Be Proud, Obama Worshippers: The opinion of the Congressional Budget Office, which the God-King and his minions and toadies hope you will not read:...

Loki Loc: Georgia

The opinion of the Congressional Budget Office, which the God-King and his minions and toadies hope you will not read:
http://dailysignal.com/2014/07/08/true-20-million-americans-gained-coverage-obamacare/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_c

the waker Loc: 11th freest nation

Yeah, we won't get the real numbers until either we get someone else in or in completly falls apart. My money is on implosion. This administration seems to utilize propaganda and false data well enough, but I still haven't seen any numbers on how many are actually paying in.

mcjwelles

Dems don't worship Obama. Nobody agrees 100% with anybody else. Just as it is mob-think idiocy to simply vilify and disagree 100% with anybody.
All of your diatribes accomplish is to polarize with grossly innacurate exaggerations, innuendos, and worse. You confuse circling the wagons with adoration. Shallow black/white concrete excuse for real thinking. Lazy!
You never actually contest any rebuttals to your vitriol- except with schoolboy insult and weak ersatz 'logic'. That is the price you pay for your desperation for membership. Citations are one thing but to cut and paste just more extremism proves and informs little.
If you removed that log of a chip from your shoulder you would gain a very different picture of your 'socialist' enemies.

Loki wrote:

The opinion of the Congressional Budget Office, which the God-King and his minions and toadies hope you will not read:
http://dailysignal.com/2014/07/08/true-20-million-americans-gained-coverage-obamacare/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_c

Loki Loc: Georgia

mcjwelles wrote:

Dems don't worship Obama. Nobody agrees 100% with ... (show quote)

As of now, you have rebutted nothing, so there is nothing for me to contest. Perhaps you would care to cite some of my "grossly inaccurate exaggerations?" Which are "grossly inaccurate," and why? I suppose you have a factual rebuttal? I didn't think so. By the way, most of my "grossly inaccurate exaggerations" come from US Government sources. From what source will your eagerly awaited "rebuttal" spring? I suppose you did not notice that my source was the Congressional Budget Office? If you don't have time to click and read, too bad. I don't have time to hold your hand while you pick out your crayon.

mcjwelles

1)- Dems don't worship Obama. Nobody agrees 100% with anybody else. Just as it is mob-think idiocy to simply vilify and disagree 100% with anybody.
2)-All of your diatribes accomplish is to polarize with grossly innacurate exaggerations, innuendos, and worse. You confuse circling the wagons with adoration. Shallow black/white concrete excuse for real thinking. Lazy!
(For example) I was 'commenting' on the pack of commentaries you preach to the "ignorant".- YOU may rebut my comment now.
If you removed that log of a chip from your shoulder you would gain a very different picture of your 'socialist' enemies.

Loki wrote:

As of now, you have rebutted nothing, so there is ... (show quote)

Ricko Loc: Florida

the waker wrote:

Yeah, we won't get the real numbers until either we get someone else in or in completly falls apart. My money is on implosion. This administration seems to utilize propaganda and false data well enough, but I still haven't seen any numbers on how many are actually paying in.

the waker-believe implosion is what is needed. However, be prepared to shell out a few more billion in taxpayer dollars to prop this thing up as long as Obama is in office as he will not repeal it. If the republicans regain the Senate they could de-fund the monster. Good Luck America !!!

Loki Loc: Georgia

mcjwelles wrote:

1)- Dems don't worship Obama. Nobody agrees 100% w... (show quote)

Which "pack of commentaries?" If they were preached to the ignorant, they were obviously meant for you, so you should be able to show a bit more specificity. Once more, you have given me nothing to rebut, simply stated a very general opinion. It seems that your own "ersatz logic" is considerably more ersatz than mine.

mcjwelles

Right, little man.

Loki wrote:

Which "pack of commentaries?" If they were preached to the ignorant, they were obviously meant for you, so you should be able to show a bit more specificity. Once more, you have given me nothing to rebut, simply stated a very general opinion. It seems that your own "ersatz logic" is considerably more ersatz than mine.

Loki Loc: Georgia

mcjwelles wrote:

Right, little man.

Go hump someone else's leg, Fido.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Loki wrote:

The opinion of the Congressional Budget Office, which the God-King and his minions and toadies hope you will not read:
http://dailysignal.com/2014/07/08/true-20-million-americans-gained-coverage-obamacare/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_c

Loki, I do not see this in the same light that the Daily signal wants me to. I get the 20 million figure when I add the figures they use. It matters not a bit, which nitch of the ACA people get their coverage from. The non-exchange privately sold policy must meet the requirements of the ACA. If they show 4 million fewer buyers on the private policy, those got their policy via another nitch of the ACA. The figure remains 20 million as stated by the original study.

mcjwelles

When Right is dead wrong...

permafrost wrote:

Loki, I do not see this in the same light that the Daily signal wants me to. I get the 20 million figure when I add the figures they use. It matters not a bit, which nitch of the ACA people get their coverage from. The non-exchange privately sold policy must meet the requirements of the ACA. If they show 4 million fewer buyers on the private policy, those got their policy via another nitch of the ACA. The figure remains 20 million as stated by the original study.

Loki Loc: Georgia

permafrost wrote:

Loki, I do not see this in the same light that the Daily signal wants me to. I get the 20 million figure when I add the figures they use. It matters not a bit, which nitch of the ACA people get their coverage from. The non-exchange privately sold policy must meet the requirements of the ACA. If they show 4 million fewer buyers on the private policy, those got their policy via another nitch of the ACA. The figure remains 20 million as stated by the original study.

It is the same kind of creative bookkeeping that is used in reporting unemployment figures, designed to make an inept Administration look good.
If you stop receiving unemployment benefits for any reason whatsoever, (other than dying ), you are employed. If your benefits run out and you are still unemployed, you are counted as employed. If you receive a disability check you have a job. If you are unemployed and do not qualify for unemployment for some reason, you are employed. If you have had your hours cut from full to part time, it counts the same.
If you have lost your insurance because of the ACA and managed to get an Obama approved, more expensive policy, you are an enrollee. If you have signed up and havent paid a premium, you are counted.
The dishonesty employed in reporting these figures should be a giveaway that all is not as peachy as the government wants you to think.

Loki Loc: Georgia

mcjwelles wrote:

When Right is dead wrong...

You still haven't given me any specifics, Snookums. All you have done so far is engage in the sort of activity you accuse me of. You are going to have to do better than that, numbnuts.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Loki wrote:

It is the same kind of creative bookkeeping that i... (show quote)

Loki, screwed up as they managed to make the ACA, I am so disappointed. They could at least try and count in a uniform manner that did not try to confuse anyone.. I am done with the forum and going to supper.. Later...

CDM Loc: Florida

Loki wrote:

As of now, you have rebutted nothing, so there is ... (show quote)

Loki; you very obviously know you are in a conversation with a moron or troll. I just wanted to recognize your 'sources' comment as relevant and important.

I have many times defended my posts in the face of these uninformed people pointing out that the information came from government sites; the Government Printing Office, the Dept. of Labor, the FBI, the ATF, the EPA and countless others all courtesy of the people who directly or indirectly work for the president.

It never ceases to amaze me how Obama doesn't know what his own people are publishing, but I digress.

If you ever get tired of the time and expenditure of gray matter required to dig out facts you can always turn on the TV. Everything you ever wanted to know is there and thinking is not required. ;-)