07-15-2014 12:26 PM
1,900 ... 5657585960 ...
tools
  1. _Zguy__'s Avatar
    To deny that there are horror stories is just ignorant, out of millions of people you will always find a few that are in the prefect position that they get completely destroyed by changes in the law no matter how small it is. Take a huge law like Obamacare and i am sure there are thousands of horror stories out there that are legitimate.
    toober likes this.
    03-16-2014 02:06 PM
  2. NoYankees44's Avatar
    That is definitely a new scenario to me. I thought that they were setting minimum standards, not upper and lower caps. That's kinda crazy.
    Lol I am surprised you have not heard of that. Every story I have heard personally(not through media) minus one or two have been people's plans getting changed because they are too good in some way and either changing their plan entirely or forcing much higher premiums for same coverage.



    The part that irritates me about the whole law is the supporters not willing to acknowledge that there is significant heartache with the changes. If they actually attacked the issues that the laws create head on and showed something other than contempt for those that are hurting because of the changes, I would be much more likely to respect their opinion.

    You change a market this much, and there is going to be heartache. Period. This heartache needs to be handled and mitigated as much as possible, but most of all it needs to be acknowledged. Citizens will be much more understanding if they are at least met with understanding. Right now all they are met with is contempt. At least from the highest level. Heck, it took wild outcry for the administration to admit there was "glitches" in the website that basically didn't work at all in the beginning.
    toober likes this.
    03-16-2014 03:23 PM
  3. toober's Avatar
    To deny that there are horror stories is just ignorant, out of millions of people you will always find a few that are in the prefect position that they get completely destroyed by changes in the law no matter how small it is. Take a huge law like Obamacare and i am sure there are thousands of horror stories out there that are legitimate.
    One of the major problems is that we passed this law based off of the stories and anecdotes we were hearing. We saw the old lady wearing her sister's false teeth and thought "OMG, this can't happen here". We were told that millions of Americans didn't have coverage. We were told about how the evil insurance companies were just raking in piles of money and didn't care about anything but profits. What we were not told was that the millions of people represented only a tiny percentage of the population and included illegal immigrants. So now, to help less than 10% of the population, we have overhauled an entire industry and screwed over countless millions.
    03-16-2014 04:33 PM
  4. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    This is merely an extension of the nature of Modern America: we would rather have problems to complain about which we can then blame "the other side for" and perpetuate the divisionism and polarization of the population, than actually do anything to solve those problems.
    03-18-2014 02:46 PM
  5. Live2ride883's Avatar
    If Mrs. Learner was indeed telling the truth when she stated she had done nothing wrong, (which IMO she surrendered her 5th amendment rights with that statement). Then why does she need to plead the 5th unless she is either a) lying in the initial statement, or b) protecting someone.

    Response:
    03-18-2014 10:58 PM
  6. Aquila's Avatar
    If Mrs. Learner was indeed telling the truth when she stated she had done nothing wrong, (which IMO she surrendered her 5th amendment rights with that statement). Then why does she need to plead the 5th unless she is either a) lying in the initial statement, or b) protecting someone.

    Response:
    Explanation for witness rights versus accused persons was given previously, but long story short, witnesses can use it selectively. I agree it'd be more convenient to get the whole truth and nothing but, however I'm having a hard time understanding why so many Americans want to suspend her constitutional rights while reserving others selectively. Either rights are valid and apply or they're all privileges to be handed out and rescinded at the whim of.... whom?

    XTNiT-1060 through spacetime.
    A895, jdbii, palandri and 1 others like this.
    03-19-2014 08:31 AM
  7. Timelessblur's Avatar
    If Mrs. Learner was indeed telling the truth when she stated she had done nothing wrong, (which IMO she surrendered her 5th amendment rights with that statement). Then why does she need to plead the 5th unless she is either a) lying in the initial statement, or b) protecting someone.

    Response:
    Address multiple times over.

    1. Lawyer says to take it.
    2. She knows the GOP does not care about the truth or who they ruin if it means they can more power.
    3. She is innocent until proven guilty.

    You are going with the she is guilty until proven otherwise. By your logic it is if you have done nothing wrong why should you care if you are spied on.
    03-19-2014 07:00 PM
  8. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I'm by no means one that thinks "if you've nothing to hide, why worry," but the question of if she should (still) be afforded her 5th amendment rights on the issue is what I was getting at earlier. I double checked, and she was under oath and testifying when she professed her innocence before trying to invoke the 5th. To paraphrase the congressman that challenged it, one can't give their side of the story and then avoid further questioning as part of an investigation. Personally, that's how I interpreted the law too. Had she pled the 5th first and kept her mouth shut on her side of the story, then there wouldn't be the controversy.

    I haven't found, but was there a court finding on if she waived her rights by testifying first? I know there was a congressional resolution, but those don't really mean much.
    03-19-2014 07:43 PM
  9. Aquila's Avatar
    I'm by no means one that thinks "if you've nothing to hide, why worry," but the question of if she should (still) be afforded her 5th amendment rights on the issue is what I was getting at earlier. I double checked, and she was under oath and testifying when she professed her innocence before trying to invoke the 5th. To paraphrase the congressman that challenged it, one can't give their side of the story and then avoid further questioning as part of an investigation. Personally, that's how I interpreted the law too. Had she pled the 5th first and kept her mouth shut on her side of the story, then there wouldn't be the controversy.

    I haven't found, but was there a court finding on if she waived her rights by testifying first? I know there was a congressional resolution, but those don't really mean much.
    Right, that's the part I've been addressing. If you are a witness (ie not a defendant in a criminal case), you can choose which questions you want to utilize your 5th Amendment right on a per question basis and choose to waive it for any single question or group of questions or all questions, etc. A criminal defendant suspends their right in any specific investigation by testifying to any question/statement. As a witness, you are perfectly within your rights to answer only the questions you want to, make any statements you want to and decline all other questions. Otherwise, it'd be pointless to ask any questions at all once a witness invoked the 5th.
    03-19-2014 07:58 PM
  10. Mooncatt's Avatar
    But with her being the proverbial head of the snake in this whole deal, isn't she the defendant? If not, then who?
    03-19-2014 08:19 PM
  11. Aquila's Avatar
    But with her being the proverbial head of the snake in this whole deal, isn't she the defendant? If not, then who?
    As far as I know there are no criminal charges (yet) and this is essentially a fact-finding set of hearings where the findings can be used in the prosecution of anyone found to have broken the law. That's what is most fundamentally wrong with the witch hunt: they're not trying to find out what, if anything, was wrong and prevent future offenses (rather, they declined to put in preventative policies as recommended to them), but instead are opting to try to find someone to throw under the proverbial bus. It still qualifies as testimony, but so far it's without any focus and in an actual criminal trial, this would essentially be called, "fishing". Utilizing the 5th in testimony to congressional committees is extremely common and is not in any way construed as being an admission of wrong-doing. It's usually viewed as not supplying ammunition to be twisted for political gain.
    A895 likes this.
    03-19-2014 08:33 PM
  12. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Bottom line is If they are going to get anything done they will have to file criminal charges against Lerner. As in most cases, they are after bigger fish. That's probably why no forceful push against her.

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    03-20-2014 04:15 AM
  13. pappy53's Avatar
    So true:
    Attached Thumbnails Should Obama be impeached?-1003588_695457313825841_1890668486_n.jpg  
    toober likes this.
    04-05-2014 10:36 PM
  14. anon8126715's Avatar
    So true:
    I beg to differ, and I'll even throw one back at you, you CANNOT believe/post this AND serve the "Lord"...

    1). Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

    2). I think those are called Capital Gains

    3). Those are laws that the government creates for special interest groups. If you want said laws created then you get yourself a lobbyist. BP, Exxon, PFizer, Bank of America, Chase Bank, they all have lobbyists. Poor people, they do not have lobbyists.

    4). You can however divide wealth to create a thriving SOCIETY. Yes I know that the word socialism is a bad word to most tea-baggers and right-wing minions, but the word SOCIETY is derived from the same latin word
    society noun \sə-ˈsī-ə-tē\
    : people in general thought of as living together in organized communities with shared laws, traditions, and values

    : the people of a particular country, area, time, etc., thought of especially as an organized community
    5) Those that think they don't have to work because they think someone else will take care of them, are you referring to the people that are so obscenely wealthy and live off the backs of others, or are you referring to the welfare recipients that figure it's easier to live off of government assistance instead of work insane hours a week for peanuts?

    Maybe I'm mistaken. Is it a different Lord that you serve? I would guess you serve a Christian Lord as I don't think that one would be so quick to have that as a signature on a predominantly English forum. If it is JC that you serve (the prophet, not the retail store) then I'll leave you with a few of his quotes that maybe you haven't read or have just decided to overlook....

    Luke 6:20-21
    Luke 6:20-21 Then he looked up at his disciples and said: 'Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.

    'Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled. 'Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.

    Luke 4:16-19
    Luke 4:16-19 When he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue on the sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written:

    'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour.'

    Matthew 25:34-36
    Matthew 25:34-36 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, "Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me."

    Mark 10:21-22
    Mark 10:21-22 Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.

    Mark 12:41-44
    Mark 12:41-44 He sat down opposite the treasury, and watched the crowd putting money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. 42 A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which are worth a penny. 43 Then he called his disciples and said to them, "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. 44 For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on."

    Luke 14:12-14
    Luke 14:12-14 He said also to the one who had invited him, "When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

    Luke 16:19-25
    Luke 16:19-25 "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man's table; even the dogs would come and lick his sores. The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried.

    In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side. He called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.' But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony.

    Luke 11:39-42
    Luke 11:39-42 Then the Lord said to him, "Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You fools! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? So give for alms those things that are within; and see, everything will be clean for you. "But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and herbs of all kinds, and neglect justice and the love of God

    Luke 12:16-21
    Luke 12:16-21 Then he told them a parable: "The land of a rich man produced abundantly. And he thought to himself, 'What should I do, for I have no place to store my crops?' Then he said, 'I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, 'Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.' But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life is being demanded of you. And the things you have prepared, whose will they be?' So it is with those who store up treasures for themselves but are not rich toward God."
    Oh and if it's some sort of Sith Lord that you serve, then my apologies...I hear they have NO regard for the poor.....
    Evilguppy and GadgetGator like this.
    04-06-2014 09:16 PM
  15. pappy53's Avatar
    are you referring to the welfare recipients that figure it's easier to live off of government assistance instead of work insane hours a week for peanuts?
    The Lord also said that those who do not labor do not eat. II Thessalonians 3:10
    You can however divide wealth to create a thriving SOCIETY
    Why should the wealthy give up everything that they have worked for? The top 5% already pay about 80-90% of federal income taxes in this country, and 47% of the population pays no federal income tax. On top of that, the government forces companies to move to overseas operations because of the world's highest corporate taxes, and that adds considerably to the unemployment situation.
    04-06-2014 10:35 PM
  16. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    So basically we've established that taking any one or two verses from the Bible out of context is pointless.
    04-06-2014 10:51 PM
  17. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    04-06-2014 11:12 PM
  18. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    I don't pretend to know the mind of God. However, given the context and the generally poor education and understanding of those in (and about) the events described in the Bible, to say nothing of the many, many generations of people on this planet over the millennium, here's what I think isa better read of much of Jesus' teachings...

    Don't be rude or an *** to your fellow human beings.

    Recognize that legitimately generated wealth is a product of gifts you have, combined with opportunities. Don't fancy yourself as being a better person on that basis, don't squander what you have achieved, and don't value it more than you should.

    You are not God; never forget that.

    Stepping on and/or crushing everyone else is not just immoral in its own right, but it is also ultimately destructive to society, which means you are hurting your fellow human beings, and that is a very bad thing.

    If you are wealthy, great! Go do something useful with it, such as helping others.
    msndrstood likes this.
    04-07-2014 02:49 AM
  19. anon8126715's Avatar
    The Lord also said that those who do not labor do not eat. II Thessalonians 3:10
    I don't remember Jesus being a big proponent of starvation. Like I said, you can't consider yourself a Christian and consider "live and let die" as a policy. If you do, then you're a Christian in name only.

    Why should the wealthy give up everything that they have worked for? The top 5% already pay about 80-90% of federal income taxes in this country, and 47% of the population pays no federal income tax. On top of that, the government forces companies to move to overseas operations because of the world's highest corporate taxes, and that adds considerably to the unemployment situation.
    How have the wealthy given up "everything"? If that were the case, wouldn't they not be wealthy? The tax stat is also very misleading and I doubt it's even accurate, but when you have the top 1% that own 42% of the wealth, you can understand why it would seem that they pay more taxes.
    GadgetGator likes this.
    04-07-2014 06:16 AM
  20. nolittdroid's Avatar
    6. It is okay to make billions of dollars at the expense of the poor if it means you can still say "bootstraps!"

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    04-07-2014 08:10 AM
  21. Evilguppy's Avatar
    I'm so glad I'm an atheist. LOL.
    04-07-2014 09:14 AM
  22. pappy53's Avatar
    Everyone should help their fellow man. It just shouldn't be mandated by the government.
    04-07-2014 09:29 AM
  23. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Forcibly taking away wealth through bureaucracy and redistributing that wealth with no filter or regard for the actual well being for those receiving it is completely different than giving out of the good of your heart for the betterment of those around you.

    In other words, one is taking away someone else's money in an attempt to do something good, the other is taking money out of your own pocket. One required genuine selflessness and caring for those you are trying to help. The other requires nothing other than the observation that someone else has a lot of money. Wanting to take someone else's money away is completely different than giving yourself, however that ignorant misconception is common in those that envy others.
    04-07-2014 10:14 AM
  24. palandri's Avatar
    Forcibly taking away wealth through bureaucracy and redistributing that wealth with no filter or regard for the actual well being for those receiving it is completely different than giving out of the good of your heart for the betterment of those around you.

    In other words, one is taking away someone else's money in an attempt to do something good, the other is taking money out of your own pocket. One required genuine selflessness and caring for those you are trying to help. The other requires nothing other than the observation that someone else has a lot of money. Wanting to take someone else's money away is completely different than giving yourself, however that ignorant misconception is common in those that envy others.
    Forcibly???? who does that? The imaginary globalist that fly around in unmarked black helicopters? Do you consider the feds putting the screws to the UBS bank in Switzerland to release the names of Americans hiding money in Swiss bank accounts taking away their wealth forcibly?

    If you're talking about true altruism or selflessness (unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others) that's a very honorable thing to do and I tip my hat to anyone that puts "we" ahead of "me". If it was an act true of altruism, having a tax deduction for your act wouldn't be necessary.
    04-07-2014 10:49 AM
  25. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Forcibly???? who does that? The imaginary globalist that fly around in unmarked black helicopters? Do you consider the feds putting the screws to the UBS bank in Switzerland to release the names of Americans hiding money in Swiss bank accounts taking away their wealth forcibly?

    If you're talking about true altruism or selflessness (unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others) that's a very honorable thing to do and I tip my hat to anyone that puts "we" ahead of "me". If it was an act true of altruism, having a tax deduction for your act wouldn't be necessary.
    We democratically vote(through representation of course) to collect taxes, but individuals have no say in how or how much tax is taken from them. Everything is decided for them. It is easy to vote for someone else to pay more and never vote the same of yourself.

    If you don't believe it is forcibly taken, try not paying the IRS for a couple of years and see how forcibly they kick the door in on your life and then take everything you own including your freedom.
    04-07-2014 10:59 AM
1,900 ... 5657585960 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Should there be another category for Games?
    By Basis in forum Android Games
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-21-2010, 09:22 PM
  2. Should I be upset about this dirt under my screen.
    By rem_kujawa in forum HTC EVO 4G
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 07-06-2010, 08:12 PM
  3. Should I be disappointed? Screen color availability!
    By TREOpalooza in forum HTC EVO 4G
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-31-2010, 01:56 PM
  4. Should GMail be telling me how many new?
    By dgalanter in forum Verizon Droid Incredible
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-09-2010, 04:46 PM
  5. Should I be worried about the LED?
    By solideliquid in forum Motorola Droid
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-28-2010, 09:30 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD