I do not believe writing 0bama or Obama or obama or OBama makes any kind of difference.
This is clearly not true. If it didn't matter, you wouldn't take the extra effort to intentionally misspell the name every time. Obviously the thread is about if 0bamacare is better than the invention of slice bread or an abomination. Some people think it is great, others keep looking into the abyss of the number zero and expect an explanation to why Wilikon writes 0bamacare with a zero... No one cares, but everyone, including the ones who hate my posts, gets it...  I care. I was wondering why you did it, as I've never seen it done before but it was obviously intentional. While I had my theory about it, I didn't necessarily assume to know your motivation for doing it, which is why I asked. In any event, I have my answer now. I wasn't asking to ridicule you or debate the merits of it, just to understand. |
|
|
|
Im thinking about writing a long and over-developed post about how retarded America and its fcked up politics, de-railed moneysystem, healthcare, medicine, how-to-war... and so on. But I realize I'm at a Bitcoin-Forum and I assume that if you found your way here your mind should be quite enlightened already.....
Let me tell you; If everyone push a % of the salary at the government and the government DONT WASTE IT AT SHIT there wont be a problem to have a working healthcare, education, w/e you want........
And see, that is the proof of why here in the USA, a scheme like Obamacare will never work. See bolded above. We know what happens in Washington DC (District of Criminals). I don't think the part you highlighted is an American problem so much as an everyone problem. Every group, individual, company, or other entity abuses the power they have to benefit one group over another. That, especially, is what governments do, and further, what people demand they do. Tyranny by the majority. |
|
|
|
I never spelled Obama 0Bama... You did.
99.9% of people never see a zero, but a O. The same .1% who can see the zero are the same people who have a problem with the image of 0bama, a half black man, as a rodeo clown or a clown.
You are free to call me out all you want but my answer to you was very clear. I have never been to a US public school so maybe I would need to readjust the way I write for some people here.
Now I'm thoroughly lost as to what you're talking about. There are roughly 40 instances of "0bama" appearing in this thread. All of them were written by you, or appear when people quote you, up until the point I asked you why you spell his name with a 0. Then you got crazy with nonsense. Yes. 0bama. Not 0Bama. Only 40 instances? I need to work harder... Ah I see! You got me on a technicality. That is a well-scored point, but my question remains. Is it supposed to be a slight? |
|
|
|
|
Bad reporting is not the same as libel or malice. And yeah, the press should be allowed to publish whatever they want on free speech grounds. To the extent they harm someone, that's a civil remedy for a court to determine damages to hold them accountable. But censorship is not the answer.
|
|
|
|
I never spelled Obama 0Bama... You did.
99.9% of people never see a zero, but a O. The same .1% who can see the zero are the same people who have a problem with the image of 0bama, a half black man, as a rodeo clown or a clown.
You are free to call me out all you want but my answer to you was very clear. I have never been to a US public school so maybe I would need to readjust the way I write for some people here.
Now I'm thoroughly lost as to what you're talking about. There are roughly 40 instances of "0bama" appearing in this thread. All of them were written by you, or appear when people quote you, up until the point I asked you why you spell his name with a 0. Then you got crazy with nonsense. |
|
|
|
This is good news to me. I just wish the article would have cited the judge's reasoning for the temporary ban. |
|
|
|
Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers because of a quirk of Obamacare. President Obama’s temporary amnesty, which lasts three years, declares up to 5 million illegal immigrants to be lawfully in the country and eligible for work permits, but it still deems them ineligible for public benefits such as buying insurance on Obamacare’s health exchanges. Under the Affordable Care Act, that means businesses who hire them won’t have to pay a penalty for not providing them health coverage — making them $3,000 more attractive than a similar native-born worker, whom the business by law would have to cover. The loophole was confirmed by congressional aides and drew condemnation from those who said it put illegal immigrants ahead of Americans in the job market. “If it is true that the president’s actions give employers a $3,000 incentive to hire those who came here illegally, he has added insult to injury,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican. “The president’s actions would have just moved those who came here illegally to the front of the line, ahead of unemployed and underemployed Americans.” A Department of Homeland Security official confirmed that the newly legalized immigrants won’t have access to Obamacare, which opens up the loophole for employers looking to avoid the penalty. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/So when Republicans finally take control over both the House and Senate in January, we can expect a prompt repeal of Obamacare, right? Because they've spent so much time and energy talking about how terrible it is for America, citizens, the free-market, IRS power, etc., and have already voted so many times to repeal, that it should be a given that this is one of the first things they do, no? Well, it's either they repeal it now that they have the ability or they are finally exposed as frauds and liars, as a party that's only voted for repeal so many times because they knew they had no chance of actually repealing it; that this has all just been a charade and political posturing to whip their supporters into a furor so they donate all that money and go on internet forums and post stuff like this: When Republicans fail to repeal Obamacare, will you become a partisan apologist, or will you hold them accountable for failing to act? Will you be as critical of them as you are of Obama, or are you just posting pictures like this because you hate Obama, not because of Obamacare? I'm asking earnestly because if you're not going to hold Republicans accountable for not repealing what you consider to be a terrible law when they finally have the power to, then what is the utility of constantly railing against Obama because of Obamacare? Let me ask you this then: Why democrats HATE 0bama personally? It must be the case. Why would anyone be against 0bamacare if not for a deep rooted personal hate against our first black president? Are you saying I am as bad as chuck schumer? Is chuck shumer a Tea Partier who's afraid of... 0bama?  Tensions flare between Senate Democrats, White HouseDo democrats hate 0bama?
What does chuck schumer, third in power in the senate after harry reid say about 0bamacare?Schadenfreude overload: Senate Democrats and Obama staffers at war over Obamacare[picture redacted] Have a Happy Thanksgiving!!!  Hey, you didn't answer my question.  Hey, you didn't wish me a Happy Thanksgiving!!! If the republicans can't shake the 0bama illegal shakedown on the US citizen I'll make sure to talk about that too... Just as much as liberals were up in arms when their president went to war in Libya WITHOUT approval from Congress, or let a US ambassador die, or when 0bama did not close gitmo for the past 6 years, or when he targeted the US free press with his shadowy foot soldiers, or when he used (still does) the IRS as a weapon against the US citizen... I am sure you remember all those historical moments, and each time you where sadden by those events... I don't know if you're accusing me of being an Obama supporter. I'm very critical of Obama and his policies. He's as terrible a president to me as GW was (picking a "winner" is just too close to call). But I do believe in representing information more fairly than either republicans or democrats do, who only act to serve their own political power interests, which is why I call you out on certain representations you make. It's not in defense of Obama, but in an attempt to dispel republican talking points which aren't reflective of reality, but the fictions they peddle to empower themselves at the expense of the democrats. Unrelated, why do you spell Obama as "0Bama"? |
|
|
|
Don't buy into Murdochs monstering - boycott his media outlets by your purchasing power.
Otherwise, it could be you next.
Oh, if only I had 1% of the life necessary to be legitimate Murdoch take-down target... |
|
|
|
Why is it when a black teenager is gunned down people only care when a white person is involved?
personally, i don't care if the person is white black young old saint or convicted felon. i care about corruption and abuse of power. i care about losing freedoms and lives to thugs with badges. When I'm saying these problems such as gun violence etc. and racism are purely American problems I'm really not just being a British guy and just trying to tick the Americans off ( Although that part is fun  ) I'm trying to remember which protest this was but there was an incident where a guy got shoved and struck with a baton by the police who was just walking by and had nothing to do with the protests, ended up dying apparently of a heart attack, there was a huge amount of rage over it. Then there was also an incident which I think was over university loans etc. where a guy in a wheelchair got dragged off his chair by the police for 'resisting' a lot of anger about that as well, both white on white incidents and all in the UK, it really is only Americans where I see that level of hatred and ignorance, actually, there is the middle east, so maybe Americans aren't that much different from fanatical Muslims after all. Yeah, I guess we're all forgetting what a bastion of ethnic harmony Britain is: Headline: Arrests at anti-Islamic protest
Police in Birmingham have arrested 33 people during a demonstration against Islamic fundamentalism and counter-protest by anti-fascists.
The demonstration - by groups calling themselves the English and Welsh Defence League and Casuals United - was made up of football fans, said police. The counter-protest was organised by campaign group Unite Against Fascism, West Midlands Police said.
"It started off with a group of white guys who were chanting 'England, England'. I thought they were just football fans, but then a larger group of black and Asian people turned up and it all kicked off.
"You had people burning the Union flag. People were being kicked - some of them weren't anything to do with the protests." Headline: 3 Muslims killed, exposing racial tensions in Britain
Witnesses vow revenge against 'black men' after car barrels through the Muslims defending a row of shops from looters.
Headline: UK underage sex ring sparks racial tensions
Headline: Birmingham tries to defuse racial tensions after deaths
See, racism is an American problem.  Your high holy judgments aren't contributing anything meaningful to the conversation, and are rather ignorant of reality on top of it. |
|
|
|
I'm not a fan of Bill Maher, but I did appreciate this sentiment:  |
|
|
|
Its good news for brand really, the argument by the sun is terrible, brand gets more hits off the back of it. They are either stupid or want to send people his way.
I don't think The Sun puts that much thought into it honestly. It's kind of a case where they have to manufacture news to sell their rag of a paper, and what passes for news better these days than a classic case of class warfare hypocrisy? EXPOSED! |
|
|
|
This seems like a baiting more than anything else, I don't think this would stand up in a court of law.
Hard to verify a persons age online, since it is not meeting someone in person
If they deny the credit card then they are in the clear I guess.
I would think it would be baiting whether or not actual minors are used, but apparently it's not, because these sting operations are a standard practice. Using actual minors might be what puts the actual penalty of law into effect. I was kinda wondering if something like this was the case, but it can't be this exactly because they've never used minors before while conducting sting operations, and if there was no penalty of law in those cases, they would immediately be thrown out and programs like that wouldn't exist. |
|
|
|
I'm not saying she deserved it, but I am saying if she had not cut him off, he would not have fired at her.
Blaming the victim is rather low. 'I didn't like what you did, so that's why I shot you. It's your own fault.' No, it's not. He's fully culpable for his actions because being angry isn't a license to shoot someone. There is no excuse and no justification here. |
|
|
|
I'm just contending it's not murder because a normal healthy human being would not have been killed by this.
It doesn't matter what happens normally, it matters what actually happened this time. If I go fire a bullet into the air, 999 out of 1000 times it's not going to hit anyone when it falls back to the ground. That doesn't make it not manslaughter the 1 time it does hit and kill someone, even though that's not normal. |
|
|
|
|
I found myself thinking that attempted murder maybe wouldn't be the right charge because you have to prove intent, but then I thought what would happen if it wasn't a cop doing the shooting? Odds are decent attempted murder would be the charge. And if it was someone who shot at an off-duty cop (without knowing their identity)? Guaranteed attempted murder charge.
Face it private citizens: Cops are just above the law.
|
|
|
|
|
Not surprised there were no charges. It seems people are rarely inclined to hold a cop accountable for excessive force, and the Thin Blue Line will bend over backwards to protect their own from being equal under the law like the citizens they "protect and serve."
|
|
|
|
Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers because of a quirk of Obamacare. President Obama’s temporary amnesty, which lasts three years, declares up to 5 million illegal immigrants to be lawfully in the country and eligible for work permits, but it still deems them ineligible for public benefits such as buying insurance on Obamacare’s health exchanges. Under the Affordable Care Act, that means businesses who hire them won’t have to pay a penalty for not providing them health coverage — making them $3,000 more attractive than a similar native-born worker, whom the business by law would have to cover. The loophole was confirmed by congressional aides and drew condemnation from those who said it put illegal immigrants ahead of Americans in the job market. “If it is true that the president’s actions give employers a $3,000 incentive to hire those who came here illegally, he has added insult to injury,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican. “The president’s actions would have just moved those who came here illegally to the front of the line, ahead of unemployed and underemployed Americans.” A Department of Homeland Security official confirmed that the newly legalized immigrants won’t have access to Obamacare, which opens up the loophole for employers looking to avoid the penalty. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/So when Republicans finally take control over both the House and Senate in January, we can expect a prompt repeal of Obamacare, right? Because they've spent so much time and energy talking about how terrible it is for America, citizens, the free-market, IRS power, etc., and have already voted so many times to repeal, that it should be a given that this is one of the first things they do, no? Well, it's either they repeal it now that they have the ability or they are finally exposed as frauds and liars, as a party that's only voted for repeal so many times because they knew they had no chance of actually repealing it; that this has all just been a charade and political posturing to whip their supporters into a furor so they donate all that money and go on internet forums and post stuff like this: When Republicans fail to repeal Obamacare, will you become a partisan apologist, or will you hold them accountable for failing to act? Will you be as critical of them as you are of Obama, or are you just posting pictures like this because you hate Obama, not because of Obamacare? I'm asking earnestly because if you're not going to hold Republicans accountable for not repealing what you consider to be a terrible law when they finally have the power to, then what is the utility of constantly railing against Obama because of Obamacare? Let me ask you this then: Why democrats HATE 0bama personally? It must be the case. Why would anyone be against 0bamacare if not for a deep rooted personal hate against our first black president? Are you saying I am as bad as chuck schumer? Is chuck shumer a Tea Partier who's afraid of... 0bama? Tensions flare between Senate Democrats, White HouseDo democrats hate 0bama?
What does chuck schumer, third in power in the senate after harry reid say about 0bamacare?Schadenfreude overload: Senate Democrats and Obama staffers at war over Obamacare[picture redacted] Have a Happy Thanksgiving!!! Hey, you didn't answer my question. |
|
|
|
Yeah, maybe he just needed something more visual to understand how it happens Notice none of those visuals helped your point. Actually, the absence of all those things in the US economy further prove mine. Tangential anecdote: I bought some of those Zimbabwe 100 Trillion dollar notes as a novelty (and a reminder of the dangers of loose monetary policy) after Zimbabwe discontinued them. I literally have 4 quadrillion dollars. I didn't know they discontinued them. I bet that increased the novelty value by a whole penny. They discontinued them when they introduced a new currency and pegged it to something stable to stop the hyperinflation. Ironically, the currency had more value after it was discontinued than it ever had when in circulation. A 100 trillion dollar note was selling for around $4 US when I bought mine, which was more than it was ever worth when it was circulating. |
|
|
|
This seems like a baiting more than anything else, I don't think this would stand up in a court of law.
Hard to verify a persons age online, since it is not meeting someone in person
If they deny the credit card then they are in the clear I guess.
I would think it would be baiting whether or not actual minors are used, but apparently it's not, because these sting operations are a standard practice. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
