Bet thread
-
So after all this talk from this board about how this is an unconstitutional power grab, with UNCONSTITUTIONAL written in super-sized font; after all the Michelle Bachman speeches and tea bag rallies; after all the quotes from super-duper Constitutional expert Mark Steyn; not one of you wants to bet me that this health care bill will be struck down in federal court? Really?
Even for a charity like Fisher House or St. Jude's?
Maybe this quote will help entice you: “The notion that a state can just choose to opt out is just preposterous. One is left speechless by the absurdity of it.” - Charles Fried, former Reagan Solicitor General.
...Okay, maybe that didn't help either.
But no takers? Really?
I guess you guys wasted a lot of time making that argument too. None of you seem to believe it. Except when you're running your mouth off.
I believe it was Cindy Lauper who said, "Money changes everything." So true.
you did not seriously think they will put their money where their mouths are.....
you did not seriously think they will put their money where their mouths are.....
Hey high roller.
Here's one.
Let's say I bet the program costs substantially more than promised in ten years.
You can have the opposite.
Assuming we're still alive (and why not with this new health benefit
) you wanna put up your house and the million dollars?(That oughta be about $85 after adjusted for 2111 inflation. )
WSS
-
This is idiotic.
-
Steve, I probably wouldn't make that bet. There's always a chance that projections or assumptions will be off. But unlike those in here who absolutely knew this was an unconstitutional power grab, I never claimed that ten year projections are rock solid. I've always said they're the best estimate we can make, and that it's non-partisan, and that we don't have a better one.
I don't, however, expect the projections to be off all that much should the entire plan go into effect. So if we could structure the bet to include those types of caveats, I'd be all for it.
But if you and I are doing this in ten years ...holy shit.
I'd also take issue with your earlier post, but really, what's the point? Although I will say that interpreting the Constitution is the judge's job. You speak of it as if it's a horrible thing they're doing.
And the idea that any Constitutional protection could be removed ...huh?
So again, does anyone still think the bill is unconstitutional, and would anyone like to bet me that it is? Because I'm pretty damn sure it says in the Constitution that Congress can make these type of laws.
-
really? congress can make a law requiring someone to buy something from a private company? I should think not. Or it would have been tried already by big business.
:neutral_face: -
Steve, I probably wouldn't make that bet. There's always a chance that projections or assumptions will be off. But unlike those in here who absolutely knew this was an unconstitutional power grab, I never claimed that ten year projections are rock solid. I've always said they're the best estimate we can make, and that it's non-partisan, and that we don't have a better one.
I don't, however, expect the projections to be off all that much should the entire plan go into effect. So if we could structure the bet to include those types of caveats, I'd be all for it.
But if you and I are doing this in ten years ...holy shit.
I'd also take issue with your earlier post, but really, what's the point? Although I will say that interpreting the Constitution is the judge's job. You speak of it as if it's a horrible thing they're doing.
And the idea that any Constitutional protection could be removed ...huh?
So again, does anyone still think the bill is unconstitutional, and would anyone like to bet me that it is? Because I'm pretty damn sure it says in the Constitution that Congress can make these type of laws.
Steve, I probably wouldn't make that bet. There's always a chance that projections or assumptions will be off. But unlike those in here who absolutely knew this was an unconstitutional power grab, I never claimed that ten year projections are rock solid. I've always said they're the best estimate we can make, and that it's non-partisan, and that we don't have a better one.
I don't, however, expect the projections to be off all that much should the entire plan go into effect. So if we could structure the bet to include those types of caveats, I'd be all for it.
But if you and I are doing this in ten years ...holy shit.
I hope so actually. By then I'll be 67 and you'll be what? 48? I'll be the Democrat demanding higher taxes on you damn kids to pay for my benefits.
I'd also take issue with your earlier post, but really, what's the point? Although I will say that interpreting the Constitution is the judge's job. You speak of it as if it's a horrible thing they're doing.
Only horrible if you're on the wrong side.
Prohibition was OK once.
And the idea that any Constitutional protection could be removed ...huh?
Hey who'da thunk Eminent Domain would trump the rule against the king's men taking your farm and guns?
So again, does anyone still think the bill is unconstitutional, and would anyone like to bet me that it is? Because I'm pretty damn sure it says in the Constitution that Congress can make these type of laws.
I wouldn't bet either.
WSS
-
So after all this talk from this board about how this is an unconstitutional power grab, with UNCONSTITUTIONAL written in super-sized font; after all the Michelle Bachman speeches and tea bag rallies; after all the quotes from super-duper Constitutional expert Mark Steyn; not one of you wants to bet me that this health care bill will be struck down in federal court? Really?
Even for a charity like Fisher House or St. Jude's?
Maybe this quote will help entice you: “The notion that a state can just choose to opt out is just preposterous. One is left speechless by the absurdity of it.” - Charles Fried, former Reagan Solicitor General.
...Okay, maybe that didn't help either.
But no takers? Really?
I guess you guys wasted a lot of time making that argument too. None of you seem to believe it. Except when you're running your mouth off.
I believe it was Cindy Lauper who said, "Money changes everything." So true.
So after all this talk from this board about how this is an unconstitutional power grab, with UNCONSTITUTIONAL written in super-sized font; after all the Michelle Bachman speeches and tea bag rallies; after all the quotes from super-duper Constitutional expert Mark Steyn; not one of you wants to bet me that this health care bill will be struck down in federal court? Really?
Even for a charity like Fisher House or St. Jude's?
Maybe this quote will help entice you: “The notion that a state can just choose to opt out is just preposterous. One is left speechless by the absurdity of it.” - Charles Fried, former Reagan Solicitor General.
...Okay, maybe that didn't help either.
But no takers? Really?
I guess you guys wasted a lot of time making that argument too. None of you seem to believe it. Except when you're running your mouth off.
I believe it was Cindy Lauper who said, "Money changes everything." So true.
Dude Cindy Lauper? I think The Smiths or even Daryl Hall would of been a better reference here.
-
really? congress can make a law requiring someone to buy something from a private company? I should think not. Or it would have been tried already by big business.
really? congress can make a law requiring someone to buy something from a private company? I should think not. Or it would have been tried already by big business.
To play devils advocate here, the IRS is the biggest accounting firm in the world my friend, in terms of private companies.
-
Steve, I probably wouldn't make that bet. There's always a chance that projections or assumptions will be off. But unlike those in here who absolutely knew this was an unconstitutional power grab, I never claimed that ten year projections are rock solid. I've always said they're the best estimate we can make, and that it's non-partisan, and that we don't have a better one.
I don't, however, expect the projections to be off all that much should the entire plan go into effect. So if we could structure the bet to include those types of caveats, I'd be all for it.
But if you and I are doing this in ten years ...holy shit.
I'd also take issue with your earlier post, but really, what's the point? Although I will say that interpreting the Constitution is the judge's job. You speak of it as if it's a horrible thing they're doing.
And the idea that any Constitutional protection could be removed ...huh?
So again, does anyone still think the bill is unconstitutional, and would anyone like to bet me that it is? Because I'm pretty damn sure it says in the Constitution that Congress can make these type of laws.
Steve, I probably wouldn't make that bet. There's always a chance that projections or assumptions will be off. But unlike those in here who absolutely knew this was an unconstitutional power grab, I never claimed that ten year projections are rock solid. I've always said they're the best estimate we can make, and that it's non-partisan, and that we don't have a better one.
I don't, however, expect the projections to be off all that much should the entire plan go into effect. So if we could structure the bet to include those types of caveats, I'd be all for it.
But if you and I are doing this in ten years ...holy shit.
I'd also take issue with your earlier post, but really, what's the point? Although I will say that interpreting the Constitution is the judge's job. You speak of it as if it's a horrible thing they're doing.
And the idea that any Constitutional protection could be removed ...huh?
So again, does anyone still think the bill is unconstitutional, and would anyone like to bet me that it is? Because I'm pretty damn sure it says in the Constitution that Congress can make these type of laws.
Excuse, excuses.
-
Oh, Steve. If you haven't mellowed by now, you're not going to, brother.
-
Great! Let's bet then. How much would you like, T?
-
Im not a betting man, but if I was it wouldn't be with you. Because if I lost then I would probably have to make a donation to some group that promotes killing babies.
I pefer ProLife. I know how it feels to lose a child at birth, and I dont understand those who can kill an unborn child.
-
Anther cowardly bolt from betting me a bushel of tomatoes? Seriously?
Ridiculing others for not taking you up on a money bet, when you probably were
going to donate that money anyways? You have nothing to lose? ROF,L !
However, I KNOW you weren't going to donate a bushel of high quality, homegrown
tomatoes to your local charity.
I reckon you don't care if the folks who benefit from food banks go without healthy, class "AAA"
produce.
Or, man up, and freakin bet me a bushel of tomatoes.
You called us out to bet, and you bailed on my simple bet. Put up or be very afraid of being a big sissy.
-
Im not a betting man, but if I was it wouldn't be with you. Because if I lost then I would probably have to make a donation to some group that promotes killing babies.
I pefer ProLife. I know how it feels to lose a child at birth, and I dont understand those who can kill an unborn child.
Im not a betting man, but if I was it wouldn't be with you. Because if I lost then I would probably have to make a donation to some group that promotes killing babies.
I pefer ProLife. I know how it feels to lose a child at birth, and I dont understand those who can kill an unborn child.
What the....? Right out of left field.
We already said we're playing for Fisher House, or St. Jude's, or you can name another charity we can both agree on if you like. Fisher House is a group that assists wounded veterans and their families. St. Jude's is a children's hospital. We've been pretty clear about that.
You can get bet or not bet, but let's try to not make up bullshit excuses for why you won't so you can make a speech and accuse me of "promoting killing babies."
Lunatic.
-
Anther cowardly bolt from betting me a bushel of tomatoes? Seriously?
Ridiculing others for not taking you up on a money bet, when you probably were
going to donate that money anyways? You have nothing to lose? ROF,L !
However, I KNOW you weren't going to donate a bushel of high quality, homegrown
tomatoes to your local charity.
I reckon you don't care if the folks who benefit from food banks go without healthy, class "AAA"
produce.
Or, man up, and freakin bet me a bushel of tomatoes.
You called us out to bet, and you bailed on my simple bet. Put up or be very afraid of being a big sissy.
Anther cowardly bolt from betting me a bushel of tomatoes? Seriously?
Ridiculing others for not taking you up on a money bet, when you probably were
going to donate that money anyways? You have nothing to lose? ROF,L !
However, I KNOW you weren't going to donate a bushel of high quality, homegrown
tomatoes to your local charity.
I reckon you don't care if the folks who benefit from food banks go without healthy, class "AAA"
produce.
Or, man up, and freakin bet me a bushel of tomatoes.
You called us out to bet, and you bailed on my simple bet. Put up or be very afraid of being a big sissy.
Cal, this is mind-numbingly stupid. I can't confirm that you have given a bushel of tomatoes. Nor do I grow bushels of tomatoes to give. And it wouldn't make much sense for me to go buy a bunch of tomatoes and then give them to a local food bank. I'd just give them the money and they can buy whatever food they want with it.
This is how you dodged the last bet. And now you're using this ridiculous excuse to dodge this one. As if the only currency in the world we could ever agree to use is bushels of tomatoes.
If $100 is too much for you, we can do it for $5. Or whatever you think a bushel of tomatoes is worth. I don't care.
But you don't get to dodge the bet (again) and then accuse me of dodging a bet that I offered to make in the first place. Everyone who is reading this can tell you're being ridiculous. It's not just me.
Name your price. Diehard manned up, and paid up like a man when he lost. Then he posted his receipt to me so I could tell he didn't welch.
Will you do the same? I won't hold my breath.
-
Oh, Steve. If you haven't mellowed by now, you're not going to, brother.
Oh, Steve. If you haven't mellowed by now, you're not going to, brother.
Hey in high school I was pretty far left.
We made up a little cadre called Students for Constructive Social Reform.
Even had a booth at some silly gathering at a liberal church. Two booths down from the SDS!!
WSS
-
Of course you were! You don't get the way you are by seeing your political hopes and dreams come true.
Hey, we both look at our paychecks and go, "Holy shit!" Just for different reasons.
Just like the lady in Raising Arizona says, "Government sure takes a bite, don't she?""
-
Of course you were! You don't get the way you are by seeing your political hopes and dreams come true.
Hey, we both look at our paychecks and go, "Holy shit!" Just for different reasons.
Just like the lady in Raising Arizona says, "Government sure takes a bite, don't she?""
Of course you were! You don't get the way you are by seeing your political hopes and dreams come true.
Pretty close to the truth Heck.
And partly realizing what a bunch of choads some of these guys actually are.
Hey, we both look at our paychecks and go, "Holy shit!" Just for different reasons.
Could be. I'm truly amazed that I earn slightly over the median for doing a job I actually enjoy.
Just like the lady in Raising Arizona says, "Government sure takes a bite, don't she?""
And as a self employed guy I gotta write a check for it all instead of just never seeing it.
WSS
-
I don't know which is worse, watching them take it chunk by chunk, or paying for it like you do. Personally, one reforms I'd like to see is have the government print not just what is coming out of your check for SS and Medicare, but also for the other stuff: defense, education, environment, housing, etc. People would have a much better idea where their money goes, and what needs to be cut.
Instead of right now, where the answer you usually get is "welfare" and "foreign aid." Especially from you guys.
As for the choads ...you have no idea.
-
I don't know which is worse, watching them take it chunk by chunk, or paying for it like you do. Personally, one reforms I'd like to see is have the government print not just what is coming out of your check for SS and Medicare, but also for the other stuff: defense, education, environment, housing, etc. People would have a much better idea where their money goes, and what needs to be cut.
Instead of right now, where the answer you usually get is "welfare" and "foreign aid." Especially from you guys.
As for the choads ...you have no idea.
I don't know which is worse, watching them take it chunk by chunk, or paying for it like you do. Personally, one reforms I'd like to see is have the government print not just what is coming out of your check for SS and Medicare, but also for the other stuff: defense, education, environment, housing, etc. People would have a much better idea where their money goes, and what needs to be cut.
Instead of right now, where the answer you usually get is "welfare" and "foreign aid." Especially from you guys.
As for the choads ...you have no idea.
Me?
I've always said welfare is a minor cost. I just don't like the societal damage it seems to do.
Plus it pisses me off to see truly needy people short changed as dirtbags crowd the trough.
And there are too many hands out along the welfare dollar beltline and too many poitical landmines along the road to fixing it.
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login