|
The Macaroni posted:Hey, I finally got the last word in on something. (I'm in green.) Ignoring the fact that the Constitution does, in fact, assign powers of taxation to the government. I once had some libertarian freak on Facebook tell me that the Sixteenth Amendment was unconstitutional. 
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 15:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
madlobster posted:Do you have a source for that? Everything I've read so far seems to say otherwise. Looks like I was too quick in my response and was only partially correct. I was drawing from the law itself as the source, but here's the section of the law I was thinking of when I responded: PPACA §1401 posted:‘‘(c) DEFINITION AND RULES RELATING TO APPLICABLE TAXPAYERS, COVERAGE MONTHS, AND QUALIFIED HEALTH PLAN.—For purposes of this section— Unfortunately, I forgot this portion only applies to legal aliens below 100% FPL, and thought it covered anyone under 100%. I searched through the entire portion of the Law related to being eligible for the subsidies and there is no similar provision for citizens. So citizens (most people under 100%) will not get help, but non-citizens will. My guess is the original intent was anyone under 100% would be covered by the Medicaid expansion, but they had to include this provision for people who don't qualify for Medicaid due to being a lawfully present alien. But now with the SCOTUS decision, foreigners get help but citizens don't. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 16:00
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:Actually, the federal government had the power to tax prior to the 16th Amendment, even income taxes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 16:27
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:I'm sure no one's surprised that when I did a quick Google search just now about it one of the first results was from PolitiFact, and they gave it a Pants on Fire rating. Ha ha, "pants on fire." How about a "Blatant, bald faced lies" rating instead. Christ, I appreciate what Politifact does, but the cutesy name for statements made up wholly of outright lies is annoying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 16:51
|
|
|
Billy Idle posted:I once had some libertarian freak on Facebook tell me that the Sixteenth Amendment was unconstitutional. It's a more common argument then I want to really think about. The story goes that it somehow wasn't ratified correctly and because of that isn't legal. Most of the arguments they make about it are so demonstrably wrong it's sad but this doesn't stop the IRS from having to deal with people trying to use it as an excuse to why they didn't pay their taxes. Measures right up there with the, "It's not a valid court if the flag has a gold fringe on it!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 17:20
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:I'm sure no one's surprised that when I did a quick Google search just now about it one of the first results was from PolitiFact, and they gave it a Pants on Fire rating. Politifact does reach into the "same thing both sides" fallacy from time to time: Not-intended-to-be-factual statement that Planned Parenthood uses 99% of its federal funding for abortions (actual figure: 3% of total expenditure, sequestered from federal funding): False Claim that Republican Medicare plans will cost each senior $12k/yr (actual figure: $6k/yr): Pants on Fire, Lie of the Year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 18:55
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Politifact does reach into the "same thing both sides" fallacy from time to time: Right. Which is why I usually recommend that people ignore the ratings in general. But they tend to provide a lot of information, like "this figure they quoted comes from this study, performed and paid for by these people. Here are criticisms of that study, and other studies that showed different results, etc.". Reading their articles is usually more informative than reading "real" news, even if their ratings can sometimes be inconsistent. Because not only are different claims rated by different people, but they're trying to quantify something that is ultimately their opinion. At least with "half true vs. Mostly true" or "POF vs. False".
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 20:49
|
|
|
I got a new job dealing with periodicals at a library, and some terrible conservative rag crossed my desk yesterday. It had a hilarious article explaining why "Fact Checkers" are the death of journalism. I can't recall if this was the same magazine whose cover had "AGENDA 21!!" over a closeup of Christ the Redeemer. I'll see if I can dig it up next week.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 21:02
|
|
|
Eagerly awaiting all the Clint Eastwood, the Real American, emails now. Cause clearly if HE says to vote GOP, you have to! He is a real American, he don't take poo poo from cops or blackie or no one! Do ya feel lucky, punk? I feel like the loving wrestling coach on South Park. Actors ACT. "DON'T YOU PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT THINGS AREN'T REAL?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 23:31
|
|
|
Billy Idle posted:I once had some libertarian freak on Facebook tell me that the Sixteenth Amendment was unconstitutional. hahaha, just had two this morning do the exact same thing to me. In other news, had my mother-in-law forward me this article as to why Obama is a POS apparently: http://montgomerycountypolicereporter.com/?p=50889 This is for Montgomery county in Texas, and it should be noted that on his Facebook, this guy says that "this is a conservative page and no liberal bs will be tolerated" Good stuff I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 23:56
|
|
|
Cowslips Warren posted:Eagerly awaiting all the Clint Eastwood, the Real American, emails now. Cause clearly if HE says to vote GOP, you have to! He is a real American, he don't take poo poo from cops or blackie or no one! Do ya feel lucky, punk? An elderly white man arguing clumsily with an invisible black man, changing subjects rapidly and filling in the rebuttals in the argument with self-reflexive personal insults and vague threats. Yep, that's the GOP all right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 13:03
|
|
|
Ratmtattat posted:hahaha, just had two this morning do the exact same thing to me. What the gently caress Obama!? The dude doesn't have time set aside each day to personally go through the US armed forces causalities in the preceding 24 hours and hand write condolence letters to anybody they left behind and has the loving nerve to call himself the president. poo poo is bullshit!
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 18:46
|
|
|
katlington posted:What the gently caress Obama!? The dude doesn't have time set aside each day to personally go through the US armed forces causalities in the preceding 24 hours and hand write condolence letters to anybody they left behind and has the loving nerve to call himself the president. poo poo is bullshit! I want to know if this policy is any different than what happened during the Bush Administration, as conservatives tend to forget or ignore how the things Obama does about which they are outraged also happened under Bush, frequently to higher degrees or larger scales (e.g. dismissing charges as the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation, Fast & Furious style gun tracking programs, bailouts of private industries and corporations, etc.). poo poo, Bush wouldn't even let the public see soldiers' coffins arriving home, so I wonder what else he did to distract from actually having to acknowledge he caused these soldiers to die for nothing but his neoconservative foreign policy and daddy issues. Regardless, this next part is what's really astounding to me: quote:But Tom Logan and his wife Debi are not angry about how where Joey died or why he was there. They are proud they raised a son who was such a patriot and offered the ultimate sacrifice for his country. In fact, both Tom and Debi served in the United States Air Force and they have two other children who remain in the military and Tom says his middle child’s death has not made him wish the other two had chosen different paths. So, they're outraged that they got a form letter of condolences from the president, but they're aren't outraged that their son needlessly died at a young age? It doesn't bother them that he died because Bush started a our longest war in history with absolutely no planning or exit strategy? I mean, I understand why they don't want to acknowledge that he died for nothing, as it would make their loss seem even worse by making his death meaningless, but it's still pretty perplexing that they care more about getting a handwritten letter from the president than about how their son died or about ending the thing that killed him before it harms anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
babies havin rabies posted:An elderly white man arguing clumsily with an invisible black man, changing subjects rapidly and filling in the rebuttals in the argument with self-reflexive personal insults and vague threats. Yep, that's the GOP all right. The entire speech really seemed like he was playing a Colbert like character and trolling the GOP to me. Or maybe they're just that crazy. I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 21:55
|
|
|
Billy Idle posted:I once had some libertarian freak on Facebook tell me that the Sixteenth Amendment was unconstitutional. There were also income taxes before the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified to undo Pollock v. Farmers'. Activist Justices! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
Glimm posted:The entire speech really seemed like he was playing a Colbert like character and trolling the GOP to me. It just seemed really sad, like they got this sad old man in the early stages of Alzheimer's on stage as a prop. I really like Eastwood's body of work, so it's really just cringe-inducing to see him like that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 00:22
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:It just seemed really sad, like they got this sad old man in the early stages of Alzheimer's on stage as a prop. I really like Eastwood's body of work, so it's really just cringe-inducing to see him like that. Bruce Leroy, the GOP would never take an aging actor in the early stages of Alzheimers and use him like a tool to take advantage of the fans of his films, in order to further their regressive agenda! Never!
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 01:31
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:Bruce Leroy, the GOP would never take an aging actor in the early stages of Alzheimers and use him like a tool to take advantage of the fans of his films, in order to further their regressive agenda! Never! Nobody watched Reagan's films, he was a failed actor who only made a name for himself in hollywood by selling out more talented actors to the HUAC.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 02:44
|
|
|
I'm not sure this fits exactly in this thread, but it is political craziness from family members that I'm sure has been debunked many times over in this thread. Really I just need to vent a bit, I'm kind of frustrated and upset. I was just having dinner with my dad and he started talking about Obama's past, citing a few things: 1.) His real father is some guy named Frank Marshall Davis 2.) His autobiography was written by Bill Ayers, due to him having never published anything before suddenly coming out with a whole book (refusal to publish grades from school and no evidence of anything he wrote in college or law school). The writing styles of Ayers and Dreams of My Father and Ayers are remarkably similar 3.) Obama is the ultimate Manchurian candidate, masked as a moderate. He associates with communists and was a communist when he was young, and if he had his way he would make the United States communist All this is standard birther garbage, but I just can't get over how ultra-right wingnut he's become. What's worse is that when I try to argue these I don't have facts on hand to really refute any of it because I've never wasted my time with trying to refute WorldNetDaily Obama conspiracy theory poo poo. So he just comes out of the discussion with a smug sense of satisfaction and it's incredibly frustrating. Later on in the dinner, we got to the topic of carbon emissions and he looked at me and laughed, "You don't believe in global warming, do you??" And the whole family shared a scornful laugh. I know there's really no arguing with this, but despite this I can't get over how crazy it drives me that none of these people will have any sense of how full of bullshit they really are and will die fully assured of their correctness. I thought the whole "discrediting Obama by painting him as a mysterious communist foreigner" thing had slightly faded in favor of criticizing his policies, but I guess not. Sorry to rant, it just frustrates me to no end.  I hadn't heard the Frank Marshall Davis thing before, if any of you know anything more about that "theory." summary: "MY CONSERVATIVE DAD" Sgt. McKill fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Sep 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 03:20
|
|
|
"Global warming is stupid junk science" *Votes for people who seek endorsements from man who says gays cause hurricanes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 04:42
|
|
|
Dr Christmas posted:"Global warming is stupid junk science" Gays didn't cause the hurricanes, God did because he hates gays. Don't be willfully dense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 06:14
|
|
|
Ask him why he thinks global warming doesn't exist. Give a man enough rope and he'll hang himself with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 06:30
|
|
|
Trivia posted:Ask him why he thinks global warming doesn't exist. Give a man enough rope and he'll hang himself with it. Because that one time there were emails or something that said they were liars! Therefore, I never trust any scientist about anything. Do you? Next you're going to say you believe in evolution! Hah!
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 06:43
|
|
|
myron cope posted:Because that one time there were emails or something that said they were liars! Therefore, I never trust any scientist about anything. Do you? Next you're going to say you believe in evolution! Hah! I feel a little bit bad for these people who reject such well-established science because sometimes it's kind of not their faults. For global warming, there's so much propaganda and misinformation put out there by people like fossil fuel producers who have financial and personal incentives in not doing anything about global warming that I can understand how these people could be fooled. As to evolution, so many creationists are home-schooled or at least raised in extremely devout religious families, so they likely haven't had a proper education in science in general and biology specifically. I can't really blame someone who's had religious literalism drilled into their head every day for their entire childhood, it's a bit like brainwashing. It's not really their fault that they can't accept science that they don't really know about and don't have the proper skills and knowledge base to understand even if they did confront true information about evolutionary biology.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 09:54
|
|
|
My favorite go to line in all the Anti-Obama attacks is the "He's spent millions of dollars having his college transcripts sealed!!!!"Now, I can honestly admit that I have never had to seal my college transcripts, so maybe it does cost millions of dollars, but something tells me it doesn't work like that. Wouldn't you just sigh something that says they are sealed? Or do you have to spend 5,000 dollars everytime someone tries to access them? How is he spending millions of dollars? Surely the liberal ivory tower elites would never release them, so it can't be bribe money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 10:29
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:I feel a little bit bad for these people who reject such well-established science because sometimes it's kind of not their faults. For global warming, there's so much propaganda and misinformation put out there by people like fossil fuel producers who have financial and personal incentives in not doing anything about global warming that I can understand how these people could be fooled. As to evolution, so many creationists are home-schooled or at least raised in extremely devout religious families, so they likely haven't had a proper education in science in general and biology specifically. I can't really blame someone who's had religious literalism drilled into their head every day for their entire childhood, it's a bit like brainwashing. It's not really their fault that they can't accept science that they don't really know about and don't have the proper skills and knowledge base to understand even if they did confront true information about evolutionary biology. I tend to agree--but there are enough people that should and/or do know better but are deliberately misleading people. They are the real problem. Like, say, any serious politician. Or that dickbag that runs Conservapedia. Or yeah, like you mention, the fossil fuel dudes. This is sorta related, my sister works for a power company in the midwest (don't want to be specific but I'm sure it wouldn't matter anyway) and she talks about how coal is super awesome and totally not bad for the environment, and how she has to vote Republican because Obama is destroying their industry. In her case it's not so much global warming denial as it is...self preservation, I guess. Also, I saw signs when I was back in PA (they might be everywhere, but I only saw them in PA) that said something like "Obama stop the war on coal" So anyway, sorry about your dad, Sgt. McKill. I didn't want to be mean specifically toward him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 10:30
|
|
|
I used to like the modern-man-transported-to-distant-past type of science fiction story. Consider the idea for a moment...you yourself as an educated modern person, suddenly find yourself in, say 16th century England (so language isn't a huge problem). You probably know more about how the universe works than literally every person alive. How would you go about teaching those people what you know? Keep in mind, say you want to get them to try to find penicillin, you've got to explain germ theory of disease first, and before you can do that you have to explain cells, then you have to convince them that it's true, and the tools to do this haven't been invented. To avoid ruining your "discovery" you have to get them to understand evolution without getting yourself burned as a heretic. Any big concept of modern science, any practical application you might want to achieve would require multiple difficult steps before you can even get people to understand what you are getting at. Modern ignoramuses are only slightly less difficult.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 10:36
|
|
|
Trivia posted:Ask him why he thinks global warming doesn't exist. Give a man enough rope and he'll hang himself with it. He had a few main reasons, all of which I've heard debunked over and over and are pretty standard bullshit conservative talking points: 1.) The data that does show evidence of global warming is manufactured and faked. The leaked e-mails (Climategate) prove this. 2.) If there's such an "overwhelming scientific consensus" about global warming, why was every scientist saying that the globe was cooling in the 1980s? Why were there cover articles in Time about an impending ice age? 3.) The earth has natural warming cycles (never mind the fact that these cycles take place over tens of thousands of years, not a hundred) 4.) Climate change is really a trojan horse for liberals to achieve goals that they couldn't otherwise, such as increased regulation and deindustrialization. Of course, the converse, that opposition to climate change on the part of conservatives is because it would necessitate extensive government regulation of the economy, couldn't possibly be true. 5.) He said he really thought better of me, and that he would think I would be more discerning and wouldn't just believe everything I'm told. It really does frustrate me, especially because my dad is actually a really smart guy. The sort of mental gymnastics you'd have to do to continue to believe all these things is insane, and basically requires exposure to nothing but conservative echo chambers for your news. It's especially depressing with global warming because I believe it is the single most important issue in the world today. The fact that we can't even get people to agree that there is a problem, much less agree on how to solve it, shows how truly hosed we are in the future.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 12:32
|
|
|
You could always try a different approach. Something like "Do you really believe there's an endless supply of oil and coal?" Even if global warming was a hoax, we'd still need to be investing more into solar and wind and other alternatives because the supplies of oil and coal on this planet is finite and we need good, fully operational alternatives before we run out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 12:52
|
|
|
Sarion posted:You could always try a different approach. Something like "Do you really believe there's an endless supply of oil and coal?" That's an interesting approach, it just seems incredible that I'd have to concede the point that endless carbon emissions are not good for the planet, and that Earth is getting warmer. I've always been a bit skeptical of "even if" arguments for that reason. Investing in alternative sources of energy certainly wouldn't carry the urgency that is needed if its necessity is due to finite resources rather than environmental degradation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 13:06
|
|
|
The oil and coal thing doesn't work anymore, since the coal industry has been bombarding the media with their "Centuries of fuel left!" line and some people are starting to believe abiogenic oil.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 14:22
|
|
|
Sgt. McKill posted:He had a few main reasons, all of which I've heard debunked over and over and are pretty standard bullshit conservative talking points: The next point would be to ask him if there is feasably anything that would change his mind. If he says no, hammer that as being unscientific, and don't stop until he acknowledges that conclusions arise from data, instead of the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 14:36
|
|
|
What the gently caress is "climate gate"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 16:14
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:What the gently caress is "climate gate"? I'm pretty hazy on the details, but if I remember correctly some time ago a lot emails from a climate research institute were leaked. Somehow climate change denialists got it into their heads that there was evidence for a conspiracy in them, mostly by selectively quoting stuff out of context. Perestroika fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Sep 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 16:20
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:I'm pretty hazy on the details, but if I remember correctly some time ago a lot emails from a climate research institute were leaked. Somehow climate change denialists got it into their heads that there was evidence for a conspiracy in them, mostly by selectively quoting stuff out of context. Yeah, and the scientists that were accused of the conspiracy were cleared of any wrongdoing by several independent organizations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 16:32
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:I'm pretty hazy on the details, but if I remember correctly some time ago a lot emails from a climate research institute were leaked. Somehow climate change denialists got it into their heads that there was evidence for a conspiracy in them, mostly by selectively quoting stuff out of context. It's pretty convenient for deniers, because now literally any data proving climate change can be countered with "the data can't be trusted and is doctored." A cursory reading of a bunch of headlines from years ago that have long since been discredited allows them to keep their worldview entirely consistent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 16:54
|
|
|
Is there a good write up of the entire thing? I would love to learn more, I suspect it will be very useful going forward.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 17:53
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Is there a good write up of the entire thing? I would love to learn more, I suspect it will be very useful going forward. This response by The Guardian is pretty good at countering all the critiques. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/climategate-bogus-sceptics-lies The Wikipedia article also gives a good overview. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 18:03
|
|
|
Cool, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
Your Gay Uncle posted:My favorite go to line in all the Anti-Obama attacks is the "He's spent millions of dollars having his college transcripts sealed!!!!"Now, I can honestly admit that I have never had to seal my college transcripts, so maybe it does cost millions of dollars, but something tells me it doesn't work like that. Wouldn't you just sigh something that says they are sealed? Or do you have to spend 5,000 dollars everytime someone tries to access them? How is he spending millions of dollars? Surely the liberal ivory tower elites would never release them, so it can't be bribe money. It actually requires not even a signature to "seal your college transcripts", because they are "sealed" by default. It's actually illegal for a college to release the transcript (or any other similar information, like test scores) of any student without the student's explicit permission. I had a colleague who worked in a college registrar's office, and she had to regularly explain this fact to parents who would phone up asking for their children's grades, etc. (Once you're 18, under FERPA not even your parents can see your educational scores without your permission).
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2012 18:07
|
|
