! Either you agree we have rights or you dont. If you have to pay for it, its not a right. What im looking for from the repugnicants is just a little intellectual consistency. So youre for passing a tax burden to the wealthy when it comes to voting (free IDs) but ahainst it when its about healthcare? Do you wrongwingers have principles or not?


----------



## Tweto (Nov 26, 2011)

FatTire said:


> What voter fraud? Its statisticly irelevant! Either you agree we have rights or you dont. If you have to pay for it, its not a right. What im looking for from the repugnicants is just a little intellectual consistency. So youre for passing a tax burden to the wealthy when it comes to voting (free IDs) but ahainst it when its about healthcare? Do you wrongwingers have principles or not?


You don't know how much voter fraud there is. Without ID we will never now. O' wait that's what you want!


----------



## FatTire (Mar 20, 2012)

Thats what I want? Did you devine this reading chicken entrails, or perhaps did Jesus whisper it in your ear, late at night, just the two of you, wearing loose robes over a bottle of a nice fruity chardonay? 

What I want is for people to wake up and realize that voting is nothing more than consenting to be ruled by a system predicated on theft, rape, and murder. The first step in waking up is being intellectualy consistent.


----------



## oldvet (Jun 29, 2010)

FatTire said:


> Library books and cars and beer are not rights folks. Voting is. Why is it so hard for wrongwingers to be intellectually consistent?


If I am not entirely off base, I seem to recall that it has been established that voting is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right and is a privilege, that like any other privilege can be lost to you for just cause. So being required to show some form of ID to help prevent voter fraud is IMHO not a tax of any kind, just a common sense thing to do.

I have yet to understand why someone gets most upset when asked to prove their identity so they can vote, but has no problem showing their ID so they can borrow that "library book" or buy that "beer".


----------



## FatTire (Mar 20, 2012)

By that way of thinking, gun ownership is also a priveledge, not a right. 

I say we have a right to decide our own path in life (repugnicans, demotards and all other statist neanderthals call this 'voting') and we have the right to self defense.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

oldvet said:


> .....being required to show some form of ID to help prevent voter fraud is IMHO not a tax of any kind, just a common sense thing to do. I have yet to understand why someone gets most upset when asked to prove their identity so they can vote,


I don't get it either, Dan. 
You'd think liberals would be able to comprehend such a simple concept. Nope, they have to make it their personal agenda instead.


----------



## oldvet (Jun 29, 2010)

FatTire said:


> By that way of thinking, gun ownership is also a priveledge, not a right.
> 
> I say we have a right to decide our own path in life (repugnicans, demotards and all other statist neanderthals call this 'voting') and we have the right to self defense.


So if I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that you don't agree with the ability of the "people" to be able to vote and have some degree of control over their lives. So if that is true then it would seem that you might be happier under some type of feudal system, with some "ruler" enacting and enforcing the "law of the land" and giving the "people" what liberties that the "ruler" feels that they should have to keep them "fat, dumb, and happy". Kinda like OBAMMUNISM.


----------



## FatTire (Mar 20, 2012)

More devining from chicken entrails? 

No. I believe that i govern my life best, and i want you to govern your life, not submit to some father figure in the sky, or DC. 

Im sorry that you think i cant, and that you feel its your right to use the force of the state when your ideals fail to impress me.


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

It would seem that the easiest way to disprove voter fraud is with ID. If the ID is free then it cannot be construed as being a tax. That way you could prove those saying there is a lot of voter fraud were wrong. I thought you'd be crowing about that. Imagine the opportunity to prove the "other party" wrong about an issue and how good that would look in the lamestream media? So instead of whining about voter ID why not embrace it? Unless it might prove your position wrong?

With your argument it appears that the libtards have something to hide or be fearful of.

Again, with free ID there is no way even a liberal could say it was a poll tax.


----------



## FatTire (Mar 20, 2012)

So now your for using force to mandate payment of freebies you agree with? Again where are principled wrongwingers?


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

I'm just trying to make life easier for the huge masses of people who are too poor to afford to pay for their own identification bud. I'm sure there are millions of them out there who between the food stamps, welfare, ADC, WIC, free medical care, rent assistance, heat assistance, and all the other necessities of life that are being paid for by all of us "rich" people paying the taxes to support them, don't bear an undue hardship by being required to pay for an ID card so that they can vote. Heck man, what's one more freebie after all of that?!?!?!

I sure wouldn't want them to have to use their beer, cigarette and drug money for something as mundane as ID! 

But then if they had to prove who they were before voting maybe they wouldn't be able to elect the libtards who give them all these freebies! And that's the whole crux of the voter ID nonsense ... keeping the libtards in power. It's not a bad scam they have going, buy votes to get people dependent upon your party then ensure that they can keep that party in power by continued voter fraud.

I wouldn't consider stopping that scam a tax at all. I'd consider it a sound investment to financially benefit and provide better security for the nation as a whole! :congrat::2thumb:artydance::beercheer:


----------



## *Andi (Nov 8, 2009)

Play nice folks ...


----------



## oldvet (Jun 29, 2010)

FatTire said:


> More devining from chicken entrails?
> 
> No. I believe that i govern my life best, and i want you to govern your life, not submit to some father figure in the sky, or DC.
> 
> Im sorry that you think i cant, and that you feel its your right to use the force of the state when your ideals fail to impress me.


No devining on my part, I am simply responding to what you have said.

Personally I don't really care if you believe in voting or not, so I will be bowing out of this thread and avoiding any possible pissing contests.


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

*Andi said:


> Play nice folks ...


I've said enough. I'm finished with this discussion.


----------



## oldvet (Jun 29, 2010)

*Andi said:


> Play nice folks ...


OK, will do. :ignore:


----------



## *Andi (Nov 8, 2009)

Debate all you want... 

It is the political slang that I don't care for ... (and where we tend to get closed threads)


----------



## FatTire (Mar 20, 2012)

And oldvet its not my fault you have a reading comprehention problem, thank your public indoctrination for that.


----------



## oldvet (Jun 29, 2010)

*Andi said:


> Debate all you want...
> 
> It is the political slang that I don't care for ... (and where we tend to get closed threads)


Thanks but no thanks. I said I am done with this one and I am simply because I am not in the mood to get pulled into any long winded name calling pissing contests. :wave: So see ya.:wave:


----------



## *Andi (Nov 8, 2009)

Closed!!!

----------------------


----------

