You're absolutely right Big Ben, in as much as no one can make you see the truth of the matter. I can show you several websites and studies that show a complete contradiction to everything you just stated in your first couple of paragraphs. However, that would be as useful as trying to explain the quantum mechanics of a black hole to a third grader. It's just not going to happen.
Those that oppose and those that approve of the ACA are practically split 50/50 among American citizens, so there would be no point in arguing that matter either. We will just have to agree to disagree.
Responsible Americans should purchase insurance. What really makes more sense? A family who purchases insurance and uses it to pay for the majority of their medical care and pays the rest out of their own pocket, or a family who doesn't purchase insurance and leaves the rest of us who did purchase insurance to foot the entirety of their medical care through increased premiums?
Just a little common sense is all that is required sometimes. Otherwise, it is simply right-wing propaganda used to scare Americans into opposition. Why fan the flames of ignorance when you can put the fire out? That's all I ask.
Big Ben, did you read any of my previous comments? Clearly you didn't or else you would have understood the argument. I'm not being rude or sarcastic, but seriously, I don't need to be reminded of what the Declaration of Independence contains or means. And stop using the term "Tyrannical Government". What tyrannical government has ever had to be "thrown off" in the United States? Name one. You cannot name one, because there never has been. The term limits placed on politicians makes the conspiracy and follow through impractical and laughable at best.
The only thing you and I can agree on is that particular Executive Order and the NDAA/AUMF. I don't like them in the least, but I'm afraid you totally missed the point on everything else.
If you want to discuss the other matters then please start a different rivalry. This particular rivalry should try to stay on track. Thanks.
Big Ben, I don't think you were following the gist of the conversation. Ryan suggested that there was an enormous difference between the two, a militia and the people. The people of this nation during the Revolutionary War were the militias. So, basically when it stated that there should be regulation of arms it meant both the people and those who served in militias as well. I appreciate your remarks, but please read the full text so that you have a full understanding of the matter. By the way, the history of the militias of this country by the people is completely relevant due to the fact that once they returned home as civilians they were still expected to follow certain regulations of the law, and that included the right to bear arms as well as many others.
I actually commented on this on Facebook but here's the run down on my opinion on the matter. As with all businesses that offer products or services whether it be a chicken nugget or a blockbuster movie released at the local theater I believe any individual has the right to boycott or in more simple terms choose not to purchase goods or services. If I were Gay I would probably be offended and this type of comment and accompanying actions would be enough for me to at quit doing business with this company. So for my Gay friends and family, Boycott away.
I myself don't expect a Christian based company to openly embrace something they feel strongly against. We are talking about one of the few companies out there that actually close down on Sunday so their employees can go to church and I'll be honest, that pisses me off when I'm feeling like some Chic Filet on a Sunday. My family will continue to go to Chic Filet but not do so out of spite to those we love who happen to be gay but because we enjoy the food and aren't offended to the point of no return. The little bit I've seen on the toys seems shady and if true doesn't represent the Christian based business very well.
Full diclosure: I still avoid buying Heinz products unless it's a lot cheaper because I can't stand the Kerry's so I certainly won't persecute my gay loved ones for boycotting Chic Filet.
No one tell me that it won't cost families thousands in taxes if they are not able to afford a health care plan offered by their employer. Do not tell me that the health care providers will not look at the tax fees and adjust the cost of premium to the employee accordingly!! They are not stupid! Gee, let my employee pay me just below the tax rate, or let them pay the higher tax??????
"Many Americans are furious that Obamacare will require them to buy health insurance.
Most of these folks seem to hate the idea that Obama is forcing them to do something more than they hate the idea of shelling out money.
But for those who also care about the money, here are the details.
The good news is that, for most people, the "penalty tax" for those who choose not to buy health insurance will cost a lot less than health insurance.
As with everything tax-related, there's no simple answer to "How much is the Obamacare penalty tax?" But here are some key points, from FactCheck.org:
The penalty/tax will be phased in from 2014 to 2016.
The minimum penalty/tax in 2016 will be $695 per person and up to 3-times that per family. After 2016, these amounts will increase at the rate of inflation.
The minimum penalty/tax per person will start at $95 in 2014 (and then increase through 2016)
No family will ever pay more than 3X the per-person penalty, regardless of how many people are in the family.
The $695 per-person penalty is only for those who make between $9,500 and ~$37,000 per year. If you make less than ~$9.500, you're exempt. If you make more than ~$37,000, your penalty is calculated by the following formula...
The penalty is 2.5% of any household income above the level at which you are required to file a tax return. That level is currently $9,500 per person and $19,000 per couple. The penalty on any income above that is 2.5%. So the penalty can get expensive quickly if you make a lot of money.
However, the penalty can never be more than the cost of a "Bronze" heath insurance plan purchased through one of the state "exchanges" that will be created as part of Obamacare. The CBO estimates that these policies will cost $4,500-$5,000 per person and $12,000-$12,500 per family in 2016, with the costs rising thereafter.
So, basically, you're looking at penalties of approximately the following at the following income levels:
Less than $9,500 income = $0
$9,500 - $37,000 income = $695
$50,000 income = $1,000
$75,000 income = $1,600
$100,000 income = $2,250
$125,000 income = $2,900
$150,000 income = $3,500
$175,000 income = $4,100
$200,000 income = $4,700
Over $200,000 = The cost of a "bronze" health-insurance plan
The IRS will collect the penalty-tax, a fact that will no doubt further enrage those who hate Obamacare.
But here's some more good news for those folks:
The IRS will not have the power to charge you criminally or seize your assets if you refuse to pay. The IRS will only have the ability to sue you. And the most the IRS can collect from you if it wins the suit is 2X the amount you owe. So if you want to thumb your nose at the penalty-tax, the IRS won't be able to do as much to you as they could if you refused to pay, say, income tax.
By the way, the following folks will be exempt from the penalty-tax:
Those who make less than $9,500
Employees whose employers only offer plans that cost more than 8% of the employee's income
Those with "hardships"
Members of Indian tribes
Members of certain religions that don't pay Social Security tax, such as Amish, Hutterites, or Mennonites
And, of course, Obamacare isn't free. So, whether you pay the penalty or not, you're going to have to pay a lot of other taxes to pay for it. Here they are >
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This says people, not militia!
Making assumptions is not the educated way to do things. You need to read further into the writings of the founding fathers. They clearly state that the right to bear arms is the last line in the sand to protect against a tyrannical government. Why do you think it states in the Declaration of Independence that:
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Did they say that you will have to use bb guns and bow and arrows so that the tyrannical government will have an unfair advantage? Use logic and turn off your television sets. The founding fathers would of not stated the following if they did not want the citizens to be well armed!!
Think about it people, the right to bear arms is designed clearly for the people of the USA to use as a last resort to throw out tryannical government. Do you think the founding fathers would of liked to make this right handicapped? Please think logically people, and please turn off your corporate mind control media and think for yourself. The time for denial is over. Please also read the Declaration of Independence. It is not only our right, it is our DUTY to throw out such government! For those who have taken the oath, you are also bound to a second clear demand. You are to protect your fellow citizens from enemies :"foreign and domestic"
When a government is no longer following the rule of the land, you are obligated to keep your oath or you are a traitor to your fellow freedom loving Americans, are you not????
I do understand the concerns of Americans who fear other crazy people. The answer to this problem is not fear and more government. It is giving more law abiding citizens more guns. The bat man crisis could of been stopped with less damage if someone there was armed to resist him.
Think back to the shooting in Louisiana. It was at a bar. The movie theaters and bars have gun restrictions for even legal concealed weapon carriers. Why do you think the criminals go to these types of places? Guns are not allowed in these places!! I do agree that alcohol and guns do not mix. I never drink when I carry (against the law). If I was fearful, the best option would be to not go to bars where I would not be able to defend myself from psychos.
Why do some Americans not get it? I do not hate people under mind control. I feel sorry for them and pray for them.
I.E.: why do people think that America will never have the threat of a tyrannical government? Is it cognitive dissonance? Is it stockholm syndrome? Is it all of the prescription drugs and flouride in the water? Is it a combination of all of the above? Why do some think that America is immune to any evil in factions of our government. Why????? There are evil people who go shoot up theaters, but there are not evil people in our government? Government should have all of the guns, but citizens should have none? I am just trying to get people to think critically. I know it is hard. It does feel good to realize that reality under mind control is false reality. People need to look at history and realize that government was the biggest killer of people in the world by far in the 20th century.
Here are some examples of our current major crisis in this country:
"Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:
(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;
(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;
(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;
(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;
(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and
(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.
(b) The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions. Each Secretary shall authorize the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, to place priority ratings on contracts and orders for materials, services, and facilities needed in support of programs approved under section 202 of this order.
(c) Each resource department shall act, as necessary and appropriate, upon requests for special priorities assistance, as defined by section 801(l) of this order, in a time frame consistent with the urgency of the need at hand. In situations where there are competing program requirements for limited resources, the resource department shall consult with the Secretary who made the required determination under section 202 of this order. Such Secretary shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements to prioritize on the basis of operational urgency. In situations involving more than one Secretary making such a required determination under section 202 of this order, the Secretaries shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements should receive priority on the basis of operational urgency."
Another example:
NSPD-51
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-51.htm
This gives the president complete authoritarian control during any time he or she sees fit. It was started by Bush and restarted by Obama.
The following is the SEC DEF declaring that congress is no longer needed in approval for unilateral war!!!! You cannot make this up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNwOeyuG84
What about the following which considers people who like the constitution terror suspects??!! I wish this was a scam!
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/lexicon.pdf
section
"(U) patriot movement (U//FOUO) A term used by rightwing extremists to link their
beliefs to those commonly associated with the American
Revolution. The patriot movement primarily comprises
violent antigovernment groups such as militias and sovereign
citizens.
(also: Christian patriots, patriot group, Constitutionalists,
Constitutionist)"
What about the MIAC report:
This report which was issued to a fusion center classifies people who support Ron Paul, Bob Bar, or Chuck Baldwin (preacher!!) as terror threats. WOW!!!! This is the government raging war on people who are law abiding and freedom loving!!
I would be happy to give more examples of how we are no longer free in this country if anyone cares. The question is, does anyone care about the loss of our freedoms?
I totally respect your decision to continue eating there, but I just don't believe for a moment that as long as these toys have been sold with the meals that suddenly one day after the Jim Henson company came out against their own views that Chick-fil-A had to pull them due to "safety" issues. Now, that was more than a little fishy. That was an outright fabrication on their part. For this reason and the fact that I don't really care for their food that much, they've lost any chance of my business.
Those that oppose and those that approve of the ACA are practically split 50/50 among American citizens, so there would be no point in arguing that matter either. We will just have to agree to disagree.
Responsible Americans should purchase insurance. What really makes more sense? A family who purchases insurance and uses it to pay for the majority of their medical care and pays the rest out of their own pocket, or a family who doesn't purchase insurance and leaves the rest of us who did purchase insurance to foot the entirety of their medical care through increased premiums?
Just a little common sense is all that is required sometimes. Otherwise, it is simply right-wing propaganda used to scare Americans into opposition. Why fan the flames of ignorance when you can put the fire out? That's all I ask.
The only thing you and I can agree on is that particular Executive Order and the NDAA/AUMF. I don't like them in the least, but I'm afraid you totally missed the point on everything else.
If you want to discuss the other matters then please start a different rivalry. This particular rivalry should try to stay on track. Thanks.
I myself don't expect a Christian based company to openly embrace something they feel strongly against. We are talking about one of the few companies out there that actually close down on Sunday so their employees can go to church and I'll be honest, that pisses me off when I'm feeling like some Chic Filet on a Sunday. My family will continue to go to Chic Filet but not do so out of spite to those we love who happen to be gay but because we enjoy the food and aren't offended to the point of no return. The little bit I've seen on the toys seems shady and if true doesn't represent the Christian based business very well.
Full diclosure: I still avoid buying Heinz products unless it's a lot cheaper because I can't stand the Kerry's so I certainly won't persecute my gay loved ones for boycotting Chic Filet.
No one tell me that it won't cost families thousands in taxes if they are not able to afford a health care plan offered by their employer. Do not tell me that the health care providers will not look at the tax fees and adjust the cost of premium to the employee accordingly!! They are not stupid! Gee, let my employee pay me just below the tax rate, or let them pay the higher tax??????
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-is-the-obamacare-penalty-tax-2012-7
"Many Americans are furious that Obamacare will require them to buy health insurance.
Most of these folks seem to hate the idea that Obama is forcing them to do something more than they hate the idea of shelling out money.
But for those who also care about the money, here are the details.
The good news is that, for most people, the "penalty tax" for those who choose not to buy health insurance will cost a lot less than health insurance.
As with everything tax-related, there's no simple answer to "How much is the Obamacare penalty tax?" But here are some key points, from FactCheck.org:
The penalty/tax will be phased in from 2014 to 2016.
The minimum penalty/tax in 2016 will be $695 per person and up to 3-times that per family. After 2016, these amounts will increase at the rate of inflation.
The minimum penalty/tax per person will start at $95 in 2014 (and then increase through 2016)
No family will ever pay more than 3X the per-person penalty, regardless of how many people are in the family.
The $695 per-person penalty is only for those who make between $9,500 and ~$37,000 per year. If you make less than ~$9.500, you're exempt. If you make more than ~$37,000, your penalty is calculated by the following formula...
The penalty is 2.5% of any household income above the level at which you are required to file a tax return. That level is currently $9,500 per person and $19,000 per couple. The penalty on any income above that is 2.5%. So the penalty can get expensive quickly if you make a lot of money.
However, the penalty can never be more than the cost of a "Bronze" heath insurance plan purchased through one of the state "exchanges" that will be created as part of Obamacare. The CBO estimates that these policies will cost $4,500-$5,000 per person and $12,000-$12,500 per family in 2016, with the costs rising thereafter.
So, basically, you're looking at penalties of approximately the following at the following income levels:
Less than $9,500 income = $0
$9,500 - $37,000 income = $695
$50,000 income = $1,000
$75,000 income = $1,600
$100,000 income = $2,250
$125,000 income = $2,900
$150,000 income = $3,500
$175,000 income = $4,100
$200,000 income = $4,700
Over $200,000 = The cost of a "bronze" health-insurance plan
The IRS will collect the penalty-tax, a fact that will no doubt further enrage those who hate Obamacare.
But here's some more good news for those folks:
The IRS will not have the power to charge you criminally or seize your assets if you refuse to pay. The IRS will only have the ability to sue you. And the most the IRS can collect from you if it wins the suit is 2X the amount you owe. So if you want to thumb your nose at the penalty-tax, the IRS won't be able to do as much to you as they could if you refused to pay, say, income tax.
By the way, the following folks will be exempt from the penalty-tax:
Those who make less than $9,500
Employees whose employers only offer plans that cost more than 8% of the employee's income
Those with "hardships"
Members of Indian tribes
Members of certain religions that don't pay Social Security tax, such as Amish, Hutterites, or Mennonites
And, of course, Obamacare isn't free. So, whether you pay the penalty or not, you're going to have to pay a lot of other taxes to pay for it. Here they are >
This says people, not militia!
Making assumptions is not the educated way to do things. You need to read further into the writings of the founding fathers. They clearly state that the right to bear arms is the last line in the sand to protect against a tyrannical government. Why do you think it states in the Declaration of Independence that:
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Did they say that you will have to use bb guns and bow and arrows so that the tyrannical government will have an unfair advantage? Use logic and turn off your television sets. The founding fathers would of not stated the following if they did not want the citizens to be well armed!!
Think about it people, the right to bear arms is designed clearly for the people of the USA to use as a last resort to throw out tryannical government. Do you think the founding fathers would of liked to make this right handicapped? Please think logically people, and please turn off your corporate mind control media and think for yourself. The time for denial is over. Please also read the Declaration of Independence. It is not only our right, it is our DUTY to throw out such government! For those who have taken the oath, you are also bound to a second clear demand. You are to protect your fellow citizens from enemies :"foreign and domestic"
When a government is no longer following the rule of the land, you are obligated to keep your oath or you are a traitor to your fellow freedom loving Americans, are you not????
I do understand the concerns of Americans who fear other crazy people. The answer to this problem is not fear and more government. It is giving more law abiding citizens more guns. The bat man crisis could of been stopped with less damage if someone there was armed to resist him.
Think back to the shooting in Louisiana. It was at a bar. The movie theaters and bars have gun restrictions for even legal concealed weapon carriers. Why do you think the criminals go to these types of places? Guns are not allowed in these places!! I do agree that alcohol and guns do not mix. I never drink when I carry (against the law). If I was fearful, the best option would be to not go to bars where I would not be able to defend myself from psychos.
Why do some Americans not get it? I do not hate people under mind control. I feel sorry for them and pray for them.
I.E.: why do people think that America will never have the threat of a tyrannical government? Is it cognitive dissonance? Is it stockholm syndrome? Is it all of the prescription drugs and flouride in the water? Is it a combination of all of the above? Why do some think that America is immune to any evil in factions of our government. Why????? There are evil people who go shoot up theaters, but there are not evil people in our government? Government should have all of the guns, but citizens should have none? I am just trying to get people to think critically. I know it is hard. It does feel good to realize that reality under mind control is false reality. People need to look at history and realize that government was the biggest killer of people in the world by far in the 20th century.
Here are some examples of our current major crisis in this country:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness
CONTROL OVER ALL RESOURCES EXECUTIVE ORDER
"Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:
(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;
(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;
(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;
(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;
(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and
(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.
(b) The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions. Each Secretary shall authorize the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, to place priority ratings on contracts and orders for materials, services, and facilities needed in support of programs approved under section 202 of this order.
(c) Each resource department shall act, as necessary and appropriate, upon requests for special priorities assistance, as defined by section 801(l) of this order, in a time frame consistent with the urgency of the need at hand. In situations where there are competing program requirements for limited resources, the resource department shall consult with the Secretary who made the required determination under section 202 of this order. Such Secretary shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements to prioritize on the basis of operational urgency. In situations involving more than one Secretary making such a required determination under section 202 of this order, the Secretaries shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements should receive priority on the basis of operational urgency."
Another example:
NSPD-51
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-51.htm
This gives the president complete authoritarian control during any time he or she sees fit. It was started by Bush and restarted by Obama.
The following is the SEC DEF declaring that congress is no longer needed in approval for unilateral war!!!! You cannot make this up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNwOeyuG84
What about the following which considers people who like the constitution terror suspects??!! I wish this was a scam!
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/lexicon.pdf
section
"(U) patriot movement (U//FOUO) A term used by rightwing extremists to link their
beliefs to those commonly associated with the American
Revolution. The patriot movement primarily comprises
violent antigovernment groups such as militias and sovereign
citizens.
(also: Christian patriots, patriot group, Constitutionalists,
Constitutionist)"
What about the MIAC report:
This report which was issued to a fusion center classifies people who support Ron Paul, Bob Bar, or Chuck Baldwin (preacher!!) as terror threats. WOW!!!! This is the government raging war on people who are law abiding and freedom loving!!
http://constitution.org/abus/le/miac-strategic-report.pdf
I would be happy to give more examples of how we are no longer free in this country if anyone cares. The question is, does anyone care about the loss of our freedoms?