DiscussMormonism.com

Watch this four minute video CLIP and tell us what you think.

I think this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnDxqboVxMY

And this:

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.g ... 110509.pdf

And this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u6cKd3W ... re=related

Please notice the comment by the President that if you choose not to buy health insurance, and force "you and me and everybody else" to subsidize you", there will be "penalties".

Beside the point of jail time, this is a textbook example of precisely the attitude and mentality of egalitarian socialists from the birth of modernity to the present. In a collectivized society, everything you choose or don't choose becomes the business of the state, and the state has a "compelling interest" in ever greater aspects of your life, including the most persona or the most trivial.

Once government takes any personal responsibility out of the individual's hands and places it in theirs, the liberty that individual had in that area evaporates, and he becomes, not an individual making individual decisions that are the best for him and his family, but part of a collective, in which scarce resources in an environment of non-market incentives and behavior and continual diminution of the size and health of the private economy that supports it creates within the state the political necessity and desire to tightly control and punish citizens because their choices are no longer private and safely separated from others in effect and intensity, but directly related. In any limited commons, what one has, another loses, and what one does not have, must be directly born by another.

The end of this mentality and process, if allowed to continue to its ultimate terminus, is totalitarianism.

Please notice the comment by the President that if you choose not to buy health insurance, and force "you and me and everybody else" to subsidize you", there will be "penalties".

And please notice that Obama explains what those penalties are, and none of them include imprisonment. In fact the bill that was passed specifically prohibited that. But since when in the hell has Dafty been interested in truth? He is only out to defend his ludicrous band of political hacks dressed up as journalists over at FOX. Even when the evidence is overwhelmingly condemning he still can't admit the fact that FOX screwed the pooch on this one. He has to find a way to deflect and rant his usual talking points about the horrors of big government, bla bla bla. This is all we needed to know he is beyond reason, but I think we all knew this a long time ago.

He provides a video that claims Obama says people will go to jail, but havlf way through the video of Obama saying no such thing, it breaks away and gives us a quick citation from some mysterious "letter" written by God knows who, that claims people will go to jail.

Again, this is pathetic and deceptive, and it says much about Dafty's stupidity if he thinks he can slide this passed us and we're just going to be as intellectually lazy as he is. I challenge Dafty to show me in the bill where imprisonment is a penalty. Why is this so hard for him to do? Because it doesn't exist. It is a lie that morons like Dafty propagate to use as a scare tactic, plain and simple.

And please note that Dafty does nothing to explain the fact that FOX responded to the charge by saying nobody on the program ever said it. If they are confident that the "jail-time" myth was in fact reality, then why didn't they just stand by it, argue the point as he is trying to do? The answer is simple. Even the dumbasses at FOX know it is a myth and they quickly tried to distance themselves from having anything to do with it. That is the smart thing actually, but Dafty is too stupid to do that.

Fox could get their facts straight if they were not primarily an advocacy group.

Please notice the comment by the President that if you choose not to buy health insurance, and force "you and me and everybody else" to subsidize you", there will be "penalties".

Yes. We will all be forced to subsidize each other one way or another; either by compliance or by paying a penalty for not complying. There is nothing here that is even remotely challenging to a conservative.

In the meantime, the lessons of RomneyCare and Tenn(Gore)Care, that socialization always results in higher costs and less availability, continue to go unlearned.

And please notice that Obama explains what those penalties are, and none of them include imprisonment. In fact the bill that was passed specifically prohibited that. But since when in the hell has Dafty been interested in truth? He is only out to defend his ludicrous band of political hacks dressed up as journalists over at FOX. Even when the evidence is overwhelmingly condemning he still can't admit the fact that FOX screwed the pooch on this one. He has to find a way to deflect and rant his usual talking points about the horrors of big government, bla bla bla. This is all we needed to know he is beyond reason, but I think we all knew this a long time ago.

While Graham rants, pulls out his hair, hops from foot to foot, and spews foam onto his critical race theory:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opini ... 44757.html

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commen ... %20Freedom

He provides a video that claims Obama says people will go to jail, but havlf way through the video of Obama saying no such thing, it breaks away and gives us a quick citation from some mysterious "letter" written by God knows who, that claims people will go to jail.

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.g ... 110509.pdf

I linked to the "mysterious" letter by "God knows who" in my post above. Graham ignored it, as he ignores most evidence, because it serves him quite well to ignore most facts and evidence, as well as rational argument.

Now, let's take another look at the Tapper interview, with with Obama (with some boldface for emphasis) and see if Graham's description of it is supportable under closer inspection (and given his performance in misrepresenting and slandering Heritage of late, I see little hope for his argument here either):

“What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don't, you're subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it's affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there's a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are -- are burdened by because of the fact that people don't have health insurance, you know, there's nothing wrong with a penalty.”

Jake Tapper:

Under the House bill those who can afford to buy insurance and don’t’ pay a fine. If they refuse to pay that fine there’s a threat – as with a lot of tax fines – of jail time. The Senate removed that provision in the Senate Finance Committee.

Obama again:

“I think the general broad principle is simply that people who are paying for their health insurance aren't subsidizing folks who simply choose not to until they get sick and then suddenly they expect free health insurance. That's -- that's basic concept of responsibility that I think most Americans abide by,” Mr. Obama said, “penalties are appropriate for people who try to free ride the system and force others to pay for their health insurance.”

A number of things stand out here, including Obama's (and now a favorite argument of the cultural Left) logically fallacious analogy between auto insurance and personal health insurance, the aforementioned effects of the socialization of the delivery and financing of medical services (government intervention in and control of everything and anything that can be remotely connected to "health" and the targeting of "free riders" in the commons), and what liberal journalist Jake Tapper was smart enough to figure out for himself, but that Graham assiduously insists on missing: that the IRS, which is the agency tasked with enforcing compliance with all taxes and tax related penalties for noncompliance will, indeed, impose penalties up to and including jail time (which has long been a penalty for noncompliance in tax related matters) if one does not buy mandated health insurance and then does not pay the fine.

This is also the theme of the "mysterious" letter I've now linked to twice.

The fact that the bill as passed does not contain the specific penalties is irrelevant; the IRS will be the agency tasked with designing and enforcing any actual compliance procedures. This is also the case with most bills that become law. The bill states the law in general form, but it is the relevant bureaucracies that actually write and design the laws in detail, including rules of enforcement.

How interesting to see Graham, in typical liberal (mimicking so well the Europeans he so admires) fashion, slinking on his belly, tail tucked between his legs, ears pulled back, eyes wide and head bowed, to the table of his masters in government; licking the hands and kissing the rings of those who will transfer the hard earned wealth of others to his own table by force.

Peter Schweizer has well delineated as general categories leftists and conservatives the "makers" and the "takers".

Days later Dafty finally scrapes up enough fodder from his favorite Right Wing sources to throw at us so he can give his rhetoric a chance to sell. But the fact is all of his links, however biased, refer to November of last year, long before the "imprisonment" option was taken off the table. This is either dishonesty or stupidity, take your pick.

The fact is FOX News denied EVER saying imprisonment was a penalty.

The fact is the current Bill had that option scrapped once the reality of it became an issue. In the earlier developmental stages of the Bill's evolution, the penalty was treated as if it were a refusal to pay any other kind of taxes. But that has been removed, and FOX continued to propagate the falsehood to scare people away.

Dafty has done nothing to vindicate Bill O'Reilly. Nothing.

All he has done is prove that, once upon a time, that penalty could have been enforced, which is something no one has every denied. Oh, and he has also proven once again that he is more than excited about taking the side of falsehood and defending it to the end. He has nothing to say about FOX News' deceptive techniques.

Kevin Graham wrote:Days later Dafty finally scrapes up enough fodder from his favorite Right Wing sources to throw at us so he can give his rhetoric a chance to sell. But the fact is all of his links, however biased, refer to November of last year, long before the "imprisonment" option was taken off the table. This is either dishonesty or stupidity, take your pick.

The fact is FOX News denied EVER saying imprisonment was a penalty.

The fact is the current Bill had that option scrapped once the reality of it became an issue. In the earlier developmental stages of the Bill's evolution, the penalty was treated as if it were a refusal to pay any other kind of taxes. But that has been removed, and FOX continued to propagate the falsehood to scare people away.

Dafty has done nothing to vindicate Bill O'Reilly. Nothing.

All he has done is prove that, once upon a time, that penalty could have been enforced, which is something no one has every denied. Oh, and he has also proven once again that he is more than excited about taking the side of falsehood and defending it to the end. He has nothing to say about FOX News' deceptive techniques.

http://biggovernment.com/mrichmond/2010 ... l-mandate/

Graham just doesn't get it. Yes, the enforcement mechanism has been toned down at the 11th hour, but keep in mind:

1. This is not what Obama and the Democratic leadership wanted. Indeed, the entire bill is a compromise from the totally socialized system that Obama has long championed. Hence, forced mandates are not going to go away as a concept.

2. The apparatus of coercion and force are now in place, and the plan as passed has been sold as a first step to a socialized system - the purpose of idea of mandated insurance in the first place - and the reason for the whole idea of a government exchange. There is no possibility of private insurance companies competing with the government - government has unlimited funds and is not subject to market forces - and hence the idea is to force employers out of providing health insurance, destroy the private insurance market, and move the entire country toward a single payer system by default. It doesn't have to be mandated by law; all one needs to do is create the incentives and pressures, closing doors and barring exists here, opening alternative routes there. This is all still in place, and I know of nothing in the bill that does not move the country in the desire direction.

Graham's political naitivity is utterly breathtaking, but hardly shocking, given his approach to most subjects. Sheep like Graham can bow and scrape before their masters in the State and bray for the fruits of the labor of their fellow citizens all they like. Those who love liberty, freedom and righteousness (including the fresh air of personal responsibility and real charity), will resist him and his ilk (who deserve neither freedom nor security) until the very end.

Like the Fabians before him, Graham appears as a sheep, but a sheep with big teeth that belie what really lies behind the wool.

Days later...

If you think I'm going to spend most of my time here arguing with a fuming, vacuous, half educated intellectual hack who gets his "news" from CNN and googles the Huffington Post and Soros funded activist sites for the bumper sticker platitudes and formatted partisan twaddle that passes for "argument", you've quite lost your mind.