Lawnman's Waterfall
Healthcare reform that seeks to trample upon both liberty and freedom is the antithesis of the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
HR 3962
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/
Subpart A--Individual Responsibility
SEC. 501. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
(a) In General- Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new part:
`PART VIII--HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES
`subpart a. tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
`Subpart A--Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage
`Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
`SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
`(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of--
`(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
`(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
`(b) Limitations-
`(1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the applicable national average premium for such taxable year.
`(B) APPLICABLE NATIONAL AVERAGE PREMIUM-
`(i) IN GENERAL- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the `applicable national average premium' means, with respect to any taxable year, the average premium (as determined by the Secretary, in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner) for self-only coverage under a basic plan which is offered in a Health Insurance Exchange for the calendar year in which such taxable year begins.
`(ii) FAILURE TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL- In the case of any taxpayer who fails to meet the requirements of subsection (d) with respect to more than one individual during the taxable year, clause (i) shall be applied by substituting `family coverage' for `self-only coverage'.
BLAH,BLAH,BLAH
Sorry for the long-winded citation.
Also read the JCT letter:
http://
(Note the date stamp)
I think it is fair to allow you an opportunity to evaluate the evidence I presented.
If those documents do not support my inference of the violation of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then we’ll debate my assertions.
Do you know at what time of day the polls were executed?
The source fails to provide that data. I mean if they were contacting welfare recipients and the un-employed during daytime working hours I could argue the poll is biased.
Polls have very little importance to me, when any.
As an American I am nauseated, and not a little, about the typical Americans’ sentiment of US holiness. And I find it quite extraordinary that an Englishman has a better sense of discernment about the US than most citizens of the US.
America is wrongly held up as a beacon of hope and liberty and something to strive for for developing nations, and that annoys the crap out of me. It annoys me that what is considered the most powerful and free country in the world..
And yes, it annoys me that citizens of a country that continually talks about freedom and liberty can't be bothered to give a few dollars out of their pay packet (though, they would be paying less, but we'll ignore that for now and assume that it would cost you a bit extra) to ensure that everyone, rich or poor, can get healthcare treatment when they need it.
Healthcare reform that seeks to trample upon both liberty and freedom is the antithesis of the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If group A decides that its happiness is Sample B of Healthcare reform, they have no right whatsoever to use their rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to trample everyone else’s right of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to not consent to sample B of Healthcare reform. Or stated another way, no man has the liberty and freedom to trample another man’s liberty, freedom, and pursuit of happiness. Ergo, that is why the proposed legislation of Healthcare reform is so hotly debated in the US.
The people of United States of America should never seek to impinge another man’s rights of life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, by imposing their will upon their fellow man for the sake of legislated compassion. And any people who take upon themselves this god-like mandate of legislating ‘loving thy neighbor’ better take in to account that their version of altruism may be the pinnacle of tyranny.
My solution to the healthcare issues that plague the US:
Eliminate health insurance! It’s simple and subtle, but far reaching.
I’ll explain in greater detail if you so request.
The article refers to 'climate change'.
The global warming fallacy is nothing more nor less than a whole lot of hot air.
When the climate of the Earth is in a cooling phase, it is man- made when it is too cool. When the climate of the Earth is in a heating phase, it is man-made when it is too warm.
Climate Change means this: I will be taxed when the climate is cooling. I will also be taxed when the climate is warming.
Now that my friend is WHY politicians no longer use the term Global Warming, and instead prefer Climate Change.
(Oh my government, we are all gonna die if we don't stop climate change!!! Help us we pray thee! In the name of the legislative, the executive and the judicial ---AMEN)
The object of the question is Global Warming, not climate change. (Your rebuttal is falacious)
Sex education and Evolution are not related to global warming.
(Red-herring fallacies)
I find it funny that you have 4 up-votes and you didn't even begin an attempt to make a case for your view! If Gore is a busy man why do you fail to prove that point?
CD is going the way of CB. B=BS
Wow!
So, Ted Kennedy is one of the main reasons why $7.25 worth of purchasing power is less than $3.35 of purchasing power?
Ted K. is also one of the reasons why we were paid $3.35 per hour instead of $10.50 an hour. Again, T. Kennedy is one of the main reasons some are paid $7.25 per hour instead of $15.50 an hour.
Your argument of wages only demonstrates T. Kennedy's main role in impoverishing minimum wage earners. Yea, you failed to realize the economic realities of subsistent wages of which T. Kennedy is a main reason.
BTW, you refer to him as a champion!
Forget the "I taught logic" bs!
Although, you can assert that you taught BS for $7.25.
I'm baffled at how a sentence that barely contained two propositions could in anyway be logically inconsistent
Consider the contrary sentence:
I’m convinced at how a sentence that barely contained two propositions is logically consistent. ( I think you see the problem)
However, in this instance, you are baffled that the quantity of the propositions contained within a sentence does not determine the quality of the sentence. Quality is not inferred from the quantity of propositions contained within your sentence.
Moreover, there are many sentences that are fallacious. Here are a few examples of grammatically correct sentences that fail to meet logical standards:
The local bookstore sells all classes of books. (What does a bookstore sell? Books! Not classes of books)
I cannot argue. (No man can arrive at this conclusion without arguing within himself)
“The money belongs to the people, and I think we should give some of it back to the people.” -G.W. Bush on tax cuts (circa 2002)
I will forego listing countless other examples that demonstrate illogical sentences.
Now, before I continue my analysis of your post, are you willing to concede that some sentences, regardless of the number of propositions, are fallacies of self-refutation or inconsistency? If so, I will continue my analysis of your post.
There will not be any productive dialog betwixt us for one simple reason: Exploring unfamiliar ways of thinking simply means to consider new ideas with the necessity of an open mind -- because we can't judge a priori the validity of a dialectic, belief or piece of evidence without first giving it a fair trial.
I will give you one opportunity to revise your answer. And if your answer still fails to demonstrate sound reasoning I will in-turn demonstrate your failure to reason. And until you can prove to me that you are reasonable I will not waste any additional time in reply to your babble.
I've personally studied logic in school and in my spare time by reading Russel, Popper and just basic logic primers. I also am a big fan of Skeptic Magazine and debunking, both of which demand a keen understanding of fallacy.
That is certainly no argument from which I would infer you have satisfactorily learned logic. Reading, studying, and being a big fan of any subject, are not the equivalent of knowing any given subject, competently.
On the contrary, it is your replies that seem to me to be fallacious. From false dichotomies to unsupported inferences,
Which is it, either my replies are fallacious or they are not fallacious? Are you using the word seem to suggest your uncertainty of the qualities of my replies?
you worsen your hypocrisy by being incredibly condescending and dismissive.
A hypocrite,yes, incredibly condescending and dismissive,yes, knowingly both,yes I am. Now, the hypocrite part of my behavior is true of all of us, but the condescension and dismissiveness of my replies is always a reciprocation of the same by my opponents, although I may at times be more assertive in that regards.
I'll gladly accept any challenge you off me and without the highfalutin patronage -- on the one condition that you are actually open to expanding your knowledge and exploring unfamiliar ways of thinking. If you aren't then it will only me an exercise in pretense.
TU QUOQUE
This is your first challenge: How can one explore unfamiliar ways of thinking? Please explain.
You rejected my challenge and then proceeded to rely upon even more fallacies. I suspect that you are ignorant of much concerning deductive and inductive reason as well as the possible fallacies that occur in discourse. And as a consequence of that ignorance you will fail to recognize both valid and invalid inferences. These facts disqualify you from engaging in what you refer to as an intelligent conversation. Ergo, you are guilty of that which you accuse me, ie your own incredulity (unbelief) of evolution is further evidence of your ignorance on the subject.
You think I am incorrect, I know. I certainly won’t contradict myself in thinking otherwise concerning your ability to validly reason.
However, there is another possibility that I can’t eliminate. The possibility is that you are capable of logical discourse, but prefer to be deceitful and dishonest.
I did not down-vote your post.
Does the faq explain this:
(pasted from my argument)
Disputed -92 points
The faq you referred to does not explain why one up-vote actually equals two up-votes, one for each side!
Agreed, points are meaningless, i.e. to you and I, my contention reaches beyond our petty figures!
Oh, and for the record, one vote that equals two votes is fraud and is not democratic.
The facts and not the faqs are my metric of honesty.
10mins 31secs ago | Tagged As: I've always thought that
The faq you referred to does not explain why one up-vote actually equals two up-votes, one for each side!
Agreed, points are meaningless, i.e. to you and I, my contention reaches beyond our petty figures!
Oh, and for the record, one vote that equals two votes is fraud and is not democratic.
The facts and not the faqs are my metric of honesty.
Your statement is hands down the most arrogant and ignorant statement I've read or heard in my lifetime.
So, which is it, you are that intelligent or you are that moronic.
If I have misread your reply as being hostile please accept my sincere apology.
This process has been observed over shorter time periods by scientists in both controlled experiments and nature, and observed over much longer periods of time in the fossil record.
All of these finds have been validated by the fact that we now have the ability to sequence DNA, proving (beyond any reasonable doubt) the fact that evolution is the absolute best explanation for the evidence, and, despite over 100 years of study, has not been shown to be invalid in even one instance.
So now I would like to ask you a question. How do you account for the evidence (fossils, DNA, morphology, embryology, observed instances of evolution etc...)? It sounds like you either don't understand the evidence, don't understand the theory or (most likely) both.
Those five sentences contain no less than five fallacies in reasoning. If you can correctly identify two of them I will give an account of my understanding of what you are calling evidence.
By the way, the first parts of your reply are intellectually superior compared to your last BS.
Personally, I don’t care what you or any other person thinks about any given subject, what I care to address is the irrationality of believing the incredible.
I hope you accept the challenge!
I care not for points! But, it is self-evidently true that someone or someones other than ourselves does care about points!
Integrity of a debating format is of greater importance. In fact we no longer can presume that CD is about debating, but rather justification of the un-justifiable.
Pardon my anger!
I up-voted all of your arguments and guess what? Lo and behold, my up-vote added points to the opposing side! What the fuck is goin on? The over-all tally is accruing up-votes on both sides of the argument when your side is up-voted. But, the up-votes are added only to your opponents when your opponents are up-voted! This bullshit has been going on for a long time and I'm now pissed!!! What a fucking joke!!! I hope you take the time to confirm the facts.
