(07-05-2014 05:29 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 04:12 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 03:06 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 02:41 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 09:28 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  You need others to help you get through the winter. I don't.

I am the ant. You are the grasshopper.
Ask Aesop if you don't have a clue what I mean.

You must not see all the ways you get help making it through the winter. If you fall down the mountain and break your arm and Grizzly Adams happens by and sets the arm, cooks up some bear meat, brings in and keeps the fire going while you mend you make it. If he is setting traps 20 miles away when you fall you freeze to death in your cabin. The illusion of the self sufficient hero is a myth. It rarely existed in the frontier 200 years ago, it does not exist at all today.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

So the analogy now is Grizzly Adams providing me rescue services?

What happened to the free firewood analogy?
You must've realized that your first analogy about getting free firewood was an example of socialism so you've switched the narrative but I'll play along...

If Grizzly Adams rescues me out of his own charity, that's great and kind of him. It is his free will and choice to do so or not do so. If he doesn't and I die so be it.

However, Grizzly Adams should not be forced by the government to provide me rescue services.

You are just not following. There wasn't ever any free firewood in the analogy. In the frontier you didn't survive without cutting enough wood to make it through the winter. If you couldn't keep up you died. On the frontier people were very self-reliant though not totally so. We aren't on the frontier. That was the point of the analogy. Sorry that you didn't follow. Grizzly Adams is an analogy to illustrate that even on the frontier you had to help one another, or you died. Again sorry if you didn't follow. I hope this helps you out.

We are interwoven into a society of people who provide goods and services and pay each other the value of what they need/want. We do rely on things created by others. Your survival skills in the modern world are predicated on your preparing yourself to be a contributor who provides something of value in return for a wage or payment.

In my world, everyone pays or works for what they want and/or use and pays taxes for basic services that the government provides including emergency services, roads, public education, etc.

In your world, everyone gets no more than a fair share decided by some governing body (the ACA for example) and they pay taxes for the government to provide more than just basic services, with the government forcing some to pay a large percentage of their earnings in taxes if they are deemed wealthy and some to pay nothing, taking from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Owl got very upset with me attempting to contrast our two views. It seems you are attempting to do the same thing.

(07-05-2014 06:24 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Owl got very upset with me attempting to contrast our two views.

No, total BS.

You did not attempt to contrast our two views.

You attempted to contrast your views with views that you incorrectly attributed to me. And you admitted that you did not know what my views were.

Total lie.

(07-05-2014 06:14 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  It was based on your previous posts on this thread, not your posts over time. You are really nit picking.

Well, it couldn't have been based on my previous posts on this thread, because those posts aren't consistent with your interpretation. If you thought any of my posts, on this thread or elsewhere, supported the position you mischaracterized, then I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you simply didn't understand.

Typical lefty. Make a false accusation or characterization, and then when called on it, claim it's no big deal.

(07-05-2014 06:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 06:24 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Owl got very upset with me attempting to contrast our two views.

No, total BS.

You did not attempt to contrast our two views.

You attempted to contrast your views with views that you incorrectly attributed to me. And you admitted that you did not know what my views were.

Total lie.

(07-05-2014 07:00 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 06:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 06:24 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Owl got very upset with me attempting to contrast our two views.

No, total BS.
You did not attempt to contrast our two views.
You attempted to contrast your views with views that you incorrectly attributed to me. And you admitted that you did not know what my views were.
Total lie.

If you're willing to agree that what you did was to contrast your views with views that you incorrectly attributed to me, then I'm okay with that.

(07-05-2014 06:18 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 05:22 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 03:00 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I'm just bothered more by the wealthy not putting up there fair share

Define fair share.

How in the world can you justify taking from a person something that he worked for, earned, or otherwise owns and give it to a person who had nothing to do with it? If I did that I'd be charged with robbery.

You want fair? How about Welfare queens and homeless people clean parks and highways in an effort to earn their free handouts?

So you oppose taxation?

I oppose wasteful and unfair taxation. I oppose taxation whose only purpose is to give someone freebies at my expense. I oppose my taxes being used to benefit the political ambitions of politicians like Obama.

(07-05-2014 06:24 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 05:29 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 04:12 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 03:06 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 02:41 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  You must not see all the ways you get help making it through the winter. If you fall down the mountain and break your arm and Grizzly Adams happens by and sets the arm, cooks up some bear meat, brings in and keeps the fire going while you mend you make it. If he is setting traps 20 miles away when you fall you freeze to death in your cabin. The illusion of the self sufficient hero is a myth. It rarely existed in the frontier 200 years ago, it does not exist at all today.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

So the analogy now is Grizzly Adams providing me rescue services?

What happened to the free firewood analogy?
You must've realized that your first analogy about getting free firewood was an example of socialism so you've switched the narrative but I'll play along...

If Grizzly Adams rescues me out of his own charity, that's great and kind of him. It is his free will and choice to do so or not do so. If he doesn't and I die so be it.

However, Grizzly Adams should not be forced by the government to provide me rescue services.

You are just not following. There wasn't ever any free firewood in the analogy. In the frontier you didn't survive without cutting enough wood to make it through the winter. If you couldn't keep up you died. On the frontier people were very self-reliant though not totally so. We aren't on the frontier. That was the point of the analogy. Sorry that you didn't follow. Grizzly Adams is an analogy to illustrate that even on the frontier you had to help one another, or you died. Again sorry if you didn't follow. I hope this helps you out.

We are interwoven into a society of people who provide goods and services and pay each other the value of what they need/want. We do rely on things created by others. Your survival skills in the modern world are predicated on your preparing yourself to be a contributor who provides something of value in return for a wage or payment.

In my world, everyone pays or works for what they want and/or use and pays taxes for basic services that the government provides including emergency services, roads, public education, etc.

In your world, everyone gets no more than a fair share decided by some governing body (the ACA for example) and they pay taxes for the government to provide more than just basic services, with the government forcing some to pay a large percentage of their earnings in taxes if they are deemed wealthy and some to pay nothing, taking from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Owl got very upset with me attempting to contrast our two views. It seems you are attempting to do the same thing.

I'm not Owl. He's not me nor does he think or write for me.
He does seem like a thoughtful poster though.
I don't think there is anything wrong with contrasting world views that is the basis for debate.
As you didn't argue that what I wrote was incorrect with regard to your world view, I'll take from that that you pretty much agree with it.

(07-05-2014 07:14 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 06:18 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 05:22 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 03:00 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I'm just bothered more by the wealthy not putting up there fair share

Define fair share.

How in the world can you justify taking from a person something that he worked for, earned, or otherwise owns and give it to a person who had nothing to do with it? If I did that I'd be charged with robbery.

You want fair? How about Welfare queens and homeless people clean parks and highways in an effort to earn their free handouts?

So you oppose taxation?

I oppose wasteful and unfair taxation. I oppose taxation whose only purpose is to give someone freebies at my expense. I oppose my taxes being used to benefit the political ambitions of politicians like Obama.

Yep. Taxes should be to cover those basic services that we as a society require: infrastructure, public safety, public education, maybe even a short term safety net. They should certainly not providing a long term way of life for those who have made irresponsible decisions.

(07-05-2014 08:19 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 06:24 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 05:29 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 04:12 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 03:06 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  So the analogy now is Grizzly Adams providing me rescue services?

What happened to the free firewood analogy?
You must've realized that your first analogy about getting free firewood was an example of socialism so you've switched the narrative but I'll play along...

If Grizzly Adams rescues me out of his own charity, that's great and kind of him. It is his free will and choice to do so or not do so. If he doesn't and I die so be it.

However, Grizzly Adams should not be forced by the government to provide me rescue services.

You are just not following. There wasn't ever any free firewood in the analogy. In the frontier you didn't survive without cutting enough wood to make it through the winter. If you couldn't keep up you died. On the frontier people were very self-reliant though not totally so. We aren't on the frontier. That was the point of the analogy. Sorry that you didn't follow. Grizzly Adams is an analogy to illustrate that even on the frontier you had to help one another, or you died. Again sorry if you didn't follow. I hope this helps you out.

We are interwoven into a society of people who provide goods and services and pay each other the value of what they need/want. We do rely on things created by others. Your survival skills in the modern world are predicated on your preparing yourself to be a contributor who provides something of value in return for a wage or payment.

In my world, everyone pays or works for what they want and/or use and pays taxes for basic services that the government provides including emergency services, roads, public education, etc.

In your world, everyone gets no more than a fair share decided by some governing body (the ACA for example) and they pay taxes for the government to provide more than just basic services, with the government forcing some to pay a large percentage of their earnings in taxes if they are deemed wealthy and some to pay nothing, taking from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Owl got very upset with me attempting to contrast our two views. It seems you are attempting to do the same thing.

I'm not Owl. He's not me nor does he think or write for me.
He does seem like a thoughtful poster though.
I don't think there is anything wrong with contrasting world views that is the basis for debate.
As you didn't argue that what I wrote was incorrect with regard to your world view, I'll take from that that you pretty much agree with it.

If you did you would be wrong.

(07-05-2014 07:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 07:00 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 06:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 06:24 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Owl got very upset with me attempting to contrast our two views.

No, total BS.
You did not attempt to contrast our two views.
You attempted to contrast your views with views that you incorrectly attributed to me. And you admitted that you did not know what my views were.
Total lie.

If you're willing to agree that what you did was to contrast your views with views that you incorrectly attributed to me, then I'm okay with that.

I made some incorrect assumptions about your position.

(07-05-2014 08:37 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I made some incorrect assumptions about your position.

But you did more than just make incorrect assumptions, didn't you? You went beyond making those assumptions and posted incorrect attacks on my character based upon those incorrect assumptions. Or do you not see calling someone greedy, immoral, uncaring, and unethical as an attack on character? That's one problem (of many) with leftists--they have to attack the character of anyone who opposes them, because they know they can't win the debate based on ideas.

(07-05-2014 08:34 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  If you did you would be wrong.

How so? I don't think either mptnstr or I want to make the same mistake you did by mischaracterizing your position. But I have to say, based upon your posts here and in other places, her/his characterization seems accurate to me. So perhaps you could differentiate your position from what mptnstr stated in order that we can all understand where you are coming from.

mptnstr is a lady.

(07-06-2014 08:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 08:37 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I made some incorrect assumptions about your position.

But you did more than just make incorrect assumptions, didn't you? You went beyond making those assumptions and posted incorrect attacks on my character based upon those incorrect assumptions. Or do you not see calling someone greedy, immoral, uncaring, and unethical as an attack on character? That's one problem (of many) with leftists--they have to attack the character of anyone who opposes them, because they know they can't win the debate based on ideas.

(07-05-2014 08:34 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  If you did you would be wrong.

How so? I don't think either mptnstr or I want to make the same mistake you did by mischaracterizing your position. But I have to say, based upon your posts here and in other places, her/his characterization seems accurate to me. So perhaps you could differentiate your position from what mptnstr stated in order that we can all understand where you are coming from.

I've never attacked your character. That is BS. I never called you greedy, uncaring, immoral or unethical. Evidently you are the one that can't recall who said what on here in the past. You also imply that I am a "leftist" which is an incorrect assumption on your part. There is also a gross generalization there about those you term "leftists". You seem to want to hold others to a higher standard then you seem inclined to follow. I've gone out of my way to make things right with you but you can't seem to accept it and instead want to add fuel to the fire. I don't appreciate mischaracterizing my thoughts, positions or ideas any more than you do, so to move forward you need to straighten that out.

So, let me get this straight,

(07-05-2014 03:00 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  You on the other hand seem more bothered that someone with less than you is getting something and don't care that those with more resources than you claim that they left their wallet at home while you pick up the check. We just see the world differently.

isn't attacking character but my describing your political views as "leftist" is? If you are offended by the term "leftist," I'm sorry but I think the alternative "liberal" is misleading because modern left wing "liberals" are very different from classical liberals.

If you don't want to be called "leftist," perhaps you could give some areas where your views are not leftist.

I get called right wing by the lefties and left wing by the righties because I have a mix. I have right of center views on some issues and left of center views on others. Do you? Where do you see yourself as left of center and where do you see yourself as right of center? I think I'm probably more utilitarian than anything else, and both left and right are full of ideas that have no chance of working.

(07-06-2014 11:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So, let me get this straight,

(07-05-2014 03:00 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  You on the other hand seem more bothered that someone with less than you is getting something and don't care that those with more resources than you claim that they left their wallet at home while you pick up the check. We just see the world differently.

isn't attacking character but my describing your political views as "leftist" is? If you are offended by the term "leftist," I'm sorry but I think the alternative "liberal" is misleading because modern left wing "liberals" are very different from classical liberals.

If you don't want to be called "leftist," perhaps you could give some areas where your views are not leftist.

I get called right wing by the lefties and left wing by the righties because I have a mix. I have right of center views on some issues and left of center views on others. Do you? Where do you see yourself as left of center and where do you see yourself as right of center? I think I'm probably more utilitarian than anything else, and both left and right are full of ideas that have no chance of working.

So let me get this straight,

Saying "you on the other hand seem more bothered that" and "don't care that" is not calling you greedy, uncaring, unethical etc. etc. I never said those things! You are lying about what I posted plain and simple. Unbelievable.

(07-03-2014 12:58 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Decision should be coming up soon on the subsidies and are they legal?

Quote:In a nutshell, there’s a line buried deep in the statutory text that says federal subsidies for insurance premiums will be available to anyone who buys a plan on “an Exchange established by the State.” Question: Does Healthcare.gov, the exchange built by the federal government after 34 states refused to build their own exchanges, qualify as an “Exchange established by the State”? Or do only state exchanges qualify? If it’s the latter, then millions upon millions of people who’ve signed up for O-Care through Healthcare.gov since October in the expectation that Uncle Sam will be paying part of their bill are in for a nasty surprise.

The three judge court is divided, but right now it's not looking good for the subsidy clause:

Quote:Randolph, a George H.W. Bush appointee, said the text of the statute “seems perfectly clear on its face” that the subsidies are confined to state-run exchanges. Carter-appointed Judge Harry T. Edwards slammed the challengers’ claims as “preposterous.” So the deciding vote appears to be with George W. Bush-appointed Judge Thomas B. Griffith, who wasn’t resolute but sounded unconvinced of the Obama administration’s defense, saying it had a “special burden” to show that the language “doesn’t mean what it appears to mean.”

Allahpundit adds a few notes in there: Such as a likely stay on their decision (whichever way it goes) until the Supreme Court decides to hear/not hear the case.

And then comes the political football:

Republicans give in on the subsidies... at which point the Republican voters just come out and admit... Republicans = Democrats in a different coloured suit.

Republicans refuse to reinstate the subsidies (good for the conservative base), but the Democrats will go off on a "war against the sick" and the "takers" try to go after the Republicans at the voting booth in the midterms.

Or Republicans stand their ground.. Obama tries to EO his way around it (on or around the midterms?).. and then ALL hell breaks loose in Washington D.C.


That's not counting the other 4 lawsuits in the pipelines already. - Note #6 was already decided by the Supreme Court just yesterday...

But you gotta read all of AP's post to see a bit of the ins-and-outs on both sides of the argument.

I'm pretty sure he isn't going to get re elected.

(07-06-2014 11:57 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  So let me get this straight,
Saying "you on the other hand seem more bothered that" and "don't care that" is not calling you greedy, uncaring, unethical etc. etc. I never said those things! You are lying about what I posted plain and simple. Unbelievable.

OK, English words don't have the same meanings to you as they do to me.

Sorry about the misunderstanding. You're usually a reasonable, if left-leaning, poster, so let's just move past this and have future reasonable discussions.

Yawnnnn. Who's on first...

(07-06-2014 01:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 11:57 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  So let me get this straight,
Saying "you on the other hand seem more bothered that" and "don't care that" is not calling you greedy, uncaring, unethical etc. etc. I never said those things! You are lying about what I posted plain and simple. Unbelievable.

OK, English words don't have the same meanings to you as they do to me.

Sorry about the misunderstanding. You're usually a reasonable, if left-leaning, poster, so let's just move past this and have future reasonable discussions.

So why did you have to throw that in there? I'm always reasonable. I'll see you it the next interesting thread, or this one when we finally get a ruling from the SCOTUS.

Obamacare was only about the first campaign goodie for re-election. The whole cluster was put together with no give-a-sh!t about consequences in order to ram it through Congress ("pass it and then see what's in it") before the next elections.