Bet thread
-
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.
**************************************************
yes, you can. I can get a receipt, and post it on this board. I can give you their phone number and address.
I ALREADY said, I would take Steve with me, and he can FILM it with my very cool camcorder. And YOU talk about T
having bullshit EXCUSES? Gosh, you don't grow tomatoes to give? Well, I have been unemployed for a year and a half,
numbnuts. It's easy to just write a freakin check. it's a little more genuine, to go buy the tomatoes for them,
and donate them. I'm not betting the food bank, I'm betting YOU. They don't give money to people for food.
A little legwork too much for you, Heck? Not all that up to paying up on a bet that isn't just writing a check you are probably going to write anyways?
I can't go buy the money, Heck, but you CAN buy the tomatoes. This fear you have of tomato donating
can probably be resolved by a little courage. @@
***************************************************
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.
**************************************************
YOU ARE THE ONE who wanted to bet "name the price and charity and you're on"
So, I NAMED THE PRICE AND THE CHARITY. You don't get to control the price and charity? TOO BAD.
You just cried about not having tomatoes. I am not working professionally for a year and a half.
I think my resume is pretty nice, but relatively worthless, what I did has become obsolute around Ohio and a lot of the
country.
****************************************
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.
****************************************
If you don't have the tomatoes, and if going out and carrying the heavy, your groin tweaking load of a bushel of tomatoes, we can make it for a peck of tomatoes. Or a couple of big cans of tomato sauce from Sam's Club.
YOU claimed you would accept the price and charity terms, not me.
You don't get to dodge what you asked for, then turn around and cry that a bushel of tomatoes is too rough on you.
Let's just make it two tomatoes, Heck. That should strain your groin, eh?
I just said I can video it, send you a receipt, post a receipt, have witnesses, and you are refusing a bet.
Your bravdo is what is ridiculous. My terms are serious, even though it is pretty funny.
So, I think:
1. Your groin can't take lifting much weight, but a little check is light enough for you....
2. You stand by your money bet, because you were going to send that money anyways, even if nobody
was betting you. You don't "pay" anything for losing.
3. I am calling you out on your dare. And you look mightly silly frantically claiming "fowl"
and squawking like a frightened chicken. I'm sorry, if/when you would LOSE the bet, I don't live
close enough to come carry the bushel of tomatoes for you so you won't strain anything important.
Your call. You asked, I answered, and now you run and make up deepsheet excuses.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
What goes around comes around.
A stitch in time save... eh, you know what I mean.
Put up, or stop whining like a billy goat caught in the fence.
-
Actually this whole "bet" thing is what is mind-numbingly stupid. Yep heck you feel pretty cocky riding up on your high horse because you think meaningful health reform has been implemented. Unfortunately it's pretty lackluster as far as true reform goes.
-
I'm not on my high horse about anything. I just get a little tired of listening to all the screeching you guys are doing about the bill, like that it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It isn't unconstitutional.
So I challenged anyone who made those claims - and there were a bunch of you - to back it up. Yes, let's see how certain you are of that thing you just wrote in giant font with exclamation points!
Turns out nobody is that certain. They were just running their mouth off, not only about this, but pretty much everything else.
One of these days you're all going to calm down and realize that none of the predictions about our ruin or how liberals want to control every aspect of your lives had even the tiniest hint of truth to them. It's just screeching from people who are having a really tough time figuring out what's really going on.
-
And Cal, if you haven't worked for 18 months, I'm not going to ask you to give anything to charity. You keep those tomatoes for you and yours. Make a nice pasta dish. I'll even send you a good recipe.
We'll make it a gentlemen's bet. I bet you that the health care law that just passed will not be deemed unconstitutional and will remain the law of the land.
-
come on Heck.... seriously constitutional law....... pretty heavy reading for anyone...... cal and company are not interested in studying anything objectively so constitutional law is WAY beyond them.
All they want to do is post op-ed pieces and parrot what their party politics are pushing toward the sheep.
I once thought you could actually reason and have a real discussion on the merits of each respective position........ but that is not possible.
-
come on Heck.... seriously constitutional law....... pretty heavy reading for anyone...... cal and company are not interested in studying anything objectively so constitutional law is WAY beyond them.
All they want to do is post op-ed pieces and parrot what their party politics are pushing toward the sheep.
I once thought you could actually reason and have a real discussion on the merits of each respective position........ but that is not possible.
come on Heck.... seriously constitutional law....... pretty heavy reading for anyone...... cal and company are not interested in studying anything objectively so constitutional law is WAY beyond them.
Unlike you , right professor?
So answer, brag boy, I don't expect the SC would consider it unconstitutional BUT I bet there'd be at least one or two dissenting votes if ut gets there.
So it's most likely not as cut and dried as your vast expertise might lead you to believe.
-
Well, it should make for an interesting bet then, wouldn't it?
-
come on Heck.... seriously constitutional law....... pretty heavy reading for anyone...... cal and company are not interested in studying anything objectively so constitutional law is WAY beyond them.
Unlike you , right professor?
So answer, brag boy, I don't expect the SC would consider it unconstitutional BUT I bet there'd be at least one or two dissenting votes if ut gets there.
So it's most likely not as cut and dried as your vast expertise might lead you to believe.
Unlike you , right professor?
So answer, brag boy, I don't expect the SC would consider it unconstitutional BUT I bet there'd be at least one or two dissenting votes if ut gets there.
So it's most likely not as cut and dried as your vast expertise might lead you to believe.
Quite honestly Steve when it comes to Law.... I hire lawyers... Constitutional law..... no idea and the balance of states rights versus federal..... another heavy read subject that I am not qualified to answer....
I do happen to read and study a lot of things but not this.... (its a little dry for my tastes)
My gut feeling is that the Federal government IF they pass something of this magnitude they do hold a lot of leverage in terms of Highway construction funds that EVERY state needs (ie the minimum drinking age) that they can use......
As for Constitutionality ...... well the medicare expansion was passed federally those also in theory might have to be rolled back also...... I dont see that likely....... and federal criminal laws have seperate jurisdiction within each state...... as do tax laws.......
It just does not make any logical sense.....
-
Congress has no power to make someone buy something.
the 10th amendment limits the powers of the government to only those SPECIFICALLY granted by the constitution.
It doesn't matter if there is nothing in the constitution to prevent the government from requiring the purchase of health insurance. That's not the way our law works. The power has to be specifically given to congress BY the constitution for it to be legal.
The power of Congress include:
the powers to levy and collect taxes; to coin money and regulate its value; provide for punishment for counterfeiting; establish post offices and roads, promote progress of science by issuing patents, create federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court, define and punish piracies and felonies, declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, make rules for the regulation of land and naval forces, provide for, arm, and discipline the militia, exercise exclusive legislation in the District of Columbia, and to make laws necessary to properly execute these powers.
Sorry libs, forced health care is not constitutional.
-
Well, then. You can rest easy, huh?
Problem is, you've got the commerce clause, and you've got the provisions that give Congress the power to tax and spend money.
-
forcing someone to spend their own money is not a tax, it is not raising money for government operations. weak argument #1.
the commerce clause?
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".
says nothing of forcing individuals to buy something. weak argument #2. the commerce clause give the federal gov't power to regulate trade between states. not force people to buy things.
-
Yes, health care is a taxing and spending issue because it involves ...taxing and spending. But you guys can imagine this is unconstitutional all you like. You're just setting yourself up for another crushing disappointment.
As for the student loan bill, this is a great idea. Let's unpack it for those who have better things to do than go through student loan bills. I'm guessing T doesn't know anything about it other than what he's been told to be afraid of, but there's nothing to be afraid of.
First of all, the government has always been deeply involved in the student loan business, guaranteeing every loan private lenders made to students. (No one like T seemed to care about the "government takeover" then.)
What is going to change is that we're no longer going to pay billions in taxpayer money to private lenders to service these loans, and back them to the tune of 97 cents on the dollar. Now the government is simply going to make the loans themselves. We're eliminating the step in the middle, which is mostly useless and wasteful.
Eliminating this step, and loaning the money straight to students, saves $60 billion dollars over the next decade. And that money is going to go into more Pell grants, making more money available for student loans, making repayment terms easier, and some money will be even left over to put towards deficit reduction.
And no more kickback scandals. Remember those? Some of these lenders had to pay millions in fines.
Again, if you're a lunatic who freaks out every time the government performs a function it's fully capable of performing, you probably hate this, even though employing the private lenders is more expensive, led to countless problems, and they often gouged students with unpredictable rate hikes.
Now we're going to save money, the system will be easier to understand for students, and the repayment terms will be more friendly. And at a time when college costs go up and up every year. Good policy, no?
Plus, any private bank that wants to get in the student loan business by raising private capital is still free to do so. They're just no longer going to have the taxpayers to back them for providing a service that we don't really need them to provide anyway.
This is a win for the government, it's a win for taxpayers, and it's a win for students.
Thanks, Democratic Congress.
-
I am going to have to agree with Heck here. The government has always had a hand in backing student loans. And might I add, unlike health care, going to school is optional.
-
Don't worry, Kosar. We won't make it a habit.
It was a nice gig for the lenders - loan out some money, mess with the rates, and if the student defaults, the government pays you back anyway. Who wouldn't want to keep that gravy train running?
Some people wanted to continue this charade, including some Democrats who, oddly enough, come from states where these lenders reside. Imagine that!
Thankfully they, and the Republicans, have lost this one. And we just saved $60 billion dollars, which will be mostly given back to students in the form of more Pell Grants.
But hey, some people won't be able to run around mumbling about free markets anymore. Even though this wasn't a free market to begin with. And that makes them sad.
Oh, well.
-
Don't worry, Kosar. We won't make it a habit.
It was a nice gig for the lenders - loan out some money, mess with the rates, and if the student defaults, the government pays you back anyway. Who wouldn't want to keep that gravy train running?
Some people wanted to continue this charade, including some Democrats who, oddly enough, come from states where these lenders reside. Imagine that!
Thankfully they, and the Republicans, have lost this one. And we just saved $60 billion dollars, which will be mostly given back to students in the form of more Pell Grants.
But hey, some people won't be able to run around mumbling about free markets anymore. Even though this wasn't a free market to begin with. And that makes them sad.
Oh, well.
And we just saved $60 billion dollars, which will be mostly given back to students in the form of more Pell Grants.
Show me the money? It is like show me the llink to that statement. The gripe over this is that the profits which are enormous will be earned by Big Brother. Will they be taxed on profits since they are now the largest business in America?
-
That's from the CBO report. $61 billion over ten years would be saved. If you want a link, try Google and in a millisecond you should have a few hundred hits, since the figure is everywhere. The fact that you haven't seen it tells me you haven't been following this all that closely, or at all. Someone just told you about a "GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER" and that's all you needed to hear.
And no, this isn't going to be run as a traditional for-profit business, and non-profit lenders can also compete for these loans.
Any other questions?
-
come on Heck.... seriously constitutional law....... pretty heavy reading for anyone...... cal and company are not interested in studying anything objectively so constitutional law is WAY beyond them.
All they want to do is post op-ed pieces and parrot what their party politics are pushing toward the sheep.
I once thought you could actually reason and have a real discussion on the merits of each respective position........ but that is not possible.
come on Heck.... seriously constitutional law....... pretty heavy reading for anyone...... cal and company are not interested in studying anything objectively so constitutional law is WAY beyond them.
All they want to do is post op-ed pieces and parrot what their party politics are pushing toward the sheep.
I once thought you could actually reason and have a real discussion on the merits of each respective position........ but that is not possible.
No, of course not. Believe me, after five years, I know this. But I'm not here for reasoned discussion.
-
Yes, health care is a taxing and spending issue because it involves ...taxing and spending. But you guys can imagine this is unconstitutional all you like. You're just setting yourself up for another crushing disappointment.
As for the student loan bill, this is a great idea. Let's unpack it for those who have better things to do than go through student loan bills. I'm guessing T doesn't know anything about it other than what he's been told to be afraid of, but there's nothing to be afraid of.
First of all, the government has always been deeply involved in the student loan business, guaranteeing every loan private lenders made to students. (No one like T seemed to care about the "government takeover" then.)
What is going to change is that we're no longer going to pay billions in taxpayer money to private lenders to service these loans, and back them to the tune of 97 cents on the dollar. Now the government is simply going to make the loans themselves. We're eliminating the step in the middle, which is mostly useless and wasteful.
Eliminating this step, and loaning the money straight to students, saves $60 billion dollars over the next decade. And that money is going to go into more Pell grants, making more money available for student loans, making repayment terms easier, and some money will be even left over to put towards deficit reduction.
And no more kickback scandals. Remember those? Some of these lenders had to pay millions in fines.
Again, if you're a lunatic who freaks out every time the government performs a function it's fully capable of performing, you probably hate this, even though employing the private lenders is more expensive, led to countless problems, and they often gouged students with unpredictable rate hikes.
Now we're going to save money, the system will be easier to understand for students, and the repayment terms will be more friendly. And at a time when college costs go up and up every year. Good policy, no?
Plus, any private bank that wants to get in the student loan business by raising private capital is still free to do so. They're just no longer going to have the taxpayers to back them for providing a service that we don't really need them to provide anyway.
This is a win for the government, it's a win for taxpayers, and it's a win for students.
Thanks, Democratic Congress.
Yes, health care is a taxing and spending issue because it involves ...taxing and spending. But you guys can imagine this is unconstitutional all you like. You're just setting yourself up for another crushing disappointment.
Sorry, that is just weak. Requiring someone to buy something is not a tax. It doesn't matter what it involves or does not involve. Making someone buy healthcare is NOT any part of:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
If Congress wanted to tax everyone and then buy them insurance, yes that would be constitutional. But they cannot make someone buy something, it's not in the constitution. They cannot do it.
The only examples congress has ever used a tax other than to raise revenue:
To regulate industry
to discourage industry
tariffs for protectionism
weak argument #3
-
Pumpin, go back and read what I read. The power to do this rests in the tax and spending provisions and the commerce clause.
You're reading the text of the Constitution, and disregarding years of legal precedent. These things are not as simple as looking at the original document as it was written in 1789 and saying, "Hey, that's not in there!"
It's just a conservative fantasy.
Wanna bet?
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