Who do you support for Governor in Oh...
Canton

Canton, OH

#25448 Feb 14, 2014
mutt wrote:
<quoted text>
Is this CNBC article more to your liking?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101393331
"Companies that have 100 or more full-time workers, defined as employees who work more than 30 hours per week, still will have to begin complying with the mandate to offer such coverage in 2015 or face financial penalties of at least $2,000 and up to $3,000 per worker.
Officials said that any business claiming they are eligible for the new one-year delay because they have fewer than 100 workers must certify, under penalty of perjury, that it had not reduced its workforce merely to qualify for that exemption."
Back to my original question: Do you consider this a totalitarian action by the Obama administration?
Still waiting to see if you are going to prove me a wrong about the story of Lot, or if you are just a conniving and typical right wing liar.

http://www.pensitoreview.com/Wordpress/wp-con...
mutt

Chillicothe, OH

#25449 Feb 14, 2014
Canton wrote:
Oh and lil' poochie word game boy? When you go to work your "end of the world" angle on the absolutely true and accurate statements I made about Lot and his daughters in the Bible...
“The Holy One, blessed be He, has rescued us so that the world will exist through us, so that the human race shall continue.”- Lot's daughters, after getting their father drunk and banging him in a cave.
And now let's read from the bible:

New International Version
Gen 19:31 One day the older daughter said to the younger,“Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. 32Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.” 33That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. 34The next day the older daughter said to the younger,“Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” 35So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. 36So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. 37The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moabg ; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammih ; he is the father of the Ammonitesi of today.

American King James Version
31And the firstborn said to the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth: 32Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.... 36Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. 37And the first born bore a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites to this day. 38And the younger, she also bore a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon to this day.

King James Version
31And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: 32Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.... 36Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. 37And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day. 38And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

New Living Translation
31One day the older daughter said to her sister,“There are no men left anywhere in this entire area, so we can’t get married like everyone else. And our father will soon be too old to have children. 32Come, let’s get him drunk with wine, and then we will have sex with him. That way we will preserve our family line through our father.”... 36As a result, both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their own father. 37When the older daughter gave birth to a son, she named him Moab.b He became the ancestor of the nation now known as the Moabites. 38When the younger daughter gave birth to a son, she named him Ben-ammi.c He became the ancestor of the nation now known as the Ammonites.
mutt

Chillicothe, OH

#25451 Feb 14, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
Aww, Dahmer's little creation science lapdog seems to be even more agitated than usual today.
I just love watching d-bag rightwingers gleefully wallow in their own ignorance...
ROFLMAO!!!
You must have missed my post from last week. It turns out that Dahmer believed in evolution when he was killing guys and f'ing their corpses.

So, what should we call you? Dahmer's little evolution science lapdog? That sounds good. I'll just call you little Jeffy for short.
mutt

Chillicothe, OH

#25452 Feb 14, 2014
Canton wrote:
Go ahead and show us where I stated your gay website wasn't "good enough".[QUOTE]
Um, did I mention your name?

Yesterday I linked to the website "Washington Blade" to show that even some gays are admitting that AIDS a gay disease. Did the people who were arguing with me acknowledge that? No. If it disagrees with the agenda, it's ignored or bashed.

[QUOTE]...my problems with your statements were due to you skipping over the first 20 or so websites to come to your obscure definition.
First of all, I don't use Google. I use Bing. Secondly, the keywords I typed in were "teabagger origin". On the first page was a website that mentioned Rachel MadCow's segment on the origins of the name. After that, I just did searches using different key words. Very elementary, dum-dum. Conservatives/republicans have known since 2009 about the origins of the word anyway. You're just now catching up 5 years later.
kuda

Cincinnati, OH

#25453 Feb 14, 2014
mutt wrote:
<quoted text>
Is this CNBC article more to your liking?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101393331
"Companies that have 100 or more full-time workers, defined as employees who work more than 30 hours per week, still will have to begin complying with the mandate to offer such coverage in 2015 or face financial penalties of at least $2,000 and up to $3,000 per worker.
Officials said that any business claiming they are eligible for the new one-year delay because they have fewer than 100 workers must certify, under penalty of perjury, that it had not reduced its workforce merely to qualify for that exemption."
Back to my original question: Do you consider this a totalitarian action by the Obama administration?
Totalitarianism refers to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state. President Obama has exercised executive privilege in an effort to guide implementation of a healthcare program designed to provide more comprehensive care for more people more cost-effectively, hardly a selfish malevolent act. I believe you're bright and do understand the difference. It's fine to disagree with ACA or how it's being orchestrated, but to vilify the President for what he's doing on behalf of the American people is dishonest and shameful.

To answer your question about my personal tastes when it comes to journalism, I rely upon sources that report news honestly as factual information without intentionally spinning it to please political or other varieties of extremists. With Fox, everything is about Obama being a President who's horrible in every way imaginable, just as when Pat Robertson reports the news, its about the struggle between Jesus and Satan. In either case, there's no reason to bother watching, since we already know what they're going to report. Try to imagine Fox reporting anything about President Obama without a negative spin. It's just not going to happen.
Canton

Canton, OH

#25454 Feb 14, 2014
mutt wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, I don't use Google. I use Bing. Secondly, the keywords I typed in were "teabagger origin". On the first page was a website that mentioned Rachel MadCow's segment on the origins of the name. After that, I just did searches using different key words. Very elementary, dum-dum. Conservatives/republicans have known since 2009 about the origins of the word anyway. You're just now catching up 5 years later.
So as Christ is your savior, you are telling us that when I used the term Tea Bagger on here, you believed I was going for the obscure "origin" of the word, right? Not the common term for someone in the Tea Party? Sure you did. You just don't have what it takes, lil' poochie. That's why you end up looking like a moron on here all the time. Be sure to toss your Holy Bible in the trash where it belongs when you get ready to lie your way out of this one.
mutt

Chillicothe, OH

#25456 Feb 14, 2014
kuda wrote:
Totalitarianism refers to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state. President Obama has exercised executive privilege in an effort to guide implementation of a healthcare program designed to provide more comprehensive care for more people more cost-effectively, hardly a selfish malevolent act. I believe you're bright and do understand the difference. It's fine to disagree with ACA or how it's being orchestrated, but to vilify the President for what he's doing on behalf of the American people is dishonest and shameful.
I think you're bright, too, which is why I'm going to take the time to explain to you what the president's job is. He's in charge of executing existing law, not rewriting it. He has no authority to delay or alter a law without going through congress first. And he certainly doesn't have the authority to create law, such as forcing businesses to keep employees on their payrolls, or making them swear under penalty of perjury that the employees aren't being fired due to ObamaCare mandates. Those actions are totalitarian, and how you can't see that is beyond me.

2008: Obama talking about the lawlessness of bypassing Congress
&fe ature=player_embedded

I don't know what Obama was talking about in regard to Bush. If you know of examples of Bush actually writing laws through executive orders, please share. I don't agree with that kind of lawlessness, no matter who is in office.
To answer your question about my personal tastes when it comes to journalism....
I get that you don't like Fox News. You're certainly not the first leftist who doesn't.

It might not hurt for you to read a few right-of-center news sources every now and then -- not necessarily Fox News -- but something other than a left-wing site. Whatever news sources you currently go to aren't doing you any favors by sugar-coating what's really going on.
mutt

Chillicothe, OH

#25457 Feb 14, 2014
Canton wrote:
So as Christ is your savior, you are telling us that when I used the term Tea Bagger on here, you believed I was going for the obscure "origin" of the word, right? Not the common term for someone in the Tea Party? Sure you did.
Why would you call a male a teabagger, if you were referring to heterosexual sex? It doesn't even make sense. There's nothing offensive about that -- and your entire existence on here appears to be centered around being as offensive as possible.
Class

Chicago, IL

#25460 Feb 14, 2014
Come on...Admit it Cooper and Butch....you both are Atheist ....so stop pertending you are all this different people posting....the Bible was written by God...not man.
right on

Chicago, IL

#25461 Feb 14, 2014
hey you say what we are all thinking. lol on the cooper and butch
kuda

Cincinnati, OH

#25462 Feb 14, 2014
mutt wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you're bright, too, which is why I'm going to take the time to explain to you what the president's job is. He's in charge of executing existing law, not rewriting it. He has no authority to delay or alter a law without going through congress first. And he certainly doesn't have the authority to create law, such as forcing businesses to keep employees on their payrolls, or making them swear under penalty of perjury that the employees aren't being fired due to ObamaCare mandates. Those actions are totalitarian, and how you can't see that is beyond me.
2008: Obama talking about the lawlessness of bypassing Congress
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =a3IWq3CXHycXX&feature=pla yer_embedded
I don't know what Obama was talking about in regard to Bush. If you know of examples of Bush actually writing laws through executive orders, please share. I don't agree with that kind of lawlessness, no matter who is in office.
<quoted text>
I get that you don't like Fox News. You're certainly not the first leftist who doesn't.
It might not hurt for you to read a few right-of-center news sources every now and then -- not necessarily Fox News -- but something other than a left-wing site. Whatever news sources you currently go to aren't doing you any favors by sugar-coating what's really going on.
Indeed I understand the separation of the executive, legislative and judiciary branches of our government and from Wikipedia: "The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity."

I did not bring up President Bush's use of it, but you'll find a rundown of recent (and some not-so-recent) Presidents' use of it at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privil... . Does it "bypass congress?" Certainly, which is a reasonable reason to exercise it in the face of a congress held hostage by tea partiers to obstruct every effort of the President.

I do sometimes read and view right-of-center news sources — yes, including Fox "News" and even Rush Limbaugh when I feel willing to tolerate his vile spin — and it certainly does no permanent harm when I do, no matter how nauseating it may be. However, when it comes to news I prefer objective information, not hate spin, and I neither want nor need it sugar-coated.
right on

Chicago, IL

#25463 Feb 14, 2014
they have been nothing but trouble., wanting so bad to be a somebody.lol
right on

Chicago, IL

#25464 Feb 14, 2014
It is close to bedtime, better put your babydolls to bed butch.
Family friend

United States

#25465 Feb 14, 2014
Hfgg
Canton

Canton, OH

#25466 Feb 14, 2014
mutt wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would you call a male a teabagger, if you were referring to heterosexual sex? It doesn't even make sense. There's nothing offensive about that -- and your entire existence on here appears to be centered around being as offensive as possible.
What does sex have to do with a political debate? Answer the question I asked earlier. When I was talking about the right wing Conservative Tea Party members, did you honestly think of gay sex as soon as you read the term "Tea Bagger"? If so, which it's not by the way, then you are the only one who thought so, and one has to wonder what it says about you. This conversation is old and tired and you have already dodged the question long enough. Either way, have a good week end, my conservative friend.
agree

Chicago, IL

#25467 Feb 14, 2014
yeah it so cool you say what the whole town feels

Since: Jan 13

Lexington, KY

#25468 Feb 14, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I was merely pointing out the lefts position on things.
How do you know why people voted down gay marriage? Don't you think some of those people prefer tradition, many may have objected because of religious reasons, others felt it would set a bad example for our children?
I'm all for getting government out of marriage. Government didn't belong there in the first place. But even if we did all that, many gays would still be crying about not being able to be married. Why? Because it's not about government goodies in most cases. It's about rejection.
Many gays have this belief that if they force their marriage down our throats, we can no longer resent their relationships. They fail to understand that forcing SSM down our throats will not change our opinion of their marriage or their gender choice. If anything, more people will despise them.
Look at what went on in California. They had Civil Unions for years, and when the subject about SSM comes up, where are those complaints usually launched from? That's right, from the gays in California.
It's really not about any special government right that upsets most gays that want to be married. Most all of their problems can be worked out with a good lawyer. You can will your belongings to whomever you desire. You can grant Power of Attorney to whom you desire. You can leave your home or vacation property to whom you desire after you pass away. Hospital visitation rights? Those are hospital policies and not government policies.
My cousin and her significant other have had a fine relationship for many years. All their papers are in order. At family doings, they don't hold hands, they don't kiss, they don't hug each other. If a stranger is at a party, she introduces her significant other as her friend and nothing more. They've lived together for over 15 years and it's no secret to anybody in our family as to why.
If you aren't gay then how can you speak of what gays want concerning marriage, you are expressing what you think they would want. Not all problems or marriage perks can be worked out with a lawyer, taxes and filing status is one of them. If you are married and are at a family gathering do you exhibit public displays of affection with your spouse?, do you introduce your spouse as your friend?. I suspect she does this in order to not get any grief from other family members not because its what she wants to do. Marriage has became a joke and I cant speak for other gay people but for myself my desire to get married would be based on the benefits and legalities of what marriage brings, I don't need a piece of paper to prove my commitment to my partner.
mutt

Chillicothe, OH

#25469 Feb 14, 2014
kuda wrote:
Indeed I understand the separation of the executive, legislative and judiciary branches of our government and from Wikipedia: "The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity."
I did not bring up President Bush's use of it, but you'll find a rundown of recent (and some not-so-recent) Presidents' use of it at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privil... . Does it "bypass congress?" Certainly, which is a reasonable reason to exercise it in the face of a congress held hostage by tea partiers to obstruct every effort of the President.
I think claiming executive privilege and issuing an executive order are different things.

The republicans wanted to delay the ObamaCare mandate and make some changes to the law that would make it more palatable. Obama refused to work with them, and instead ruled like a king by issuing executive orders and making laws that weren't voted on by Congress. Why would he choose to act illegally, when he had the opportunity to act legally?

What do you think the purpose is of having a separation and balance of power? If the president can bypass the representatives of the people, then "we the people" are really just subjects.
mutt

Chillicothe, OH

#25470 Feb 14, 2014
Canton wrote:
What does sex have to do with a political debate? Answer the question I asked earlier. When I was talking about the right wing Conservative Tea Party members, did you honestly think of gay sex as soon as you read the term "Tea Bagger"? If so, which it's not by the way, then you are the only one who thought so, and one has to wonder what it says about you. This conversation is old and tired and you have already dodged the question long enough.

Whenever you call someone a "teabagger", you interject sex into the political debate.

I've answered your question multiple times. Conservatives found out 5 years ago what "teabagger" meant. So yes, I thought you were making a homosexual reference. This conversation would have ended a long time ago, if you had paid attention.
Either way, have a good week end, my conservative friend.
You, too.
mutt

Chillicothe, OH

#25471 Feb 14, 2014
Hey, Little Jeffy .... screwed any corpses lately?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Findlay Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Thplastics Jun 28 Get tips 1
Cheri Lynn Brooks (Feb '12) Jun 28 Really 8
Findlay police explain policy on lethal force Jun 22 copscoveringup 2
Carrie Gazaille Jun 20 Enough is Enough 43
News UF students to host African Night Jun 12 lion 2
Critics Claim The Fury of Mad Max Was Worth th... Jun 9 Culture Auditor 1
Review: Bubbles Pet Salon Jun '15 elmcco 1
More from around the web

Findlay People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Findlay Mortgages