So is it that you don't know the answer or the answer is a bit too uncomfortable for you too admit?
President Obama!
- Thread starter passerby
- Start date
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Obama Administration Seeks Race-Based Government In Hawaii
President Barack Obama’s administration has quietly suggested it is willing to create a two-tier race-based legal system in Hawaii, where one set of taxes, spending and law enforcement will govern one race, and the second set of laws will govern every other race.
The diversity proposal is portrayed as an effort to create a separate in-state government for people who are “native Hawaiians.”
If Obama succeeds, “what’s to prevent creating similar [self-governing racial] groups out of say, Cajuns, or Orthodox Jews or Amish?” said Gail Heriot, a commissioner on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights .
I wonder under which group he falls ?
President Barack Obama’s administration has quietly suggested it is willing to create a two-tier race-based legal system in Hawaii, where one set of taxes, spending and law enforcement will govern one race, and the second set of laws will govern every other race.
The diversity proposal is portrayed as an effort to create a separate in-state government for people who are “native Hawaiians.”
If Obama succeeds, “what’s to prevent creating similar [self-governing racial] groups out of say, Cajuns, or Orthodox Jews or Amish?” said Gail Heriot, a commissioner on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights .
I wonder under which group he falls ?
oldngray
nowhere special
Hawaii already has legal discrimination. Only people born there are allowed to own property. Non natives can buy a house but can only lease the land it sits on. Japanese have bought a lot of property there by marrying into local families then using their children to buy land.
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
False.
There are certain parcels of land in Hawaii that are 'leasehold', in which you are are only leasing the land, but non-Hawaiians can most certainly buy land in Hawaii.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
So if desire liberty do you serious believe I would think its cool if you used government to force me to buy you insurance?
moreluck
golden ticket member
I own a house and the land it's on in Waianae.(Oahu). As long as it says "fee simple" you own the land too. Some properties are leasehold and buyers avoid them....at least buyers like me..
I don't. I pay Blue Cross / Blue Shield every month. So much for "government takeover of the healthcare industry".
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
What does that have to do with the question that you posed to me? Not to be rude but if there were a way for me to care less about what you buy that's where I'd be.
I don't know. You suggested that I used the government to force you to buy me insurance. I was confused by your tangential statement as well, but you directed the conversation there, not me.
av8torntn is constantly belligerent, incoherent in his posts, and unable to follow a thread or respond to a poster thoughtfully.
Sadly this is the type of post that is allowed in BC without moderation.
Sadly this is the type of post that is allowed in BC without moderation.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Really in a thread about the ACA? You asked the question to me about how I felt in regards
to using force of government to make people buy insurance for others and I replied that I was opposed. I then replied that was irrelevant and didn't care. I still don't see a way possible for me to care less how you spend your money.
Although your confusion could possibly be a medical symptom.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
WOW. You are lost, aren't you? Between the government allowing companies to dump employees onto exchanges and government forcing companies to purchase insurance if they simply have more than 50 employees, which seems more libertarian to you. That's all I was asking.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Again neither. The entire premise of the question would be idiotic to
someone seeking liberty. Small part of the reason I dismissed
you so readily. Also your question had nothing to do with the IRS finding while you're talking about someone lost. That's just a side point. If you would have read the finding and not the headline of an article you would have already know that though.
Are we just asking random hypothetical questions and bragging about buying health insurance or was there a point to your random off topic question?
I just think you hate because you don't have anything better to do. You don't like Obamacare because it forces individuals to buy insurance but you are fine that companies are required to do so for employees. And when it looks like Obama is saying companies can dump employees into exchanges, well that's bad too.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
In libertarian theory, most of the following falls into the concept of monopoly.
Gov't compelling individuals to buy a service or product is force.
Gov't compelling companies to buy a service or product to benefit employee is force.
Individual and/or business using gov't that compel others to provide them or their employees a benefit, subsidy, etc. is force.
Business shifting costs or losses via gov't onto taxpayer is force.
And here is the one that could light the fuse, question is from which side will it explode.
A tax break is also a force. The break is determined when a certain class of taxpayer fits a certain profile and thus it becomes a privilege. Marriage deduction, mortgage deduction etc all fit this profile of privilege. Now if the same amount of deduction is extended to all manner of taxpayer regardless of class, status or action on their part, it's a true tax reductionof which all benefit thus IMO not a privilege as all are enjoying the same benefit. Otherwise, it becomes a tax burden or a means of wealth redistribution and also a market intervention by economically benefiting a behavior or action of one while penalizing another.
Gov't compelling individuals to buy a service or product is force.
Gov't compelling companies to buy a service or product to benefit employee is force.
Individual and/or business using gov't that compel others to provide them or their employees a benefit, subsidy, etc. is force.
Business shifting costs or losses via gov't onto taxpayer is force.
And here is the one that could light the fuse, question is from which side will it explode.
A tax break is also a force. The break is determined when a certain class of taxpayer fits a certain profile and thus it becomes a privilege. Marriage deduction, mortgage deduction etc all fit this profile of privilege. Now if the same amount of deduction is extended to all manner of taxpayer regardless of class, status or action on their part, it's a true tax reductionof which all benefit thus IMO not a privilege as all are enjoying the same benefit. Otherwise, it becomes a tax burden or a means of wealth redistribution and also a market intervention by economically benefiting a behavior or action of one while penalizing another.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure if you think that I hate you because I want to be free or if I hate you because I could care less how you spend your money. If that's the case and it makes you really feel better congratulations on buying insurance. In any case I do not hate you. I will assume you are doing what all leftists do when they lose an entitlement argument and claim hate just based on previous posts, but I don't really know. Given your previous posts it could be just from a lack of knowledge or understanding.
[/quote] You don't like Obamacare because it forces individuals to buy insurance but you are fine that companies are required to do so for employees.[/quote]
You managed to be incorrect twice in the same sentence. Approaching other side status.
[/quote]And when it looks like Obama is saying companies can dump employees into exchanges, well that's bad too.[/quote]
Again incorrect and you would know that if you read more than just the headline of an article before deciding to comment.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Not sure if that was directed at me or not and as you know I am no libertarian, but I do agree will all of that.
You don't like Obamacare because it forces individuals to buy insurance but you are fine that companies are required to do so for employees.[/quote]
You managed to be incorrect twice in the same sentence. Approaching other side status.
[/quote]And when it looks like Obama is saying companies can dump employees into exchanges, well that's bad too.[/quote]
Again incorrect and you would know that if you read more than just the headline of an article before deciding to comment.[/quote]
No. You seem to hate Obama regardless what the law says. That's what I don't get. The status quo didn't (and doesn't) work but you rail against both it and any changes to it.
You claim that Obama hid behind a three day weekend to come out with a statement that part of the status quo remains the same...a statement that was actually made 5/13 as DIDO correctly pointed out on several occasions.
So what we really have here with Obamacare, is relatively minor insurance reform that holds the possibility of driving down cost through market based government action. Not really any different than any other market government regulates or becomes involved in as wk pointed out. It's all changed and stayed the same all at the same time. Not sure why so many people are so upset with it.
