"Memo to President Barack Obama: It's a tax. Obama insisted this
weekend on national television that requiring people to carry health
insurance — and fining them if they don't — isn't the same thing as a
tax increase. But the language of Democratic bills to revamp the
nation's health care system doesn't quibble. Both the House bill and
the Senate Finance Committee proposal clearly state that the fines
would be a tax."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090921/...tax_fact_check

This post is racist and I condemn it.

Not really. However I'm sure our annoying leftie pinheads will claim
it's racist.

It's the only thing they can say when faced with actual facts.

Since there's nothing about race in the article, I can only conclude by you
bringing it up that you are the likely racist.

Yes, it would be a tax, but no legislation is done, so we don't know what
they offsets would be or even if it'll pass in its current form.

Do you have auto-liabilty insurance? Here, you're required to have it. I
don't see why we can't figure out a way for everyone to have it and require
them to have it.

Oh, and anyone who cites Grover Norquist... well, never mind.

"Toots Sweet" wrote in message
...
"Memo to President Barack Obama: It's a tax. Obama insisted this
weekend on national television that requiring people to carry health
insurance — and fining them if they don't — isn't the same thing as a
tax increase. But the language of Democratic bills to revamp the
nation's health care system doesn't quibble. Both the House bill and
the Senate Finance Committee proposal clearly state that the fines
would be a tax."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090921/...tax_fact_check

This post is racist and I condemn it.

Not really. However I'm sure our annoying leftie pinheads will claim
it's racist.

It's the only thing they can say when faced with actual facts.



--
Nom=de=Plume

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Since there's nothing about race in the article, I can only conclude by you
bringing it up that you are the likely racist.

Yes, it would be a tax, but no legislation is done, so we don't know what
they offsets would be or even if it'll pass in its current form.

Do you have auto-liabilty insurance? Here, you're required to have it. I
don't see why we can't figure out a way for everyone to have it and require
them to have it.


You're assuming that the mandatory requirement of automotive liability
insurance is not itself odious (which it is). Too, the legislated
requirement of the wearing of seatbelts is equally odious, if not more
so. The citizenry has been conditioned by these things to accept
further government intrusion into our lives.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Since there's nothing about race in the article, I can only conclude by
you
bringing it up that you are the likely racist.

Yes, it would be a tax, but no legislation is done, so we don't know what
they offsets would be or even if it'll pass in its current form.

Do you have auto-liabilty insurance? Here, you're required to have it. I
don't see why we can't figure out a way for everyone to have it and
require
them to have it.


You're assuming that the mandatory requirement of automotive liability
insurance is not itself odious (which it is). Too, the legislated
requirement of the wearing of seatbelts is equally odious, if not more
so. The citizenry has been conditioned by these things to accept
further government intrusion into our lives.


Yeah, there's nothing like saving lives and lowering costs to promote
odiousness...

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Since there's nothing about race in the article, I can only conclude by
you
bringing it up that you are the likely racist.

Yes, it would be a tax, but no legislation is done, so we don't know what
they offsets would be or even if it'll pass in its current form.

Do you have auto-liabilty insurance? Here, you're required to have it. I
don't see why we can't figure out a way for everyone to have it and
require
them to have it.

You're assuming that the mandatory requirement of automotive liability
insurance is not itself odious (which it is). Too, the legislated
requirement of the wearing of seatbelts is equally odious, if not more
so. The citizenry has been conditioned by these things to accept
further government intrusion into our lives.


Yeah, there's nothing like saving lives and lowering costs to promote
odiousness...



Incredible. Apparently we have yet another "responsible rightie" who
wants to do away with responsibility.

Some dipstick penniless rightie like JustHate smashes into my car and
causes injuries...and how do I recover my losses if the he has no insurance?

D'oh.

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:06:40 -0400, H K
wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Since there's nothing about race in the article, I can only conclude by
you
bringing it up that you are the likely racist.

Yes, it would be a tax, but no legislation is done, so we don't know what
they offsets would be or even if it'll pass in its current form.

Do you have auto-liabilty insurance? Here, you're required to have it. I
don't see why we can't figure out a way for everyone to have it and
require
them to have it.

You're assuming that the mandatory requirement of automotive liability
insurance is not itself odious (which it is). Too, the legislated
requirement of the wearing of seatbelts is equally odious, if not more
so. The citizenry has been conditioned by these things to accept
further government intrusion into our lives.


Yeah, there's nothing like saving lives and lowering costs to promote
odiousness...



Incredible. Apparently we have yet another "responsible rightie" who
wants to do away with responsibility.

Some dipstick penniless rightie like JustHate smashes into my car and
causes injuries...and how do I recover my losses if the he has no insurance?


Don't drive.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:57:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Since there's nothing about race in the article, I can only conclude by
you
bringing it up that you are the likely racist.

Yes, it would be a tax, but no legislation is done, so we don't know what
they offsets would be or even if it'll pass in its current form.

Do you have auto-liabilty insurance? Here, you're required to have it. I
don't see why we can't figure out a way for everyone to have it and
require
them to have it.


You're assuming that the mandatory requirement of automotive liability
insurance is not itself odious (which it is). Too, the legislated
requirement of the wearing of seatbelts is equally odious, if not more
so. The citizenry has been conditioned by these things to accept
further government intrusion into our lives.


Yeah, there's nothing like saving lives and lowering costs to promote
odiousness...

And you're unable to manage your own personal responsibility without
having government managing that for you?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:06:40 -0400, H K
wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Since there's nothing about race in the article, I can only conclude by
you
bringing it up that you are the likely racist.

Yes, it would be a tax, but no legislation is done, so we don't know what
they offsets would be or even if it'll pass in its current form.

Do you have auto-liabilty insurance? Here, you're required to have it. I
don't see why we can't figure out a way for everyone to have it and
require
them to have it.

You're assuming that the mandatory requirement of automotive liability
insurance is not itself odious (which it is). Too, the legislated
requirement of the wearing of seatbelts is equally odious, if not more
so. The citizenry has been conditioned by these things to accept
further government intrusion into our lives.


Yeah, there's nothing like saving lives and lowering costs to promote
odiousness...



Incredible. Apparently we have yet another "responsible rightie" who
wants to do away with responsibility.

Some dipstick penniless rightie like JustHate smashes into my car and
causes injuries...and how do I recover my losses if the he has no insurance?

You don't want that penniless driver on the road by reason of his
poverty? I don't want you on the road for being an inconvience for
the impoverished driver.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Since there's nothing about race in the article, I can only conclude by
you
bringing it up that you are the likely racist.

Yes, it would be a tax, but no legislation is done, so we don't know what
they offsets would be or even if it'll pass in its current form.

Do you have auto-liabilty insurance? Here, you're required to have it. I
don't see why we can't figure out a way for everyone to have it and
require
them to have it.


You're assuming that the mandatory requirement of automotive liability
insurance is not itself odious (which it is). Too, the legislated
requirement of the wearing of seatbelts is equally odious, if not more
so. The citizenry has been conditioned by these things to accept
further government intrusion into our lives.

--

What's the problem?
Some people just have to be made to do things for their own best interests.
eg seatbelts and motorcycle helmets.

"H K" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Since there's nothing about race in the article, I can only conclude by
you
bringing it up that you are the likely racist.

Yes, it would be a tax, but no legislation is done, so we don't know
what
they offsets would be or even if it'll pass in its current form.

Do you have auto-liabilty insurance? Here, you're required to have it.
I
don't see why we can't figure out a way for everyone to have it and
require
them to have it.

You're assuming that the mandatory requirement of automotive liability
insurance is not itself odious (which it is). Too, the legislated
requirement of the wearing of seatbelts is equally odious, if not more
so. The citizenry has been conditioned by these things to accept
further government intrusion into our lives.


Yeah, there's nothing like saving lives and lowering costs to promote
odiousness...



Incredible. Apparently we have yet another "responsible rightie" who wants
to do away with responsibility.

Some dipstick penniless rightie like JustHate smashes into my car and
causes injuries...and how do I recover my losses if the he has no
insurance?

D'oh.

You have to take his motorbikes and whatever else you could confiscate.