Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes guilty of Jan. 6 seditious conspiracy

[Next Day Error]

thats some secret police right there. thanks for the confirmation.

No, that’s their prerogative under the law.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Sure, it's constitutionally legal

Glad we're in agreement.

 

[bottomups]

You're willing to give HALF A TRILLION to people who don't need it. When you can justify that we'll go there.

At least $400 billion in PPP loans was forgiven. Most for businesses who didn't need it.

 

[bottomups]

Businesses were hammered by lockdowns. People were put out of work. That's a far cry from someone making $125k and owes $60k. The up to $20k wouldn't even have paid off their debt anyways. And it was unconstitutional for Biden to even try to offer it. Even Nancy Pelosi said so. The Biden Administration knew it was unconstitutional but they dangled it out there to get votes. And @bacha29 was all for it because he has no moral compass when it comes to spending money. Half a trillion is no big deal to him.

You really believe everyone with a student loan makes $125k?

 

[newfie]

Simply stated, you can't preach a political ideology without first living it.

Unless you're a dem.

 

[newfie]

You really believe everyone with a student loan makes $125k?

You would I think agree that if you get a loan and get a degree and then still make pauper wages that keep you from paying back your loan then you probably didn't get the right degree?

 

[vantexan]

You really believe everyone with a student loan makes $125k?

Of course not. Two college grads married to each other qualify with income up to $250k. Let's say one makes $110k and the other makes $70k. $180k to handle say $100k in debt. Student loan debt isn't charged interest at credit card rates. And a lot of these grads like doctors, lawyers, dentists, accountants and others have the potential to make a lot more. Think about all the people struggling on less than $40k a year. $50k is no picnic. It's a slap in their face. And Biden just wanted to dangle an incentive out in front of Democratic voters to motivate them for the midterms. And it worked.

 

[vantexan]

Is giving you a FREE 100+K heart operation the morally right thing to do? Especially when you're the one always whining about the federal debt When you finally answer that question we'll go from there.

You know that insurance companies pay nowhere near for procedures what the uninsured pay. My $100k+ operation would probably cost them less than $40k. So if the government actually did pay for my operation there's no way they would pay $100k+. But you knew that already.

 

[newfie]

No, that’s their prerogative under the law.

Secret police prerogative without public transparency. KGB comrade

 

[bacha29]

You know that insurance companies pay nowhere near for procedures what the uninsured pay. My $100k+ operation would probably cost them less than $40k. So if the government actually did pay for my operation there's no way they would pay $100k+. But you knew that already.

So now rather than to simply state whether or not you were morally entitled to public benefits and be done with it you're now trying to reduce the cost you stated earlier with no evidence to support the lower number.
What I pointed out earlier was the extent Democrat social programs impact the daily lives of ordinary people and most don't even realize it. The legislation that supported the cost of your life saving surgery was passed into law with the clearly stated intent that the poorest among us would not be deprived of healthcare due to their lack of funds.

Now Trump stated for the record that he would repeal the ACA and replace it with what he said would be "something better". As everyone saw "repeal and replace" was repeal and no replace. And after Trump and his gang stated that the replacement would be unveiled in the weeks prior to the election . What they brought out was nothing more than a big folder full of policy meeting notes and minutes but nothing in the way of drafted legislation to be presented to congress.

Public trust in Trump took a big step in the wrong direction at precisely the wrong time.

 

[Box Ox]

That has nothing to do with my statement. But if you want to go there you supported Biden giving half a trillion in student loan relief to people making up to $125k a year, $250k for couples. It was illegal but you supported throwing money down a hole. Hundreds of billions. So get off your low horse.

Answer this question:

Do you believe that you were morally entitled to your life saving open heart surgery that had to be publicly funded and would not have taken place if you had to pay for it yourself? If so then why in your opinion that a small amount of debt relief which on an individual basis is a small fraction of the cost of your surgery not on the same moral plane as the one you use to entitle yourself to that surgery?

Might it be arguable that there's a difference between taxpayers covering the debt of someone who chose to pursue an underwater basketweaving degree and the debt of someone who needed open heart surgery to survive?

I probably just missed this part of the conversation in one of the threads.

 

[bacha29]

Might it be arguable that there's a difference between taxpayers covering the debt of someone who chose to pursue an underwater basketweaving degree and the debt of someone who needed open heart surgery to survive?

I probably just missed this part of the conversation in one of the threads.

Yes, there are some unusual college courses out there and people borrowing a load of money and handing over to one of the numerous online degree mills out there. But if you're going to give a debt break to a guy with a Masters in geology or neuro science then you'll have to give it to somebody with a degree in art or religion or it will be ruled unconstitutional.
And face it. The real intent here is to shore up the banks and lending agencies that made the loans and to try to keep the economy going as it transitions back to normal Fed fiscal policies Fed fund rates.

 

[vantexan]

So now rather than to simply state whether or not you were morally entitled to public benefits and be done with it you're now trying to reduce the cost you stated earlier with no evidence to support the lower number.
What I pointed out earlier was the extent Democrat social programs impact the daily lives of ordinary people and most don't even realize it. The legislation that supported the cost of your life saving surgery was passed into law with the clearly stated intent that the poorest among us would not be deprived of healthcare due to their lack of funds.

Now Trump stated for the record that he would repeal the ACA and replace it with what he said would be "something better". As everyone saw "repeal and replace" was repeal and no replace. And after Trump and his gang stated that the replacement would be unveiled in the weeks prior to the election . What they brought out was nothing more than a big folder full of policy meeting notes and minutes but nothing in the way of drafted legislation to be presented to congress.

Public trust in Trump took a big step in the wrong direction at precisely the wrong time.

You're the one who was way overstating things. And let's be clear. Democratic programs of the distant past were well thought out and benefited most citizens. What's been happening for some time now is spending to benefit various groups to get their vote and keep Democrats in power. And other policies like letting millions in illegally to ultimately benefit Democrats staying in power. You really can't defend it but you will anyways. Stop your race baiting. Stop your overspending. Stop your social engineering. For once just settle down and run the country in a reasonable way. Just try it.

 

[vantexan]

Your comments are an even clearer description of today's "I got mine" conservatism. The belief that you are entitled to all the public benefits you can qualify for but this guy over here isn't deserving of them simply because you say so. Not backed with any corroborated proof or rule of law that says they're not qualified to receive benefits and will back any candidate who will seek to repeal the legislation that could make certain that the individual will not be able to collect benefits but somehow you will still be able to despite the legislation's repeal.

And your comment regarding "overspending" Now did we overspend by giving you a free open heart operation in this late stage of your life given your other serious health problems you've admitted as having? Did we or did we not overspend?

If Biden had spent half a trillion you'd be rooting him on while still crying about my operation that the hospital offered to write off. And yes, George W. Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden all overspent and you want the gravy train to keep rolling. When are you going to get that even the biggest ships can sink? What does it take for you to understand that?

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Your comments are an even clearer description of today's "I got mine" conservatism. The belief that you are entitled to all the public benefits you can qualify for but this guy over here isn't deserving of them simply because you say so. Not backed with any corroborated proof or rule of law that says they're not qualified to receive benefits and will back any candidate who will seek to repeal the legislation that could make certain that the individual will not be able to collect benefits but somehow you will still be able to despite the legislation's repeal.

And your comment regarding "overspending" Now did we overspend by giving you a free open heart operation in this late stage of your life given your other serious health problems you've admitted as having? Did we or did we not overspend?

This is a truly fascinating conversation, thank you for blessing us all with this line of discussion.

Quick question though:
What do vantexan's medical bills or student debt cancellation have to do with the January 6th riot?

 

[newfie]

The real intent here is to shore up the banks and lending agencies that made the loans and to try to keep the economy going as it transitions back to normal Fed fiscal policies Fed fund rates.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

What do vantexan's medical bills or student debt cancellation have to do with the January 6th riot?

Both are in keeping with an extreme political ideology the dangers of which few realize

Opposition to using taxpayer dollars to pay off the debts of college graduates is a dangerous extremist political ideology?

Lol.

 

[vantexan]

Both are in keeping with an extreme political ideology the dangers of which few realize including Meggs and Rhoades until the backers of such an extreme viewpoint have to come face to face with the reality of it as was the case with Tex. A passionate backer of hard conservatism but suddenly found himself on death's doorstep with little cash and no insurance. If legislatively required creation of public funding sources had not come riding up to rescue him he might not even be here to spew his hard right ideology .

Oh sure you can go out there and bark that hard right politics all you want until as in Tex case there's a dramatic and completely unforeseen turn of events for which you are completely unprepared for and find your self seeking public assistance as a last resort and in Tex case never once asking himself what would have happened to him if that assistance did not exist.

When have I ever said the government shouldn't assist anyone in dire need? Have I been against Social Security? No. Medicare? No. Unemployment? No. Food stamps? No. Childcare? No. Medicaid? No. What programs have I been against that you're aware of?

All I've ever said is the government should be responsible with our taxes. That able bodied people should work for a living. If their income is too low and need some assistance like food stamps I don't have a problem with it as long as they're working. I do have a problem with them being able to buy certain things like beer and cigarettes with food stamps. I have a big problem with people sitting at home and getting all kinds of benefits if they're able to work. I have a big problem with the government paying people to stay home on unemployment when businesses are begging for workers. Responsible government. Is that bad in your book?

 

[El Correcto]

I wasn’t attacking anyone. I was discussing a hypothetical put forth by another member. Sorry if some are offended by my moral world view.

Being a fat to the point of needing welfare and handouts is morally reprehensible. I would go as far as to say it is an abomination in the eyes of god, if you will.

 

[Next Day Error]

Secret police prerogative without public transparency. KGB comrade

Hey, buddy. The police never have to talk unless they're summoned to do so in a court of law. This is the way it has always been, even under President Bronzer.