CPAPtalk.com

DreamStalker wrote:

Slinky wrote: CNN and FOX stumbled all over themselves in trying to be first to break the news from the Supreme Court on the health care bill - and got it WRONG! They first announced that it had been struck DOWN!! And then had to wipe the egg off their faces and correct their error. Talk about shades of Chicago's "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline!!!!!

This was simple media propaganda to manipulate the computer trading algorithms ... common fraudulent Wall Street practices to transfer wealth from the ignorant 99% masses to the 1%.

No it wasn't. I happened to be online and observing the Supreme Court blog that ALL the news shows were using as their main source of the decision, at the same time I was also watching a news program. (The networks and cable news also had reporters just outside the chambers.) As Roberts read his opinion, the very first part dealt with the Commerce Clause and he announced that part was UN-CONSTITUTIONAL. The news shows immediately showed that as BREAKING NEWS. It wasn't but maybe 30 seconds later that the next part of the decision was announced via the Supreme Court Blog and every news show had to regroup.

jnk wrote:

DreamStalker wrote: . . . first time that all will collapse pretty much at the same time. . . . changing the world as we know it. . . .

Are ya sure them books ya been readin' are financial books, DS? 'Cause sure sounds to me like ya been readin' yer Bible again--like maybe Ezekiel 7:19 or Zephaniah 1:18 or sumthin'?

I'll guess sumthin' else for DS. Maybe sumthin' along the lines of web site(s) focused on conspiracy theories and/or doomsday predictions. Perhaps sumthin' secular and predictive like these:

http://cryptogon.com/?page_id=2
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/index.php
http://halfpasthuman.com/
http://www.nationaldreamcenter.com/
http://urbansurvival.com/week.htm

Please do tell, DS. The curious among us long to know....

Sloop wrote:

DreamStalker wrote:

Slinky wrote: CNN and FOX stumbled all over themselves in trying to be first to break the news from the Supreme Court on the health care bill - and got it WRONG! They first announced that it had been struck DOWN!! And then had to wipe the egg off their faces and correct their error. Talk about shades of Chicago's "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline!!!!!

This was simple media propaganda to manipulate the computer trading algorithms ... common fraudulent Wall Street practices to transfer wealth from the ignorant 99% masses to the 1%.

No it wasn't. I happened to be online and observing the Supreme Court blog that ALL the news shows were using as their main source of the decision, at the same time I was also watching a news program. (The networks and cable news also had reporters just outside the chambers.) As Roberts read his opinion, the very first part dealt with the Commerce Clause and he announced that part was UN-CONSTITUTIONAL. The news shows immediately showed that as BREAKING NEWS. It wasn't but maybe 30 seconds later that the next part of the decision was announced via the Supreme Court Blog and every news show had to regroup.

And just how do you know that Roberts did not intentionally write his opinion to manipulate the media, and by extension, the markets the way he did? Were you there in his mind too?

The FACT is that the markets are manipulated by computer trading algorithms with input from "BREAKING NEWS" event cycles. THAT was my point ... which you missed or willfully ignored.

-SWS wrote: I'll guess sumthin' else for DS. Maybe sumthin' along the lines of web site(s) focused on conspiracy theories and/or doomsday predictions. Perhaps sumthin' secular and predictive like these:

Please do tell, DS. The curious among us long to know....

I think you don't give DS enough credit for understanding currency.


"What is ending within the next year (+/- 6 months) is the USD as the world's reserve currency. When Nixon closed the window on backing of USD with gold, the world's monetary systems all went into faith-based financing. This enhanced the financial fraud which has "peaked" ... due to the principles of fractional reserve banking, compound interest, and financial deregulation. The world central banks (and the governments/economies that they own) have lost control of the global debt, an eventual conclusion of the basic principles on which they exist. People simply do not understand how money works an so are blind to the simple mathematical inequality. Money exists only because of loans (debt) which can never be fully paid back because of the residual interest (an exponential function btw) on that debt (unless there is endless growth to the end of time). Over time, the debt service eventually outgrows the rate at which it can be paid back because growth is limited, debt interest is not. That is where we are now ... global debt can never be paid back and the exponential function is out of reach (unsustainable) and consequently, collapse is inevitable."

This is Spot On

-SWS wrote:

jnk wrote:

DreamStalker wrote: . . . first time that all will collapse pretty much at the same time. . . . changing the world as we know it. . . .

Are ya sure them books ya been readin' are financial books, DS? 'Cause sure sounds to me like ya been readin' yer Bible again--like maybe Ezekiel 7:19 or Zephaniah 1:18 or sumthin'?

I'll guess sumthin' else for DS. Maybe sumthin' along the lines of web site(s) focused on conspiracy theories and/or doomsday predictions. Perhaps sumthin' secular and predictive like these:

http://cryptogon.com/?page_id=2
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/index.php
http://halfpasthuman.com/
http://www.nationaldreamcenter.com/
http://urbansurvival.com/week.htm

Please do tell, DS. The curious among us long to know....

Interesting links but none of those have I seen before ... I updated my post with some people to Google.

I can certainly provide more for any with interest but I have to go out for the day now will check back this evening.

DreamStalker wrote: And just how do you know that Roberts did not intentionally write his opinion to manipulate the media, and by extension, the markets the way he did? Were you there in his mind too?

The FACT is that the markets are manipulated by computer trading algorithms with input from "BREAKING NEWS" event cycles. THAT was my point ... which you missed or willfully ignored.

Come on DS -- now you are trying to convince us that Roberts PURPOSELY wrote the opinion in a structered fashion to manipulate markets. I DON'T THINK SO. There were four basic parts of the case before the court, each requiring separate opinions -- he simply wrote the decisions IN THE ORDER that they were handled.

Sloop wrote:

Come on DS -- now you are trying to convince us that Roberts PURPOSELY wrote the opinion in a structered fashion to manipulate markets. I DON'T THINK SO. There were four basic parts of the case before the court, each requiring separate opinions -- he simply wrote the decisions IN THE ORDER that they were handled.

I'm not even sure that Robert's wrote it. Our laws are written by non-elected people and passed by congressmen who supposedly work on behalf of We the People. But what do I know? I'm just one of those crazy conspiracy loons.

DreamStalker wrote:

Sloop wrote:

Come on DS -- now you are trying to convince us that Roberts PURPOSELY wrote the opinion in a structered fashion to manipulate markets. I DON'T THINK SO. There were four basic parts of the case before the court, each requiring separate opinions -- he simply wrote the decisions IN THE ORDER that they were handled.

I'm not even sure that Robert's wrote it. Our laws are written by non-elected people and passed by congressmen who supposedly work on behalf of We the People. But what do I know? I'm just one of those crazy conspiracy loons.

Now you are changing horses mid-stream. You are the one that said: "DreamStalker wrote:
And just how do you know that Roberts did not intentionally write his opinion to manipulate the media, and by extension, the markets the way he did? Were you there in his mind too?"
I was merely anwsering your question.

Doctors' Groups Applaud Health Care Ruling

By CHARLES FENG, M.D., ABC News Medical Unit
June 29, 2012
The U.S. Supreme Court's Thursday ruling that the Affordable Care Act, , with its individual mandate, is constitutional has elicited a wide range of opinions from across the medical community.

Most major national medical organizations -- including the American Medical Association, the National Physicians Alliance, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Association of American Medical Colleges -- hail the ruling as a victory. Many of these organizations have been strong supporters of the ACA since Congress passed it in 2010.

"The American Medical Association has long supported health insurance coverage for all, and we are pleased that this decision means millions of Americans can look forward to the coverage they need to get healthy and stay healthy," said Dr. Jeremy Lazarus, president of the American Medical Association.

"At last, the country is moving in a healthy direction on health care," said Dr. Valier Arkoosh, president of the National Physicians Alliance.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/medical-or ... d=16673570

When I saw this article this morning, I was reminded of the earlier poster who claimed that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will result in making it harder to find doctors to treat patients in need of care; implying that the doctors are all opposed to the law.

You really are drinking the Kool-aid.
AMA -- what a laugh. They're about as objective as AARP.

Another point of view and food for thought:

A health care 'Judas' recounts his conversion

Potter, a Cigna health care executive who ate from gold-rimmed silverware in corporate jets, says that morning was his “Road to Damascus” experience.

“It looked like a refugee camp,” Potter says. “It just hit me like a bolt of lightning. What I was doing for a living was making it necessary for people to resort to getting care in animal stalls.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Thursday on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act is a colossal legal and political issue. For Potter, though, the issue became a crisis of faith.

For the last three years, Potter has been one of the most visible supporters of President Barack Obama’s health care legislation. He has testified before Congress, appeared on countless talk shows and written a tell-all book on the health care industry called "Deadly Spin." With his Southern drawl and mild professorial manner, he has been described as a health care industry “Judas” in some media accounts.

A health care hit man

Potter says he lost sight of that because the health care issue was an abstraction to him when he worked at Cigna as a public relations executive. Part of his job was to snuff out stories in the media that made the health care industry look bad.

But his visit to that free clinic in Virginia that July morning shook him. In a column that he wrote for the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit investigative news organization, where he works as a senior analyst, he wrote:

“Until that day, I had been able to think, talk and write about the U.S. health care system and the uninsured in the abstract, as if real-life human beings were not involved.”

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/2 ... onversion/

As long as we are posting editorials ...

That’s great, but who needs the commerce clause when you can justify the same thing via Congress‘ power to “lay and collect taxes?” The ruling provides an expansive view of the power to tax: “Suppose Congress enacted a statute providing that every taxpayer who owns a house without energy-efficient windows must pay $50 to the IRS. … No one would doubt that this law imposed a tax, and was within Congress‘ power to tax.”

Really? We can be forced to buy a type of window - or else? No wonder the court thinks it’s OK to tax someone just for breathing and not buying health insurance.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -patients/

Be sure to read the comments that follow the article -- in particular the first two:

Rachel Guess • a day ago

In his opinion, Roberts does NOT say that the ObamacareTAX is Constitionally legal, and hints that it can be challenged. Why?...Because the US Constitution, Article 1 Section 7 states clearly that all TAXES MUST ORIGINATE IN THE HOUSE. The ObamacareTAX originated in the Senate. This provides a legal cause of action against it the very first time a 'fine/tax' is applied to anyone. It can be challenged on Constitutional grounds because it was not passed lawfully.


SciFi_Freddie • 7 hours ago• parent

Excellent point, Rachel. The "ObamacareTAX" is not Constitutionally legal. The Constitution lists the specific kinds of taxes that Congress can impose. That's why it had to be amended before the feds could impose the income tax - the income tax did not fit any of the Constitutional categories. What kind of tax is the 'uh oh - you don't have medical insurance' tax? Roberts didn't say, did he? Hmm. . . And if the tax/penalty is not Constitutionally legal, then it should NOT have been upheld. What a legal linguistic contortionist he is!

DreamStalker wrote: . . . makes fun of me or calls me a crazed loon. . . .

Those who have read your posts over the years know that you are far from a loon. (OK, maybe you can be a little "crazed" now and then, but in a good, interesting way.) Your post just sounded a little apocalyptic--and hey, it was Sunday morning, so I couldn't resist the fun of throwing a few scriptures around. Not makin' fun, just havin' fun. Your posts make me think.

Trade used to be based on tangible valuables. Then it was based on perception of value. Then it was based on perceptions of the perceptions of value. Now it is based on the perceptions of the perceptions of the perceptions of . . . [Insert sideways 8 here.] Tangibles have value, but group perceptions can change at any time for a myriad reasons.

Today's "markets" are not just "built" on shaky foundations but are "built" on no foundation at all.

When the model, the representation, is accepted as the more important reality, the actual reality starts to lose meaning as just another defined variable in the game.

Just keep everyone busy playing a mostly meaningless game and then you can distract them enough to rob them blind while you manipulate the rules of the game behind the scenes.

Now who is the loony conspiracy theorist?

DreamStalker wrote:

mikewithe wrote:The whole discussion is moot, though; isn't it? After all, isn't the world ending on 12/21 of this year?

The world is NOT ending.

Modern industrial civilization is ending. It's been in decline for about a decade now. The actual causes were enhanced about [. . . and on, and on, and on.]

This was a joke in reference to the Mayan Calendar end-of-the-world silliness that we've heard so much about over the last several years. It was meant to lighten the mood a bit. I'm sorry that you missed the point.

Sloop wrote:Be sure to read the comments that follow the article -- in particular the first two:

Rachel Guess • a day ago

In his opinion, Roberts does NOT say that the ObamacareTAX is Constitionally legal, and hints that it can be challenged. Why?...Because the US Constitution, Article 1 Section 7 states clearly that all TAXES MUST ORIGINATE IN THE HOUSE. The ObamacareTAX originated in the Senate. This provides a legal cause of action against it the very first time a 'fine/tax' is applied to anyone. It can be challenged on Constitutional grounds because it was not passed lawfully.

SciFi_Freddie • 7 hours ago• parent

Excellent point, Rachel. The "ObamacareTAX" is not Constitutionally legal. The Constitution lists the specific kinds of taxes that Congress can impose. That's why it had to be amended before the feds could impose the income tax - the income tax did not fit any of the Constitutional categories. What kind of tax is the 'uh oh - you don't have medical insurance' tax? Roberts didn't say, did he? Hmm. . . And if the tax/penalty is not Constitutionally legal, then it should NOT have been upheld. What a legal linguistic contortionist he is!

Both of those comments are simply untrue as matters of fact, something Rachel Guess and SciFi_Freddie could have determined in seconds. It confirms what NateS said earlier, that it pays to check original sources.

Let's start with Ms. Guess's contention that tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives. The Court was ruling on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, an act that in fact originated in the House as H.R. 3590. That's all that matters. Article I, section 7, clause 1 of the Constitution says, "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." I think the mandate was in versions of the law circulating in both houses from the very start, but it doesn't matter which had it first. The actual bill that was passed originated in the House, and the Constitution doesn't care where any particular amendment to the bill was proposed. That's probably why Justices Alito, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas never thought of this argument, despite their very thorough analysis of flaws they saw in the tax theory of the PPACA's constitutionality. I wouldn't expect Ms. Guess to discover a crucial argument they missed.

I knew a kid named Guess when I was in high school. He got pulled over one night by a policeman, who asked him his name. It turns out no one likes a smart ass, especially cops.

Turning to SciFi_Freddie's point, the Constitution does not in fact list the specific kinds of taxes that Congress can impose. It says, in Article I, section 8, that "Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes ..." There's no list. What SciFi_Freddie is probably thinking of is a restriction on so-called "direct taxes," which are subject to Article I, section 9, clause 4: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." But Chief Justice Roberts discussed this point quite specifically at pages 40 to 41, and concluded that the mandate is not a direct tax. My point is not whether Roberts was right about this (although he was). It is how often people just say stuff that is demonstrably untrue. SciFi_Freddie claims that "Roberts didn't say," but he did, and anyone bothering to read the opinion can see that he did.

It's hardly worth paying attention to anyone's opinion until you check to see if he has his facts straight.