RE: The next shoe to drop....

RE: The next shoe to drop.... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> RE: The next shoe to drop.... (1/3/2014 10:29:46 AM)
Nope, the stay is awaiting DOJ response, and that is today, and may be lifted, there were stays on this to Roberts and several other justices. So the stay may not be held, but it was a request brought to her by these nuns, who should have issued it, where it wouldnt involve a clever rightwing insight to the conspiracy and the ethereal meaning behind it all? What does it mean? While the case is ongoing, if there is merit, they will not be racking up fines. they are hearing the fuckin case this summer. Hell, the supreme court stayed the election recounts in florida in 2000, and then basically wrote an opinion that they ran out of time, so fuck the recounts, what did that mean?

DomKen -> RE: The next shoe to drop.... (1/3/2014 2:45:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Sorry, it is highly interesting that sotomayer was the one to issue the stay. No. It was not. The appeal is coming from an appellate circuit she is responsible for. Each Supreme court justice is responsible for a specific federal appellate court. Since there are conflicting rulings from different appellate courts SCOTUS was likely to take the case and it is simple fairness to stay the fines while the cases are settled.

Phydeaux -> RE: The next shoe to drop.... (1/3/2014 4:08:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Sorry, it is highly interesting that sotomayer was the one to issue the stay. No. It was not. The appeal is coming from an appellate circuit she is responsible for. Each Supreme court justice is responsible for a specific federal appellate court. Since there are conflicting rulings from different appellate courts SCOTUS was likely to take the case and it is simple fairness to stay the fines while the cases are settled. Sure, if that was all it was, I would might agree with you. However, the justices have the option of requiring the parties to post bond for the penalties plus expenses, plus interest. This she declined to do. The penalties, if applied will wipe out this organization of nuns. Did I read that it was up to $2.15 mil a day? Regardless, the government answer to the request for stay was that the nuns had the ability to self exempt. Ie., the govt's answer "its against our religion" is for them to commit another action which is "against their religion". Sotomayers stay means that the case can go to trial; whearas not staying the decision would cause the sisters to be bankrupted - which is the likely result if the government wins their case anyway. One of the more liberal justices grants a stay without requiring a bond. I find it interesting. Significant.. perhaps.

Phydeaux -> RE: The next shoe to drop.... (1/3/2014 4:22:03 PM)
wrong forum

DomKen -> RE: The next shoe to drop.... (1/3/2014 4:22:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Sorry, it is highly interesting that sotomayer was the one to issue the stay. No. It was not. The appeal is coming from an appellate circuit she is responsible for. Each Supreme court justice is responsible for a specific federal appellate court. Since there are conflicting rulings from different appellate courts SCOTUS was likely to take the case and it is simple fairness to stay the fines while the cases are settled. Sure, if that was all it was, I would might agree with you. However, the justices have the option of requiring the parties to post bond for the penalties plus expenses, plus interest. This she declined to do. The penalties, if applied will wipe out this organization of nuns. Did I read that it was up to $2.15 mil a day? Regardless, the government answer to the request for stay was that the nuns had the ability to self exempt. Ie., the govt's answer "its against our religion" is for them to commit another action which is "against their religion". Sotomayers stay means that the case can go to trial; whearas not staying the decision would cause the sisters to be bankrupted - which is the likely result if the government wins their case anyway. One of the more liberal justices grants a stay without requiring a bond. I find it interesting. Significant.. perhaps. Bullshit. This organization of nuns runs dozens of nursing homes in the US. And the fine is $100 per day per employee. So if the poor put upon nuns have 21,500 employees then they could face $2.15 million in fines per day. Which would sort of prove this is big business not some group of poor nuns struggling to keep the convent open.

Phydeaux -> RE: The next shoe to drop.... (1/3/2014 4:25:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Sorry, it is highly interesting that sotomayer was the one to issue the stay. No. It was not. The appeal is coming from an appellate circuit she is responsible for. Each Supreme court justice is responsible for a specific federal appellate court. Since there are conflicting rulings from different appellate courts SCOTUS was likely to take the case and it is simple fairness to stay the fines while the cases are settled. Sure, if that was all it was, I would might agree with you. However, the justices have the option of requiring the parties to post bond for the penalties plus expenses, plus interest. This she declined to do. The penalties, if applied will wipe out this organization of nuns. Did I read that it was up to $2.15 mil a day? Regardless, the government answer to the request for stay was that the nuns had the ability to self exempt. Ie., the govt's answer "its against our religion" is for them to commit another action which is "against their religion". Sotomayers stay means that the case can go to trial; whearas not staying the decision would cause the sisters to be bankrupted - which is the likely result if the government wins their case anyway. One of the more liberal justices grants a stay without requiring a bond. I find it interesting. Significant.. perhaps. Bullshit. This organization of nuns runs dozens of nursing homes in the US. And the fine is $100 per day per employee. So if the poor put upon nuns have 21,500 employees then they could face $2.15 million in fines per day. Which would sort of prove this is big business not some group of poor nuns struggling to keep the convent open. The total assets of the nuns are reported as $6.9 million. Not a large sum at all for an organization that as you say runs dozens of nursing homes in the US.

DomKen -> RE: The next shoe to drop.... (1/3/2014 5:24:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Sorry, it is highly interesting that sotomayer was the one to issue the stay. No. It was not. The appeal is coming from an appellate circuit she is responsible for. Each Supreme court justice is responsible for a specific federal appellate court. Since there are conflicting rulings from different appellate courts SCOTUS was likely to take the case and it is simple fairness to stay the fines while the cases are settled. Sure, if that was all it was, I would might agree with you. However, the justices have the option of requiring the parties to post bond for the penalties plus expenses, plus interest. This she declined to do. The penalties, if applied will wipe out this organization of nuns. Did I read that it was up to $2.15 mil a day? Regardless, the government answer to the request for stay was that the nuns had the ability to self exempt. Ie., the govt's answer "its against our religion" is for them to commit another action which is "against their religion". Sotomayers stay means that the case can go to trial; whearas not staying the decision would cause the sisters to be bankrupted - which is the likely result if the government wins their case anyway. One of the more liberal justices grants a stay without requiring a bond. I find it interesting. Significant.. perhaps. Bullshit. This organization of nuns runs dozens of nursing homes in the US. And the fine is $100 per day per employee. So if the poor put upon nuns have 21,500 employees then they could face $2.15 million in fines per day. Which would sort of prove this is big business not some group of poor nuns struggling to keep the convent open. The total assets of the nuns are reported as $6.9 million. Not a large sum at all for an organization that as you say runs dozens of nursing homes in the US. Reported by who based upon which audit? Most Catholic orders keep their funds in the Vatican bank far beyond the reach of any auditor.

Phydeaux -> RE: The next shoe to drop.... (1/3/2014 6:23:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Sorry, it is highly interesting that sotomayer was the one to issue the stay. No. It was not. The appeal is coming from an appellate circuit she is responsible for. Each Supreme court justice is responsible for a specific federal appellate court. Since there are conflicting rulings from different appellate courts SCOTUS was likely to take the case and it is simple fairness to stay the fines while the cases are settled. Sure, if that was all it was, I would might agree with you. However, the justices have the option of requiring the parties to post bond for the penalties plus expenses, plus interest. This she declined to do. The penalties, if applied will wipe out this organization of nuns. Did I read that it was up to $2.15 mil a day? Regardless, the government answer to the request for stay was that the nuns had the ability to self exempt. Ie., the govt's answer "its against our religion" is for them to commit another action which is "against their religion". Sotomayers stay means that the case can go to trial; whearas not staying the decision would cause the sisters to be bankrupted - which is the likely result if the government wins their case anyway. One of the more liberal justices grants a stay without requiring a bond. I find it interesting. Significant.. perhaps. Bullshit. This organization of nuns runs dozens of nursing homes in the US. And the fine is $100 per day per employee. So if the poor put upon nuns have 21,500 employees then they could face $2.15 million in fines per day. Which would sort of prove this is big business not some group of poor nuns struggling to keep the convent open. The total assets of the nuns are reported as $6.9 million. Not a large sum at all for an organization that as you say runs dozens of nursing homes in the US. Reported by who based upon which audit? Most Catholic orders keep their funds in the Vatican bank far beyond the reach of any auditor. LOL. Where did you pull up that piece of complete and utter horseshit? Pretty much believe anything anti-catholic, don't ya? First, virtually no catholic orders bank in the vatican bank. Second, every american 501c(3) organization is required to submit audited financials to the IRS to retain status. Additionally, you have limits on overhead allowed, delivery of services etc.

DomKen -> RE: The next shoe to drop.... (1/3/2014 7:04:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Sorry, it is highly interesting that sotomayer was the one to issue the stay. No. It was not. The appeal is coming from an appellate circuit she is responsible for. Each Supreme court justice is responsible for a specific federal appellate court. Since there are conflicting rulings from different appellate courts SCOTUS was likely to take the case and it is simple fairness to stay the fines while the cases are settled. Sure, if that was all it was, I would might agree with you. However, the justices have the option of requiring the parties to post bond for the penalties plus expenses, plus interest. This she declined to do. The penalties, if applied will wipe out this organization of nuns. Did I read that it was up to $2.15 mil a day? Regardless, the government answer to the request for stay was that the nuns had the ability to self exempt. Ie., the govt's answer "its against our religion" is for them to commit another action which is "against their religion". Sotomayers stay means that the case can go to trial; whearas not staying the decision would cause the sisters to be bankrupted - which is the likely result if the government wins their case anyway. One of the more liberal justices grants a stay without requiring a bond. I find it interesting. Significant.. perhaps. Bullshit. This organization of nuns runs dozens of nursing homes in the US. And the fine is $100 per day per employee. So if the poor put upon nuns have 21,500 employees then they could face $2.15 million in fines per day. Which would sort of prove this is big business not some group of poor nuns struggling to keep the convent open. The total assets of the nuns are reported as $6.9 million. Not a large sum at all for an organization that as you say runs dozens of nursing homes in the US. Reported by who based upon which audit? Most Catholic orders keep their funds in the Vatican bank far beyond the reach of any auditor. LOL. Where did you pull up that piece of complete and utter horseshit? Pretty much believe anything anti-catholic, don't ya? First, virtually no catholic orders bank in the vatican bank. Second, every american 501c(3) organization is required to submit audited financials to the IRS to retain status. Additionally, you have limits on overhead allowed, delivery of services etc. Bullshit. Almost all, as in I couldn't find any that don't, Catholic orders deposit their money in the Vatican bank. The requirements of 501(c)3 status are not nearly as restrictive as you believe. As to auditing, all that the charities have to prove is that no profits were generated inside the US.

Phydeaux -> RE: The next shoe to drop.... (1/3/2014 7:14:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Sorry, it is highly interesting that sotomayer was the one to issue the stay. No. It was not. The appeal is coming from an appellate circuit she is responsible for. Each Supreme court justice is responsible for a specific federal appellate court. Since there are conflicting rulings from different appellate courts SCOTUS was likely to take the case and it is simple fairness to stay the fines while the cases are settled. Sure, if that was all it was, I would might agree with you. However, the justices have the option of requiring the parties to post bond for the penalties plus expenses, plus interest. This she declined to do. The penalties, if applied will wipe out this organization of nuns. Did I read that it was up to $2.15 mil a day? Regardless, the government answer to the request for stay was that the nuns had the ability to self exempt. Ie., the govt's answer "its against our religion" is for them to commit another action which is "against their religion". Sotomayers stay means that the case can go to trial; whearas not staying the decision would cause the sisters to be bankrupted - which is the likely result if the government wins their case anyway. One of the more liberal justices grants a stay without requiring a bond. I find it interesting. Significant.. perhaps. Bullshit. This organization of nuns runs dozens of nursing homes in the US. And the fine is $100 per day per employee. So if the poor put upon nuns have 21,500 employees then they could face $2.15 million in fines per day. Which would sort of prove this is big business not some group of poor nuns struggling to keep the convent open. The total assets of the nuns are reported as $6.9 million. Not a large sum at all for an organization that as you say runs dozens of nursing homes in the US. Reported by who based upon which audit? Most Catholic orders keep their funds in the Vatican bank far beyond the reach of any auditor. LOL. Where did you pull up that piece of complete and utter horseshit? Pretty much believe anything anti-catholic, don't ya? First, virtually no catholic orders bank in the vatican bank. Second, every american 501c(3) organization is required to submit audited financials to the IRS to retain status. Additionally, you have limits on overhead allowed, delivery of services etc. Bullshit. Almost all, as in I couldn't find any that don't, Catholic orders deposit their money in the Vatican bank. The requirements of 501(c)3 status are not nearly as restrictive as you believe. As to auditing, all that the charities have to prove is that no profits were generated inside the US. Another lie. As in you don't have access to any groups finances, therefore can't look, therefore you know nothing. I've worked with more than 5 parishes. Worked in more than a dozen parish ministries. Never once made any deposits to any vatican bank. Have used quite a lot of American banks tho. Yeah.. Father, you mind if I just stroll down to the vatican bank and pick up money for payroll. While I'm at it, I'll pay the mortgage and pick up some more deposit slips. Yeah. Sounds real convenient. And regarding the 501c(3) requirements. I worked for a charity for more than 6 years. And participated in the audits every year. Each of them took a team of 4 people over a month to complete. So, pardon when I say that once again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

DomKen -> RE: The next shoe to drop.... (1/3/2014 9:31:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Another lie. As in you don't have access to any groups finances, therefore can't look, therefore you know nothing. I've worked with more than 5 parishes. Worked in more than a dozen parish ministries. Never once made any deposits to any vatican bank. Have used quite a lot of American banks tho. Yeah.. Father, you mind if I just stroll down to the vatican bank and pick up money for payroll. While I'm at it, I'll pay the mortgage and pick up some more deposit slips. Yeah. Sounds real convenient. And regarding the 501c(3) requirements. I worked for a charity for more than 6 years. And participated in the audits every year. Each of them took a team of 4 people over a month to complete. So, pardon when I say that once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Where did I say parishes used the Vatican bank? I was very specific. Why do you always try to erect strawmen rather than dealing with what I wrote? As to 501(c)3's, you may live in a state that requires annual audits but at the federal level all that is required is that the organization file a form 990 with the IRS (assuming income of at least 200k or assets exceeding 500k).

Phydeaux -> RE: The next shoe to drop.... (1/3/2014 11:25:43 PM)
Yeah And where is your source for such crap? Anti Catholic quarterly?

Phydeaux -> RE: The next shoe to drop.... (1/3/2014 11:59:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/health/oregon-study-reveals-benefits-and-costs-of-insuring-the-uninsured.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 it agrees with the abstract to the article from the journal of science. (a pay for article). quote: Those who gained coverage made 40 percent more visits to the emergency room than their uninsured counterparts. It does not say as your unattributed nutsacker article: quote: New study finds that entending medicaid increased emergency room costs 40%, completely contradicting a basic obamacare tenet that extending health care to the poor would save money by decreasing ER costs. quote: Supporters of President Obama’s health care law had predicted that expanding insurance coverage for the poor would reduce costly emergency room visits as people sought care from primary care doctors. The 18 month study did not look at the long term, old habits die hard, and uninsured go to emergency rooms to get treated by habit. That was 2008, what is that trend today? And I should point out it lowers cost, since those guys going to the ER are insured now, so the hospital gets paid, where they won't for the uninsured. I think it is much pants shitting for nothing without some long term proof. And of course the article is from June of 2012, and Obamacare signups................well, you know..........LOLOLOLOLOFUCKINGL, nutsackers are trying to shit their pants away!!!!! The word rigourous does not mean what you think it means. J since y'all we're comparing Obamacare to Romney careperhaps you would like to comment on how Massachusetts medical costs have not decreased and its medical inflation rate is one of the highest in the nation. perhaps you'd like to provide statistics that showedthe cost decreased 2500 dollars per person I didn't think so. so much for your criticism of this study.

DomKen -> RE: The next shoe to drop.... (1/4/2014 4:14:29 AM)
You want to bring up romneycare? OK. Studies showing romneycare reduced ER visits http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+effect+of+the+Massachusetts+reform+on+health+care+utilization.-a0320845612 http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mille/MA%20Outpatient%20ER%20Usage%20-%20Miller.pdf http://www.nber.org/papers/w16012.pdf?new_window=1 http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/early/2012/01/24/hlthaff.2011.0653 And in reality ER visits have decreased in Oregon as well. The study just didn't cover a long enough period of time. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/03/new-research-shows-medicaid-increases-er-trips-oregon-has-a-plan-to-stop-that/

mnottertail -> RE: The next shoe to drop.... (1/4/2014 6:22:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux since y'all we're comparing Obamacare to Romney careperhaps you would like to comment on how Massachusetts medical costs have not decreased and its medical inflation rate is one of the highest in the nation. perhaps you'd like to provide statistics that showedthe cost decreased 2500 dollars per person I didn't think so. so much for your criticism of this study. I don't know what 'since y'all we're' means, but I am not comparing Obamacare to Romneycare or nothing, the innumerates and obstructionist country devastators are doing the comparison, I didn't start this cretinous, blubbering thread. Nor did I mention MagicUnderpants guy.

Phydeaux -> RE: The next shoe to drop.... (1/4/2014 11:45:00 AM)
http://caseymulligan.blogspot.com/2013/08/is-affordable-care-act-different-from_29.html The tax rate effects of Romneycare are in various directions. In combination, they raised marginal tax rates in 2010 by less than one half of one percentage point relative to what they would have been without Romneycare. The ACA adds about 4.9 percentage points to marginal tax rates: about twelve times Romneycare’s addition. The 2006 law didn't do anything about controlling the state's health costs My point: one of the many calculated lies of obamacare was that 30 million people could be added to insurance rolls while decreasing costs $2500 for a family of 4. That was an outright lie. And they knew it. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You want to bring up romneycare? OK. Studies showing romneycare reduced ER visits http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+effect+of+the+Massachusetts+reform+on+health+care+utilization.-a0320845612 http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mille/MA%20Outpatient%20ER%20Usage%20-%20Miller.pdf http://www.nber.org/papers/w16012.pdf?new_window=1 http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/early/2012/01/24/hlthaff.2011.0653 And in reality ER visits have decreased in Oregon as well. The study just didn't cover a long enough period of time. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/03/new-research-shows-medicaid-increases-er-trips-oregon-has-a-plan-to-stop-that/

LookieNoNookie -> RE: The next shoe to drop.... (1/4/2014 1:47:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Yeah And where is your source for such crap? Anti Catholic quarterly? I do know (possibly adding some weight to Dom {kauff} Ken's argument) that in the Seattle area, most of the clowns keep their money in the First Mutual Clown Bank. Although, now that I think of it, that would be a more parallel argument if the Nuns kept theirs in the First Mutual Nun Bank. (Never mind)

DomKen -> RE: The next shoe to drop.... (1/4/2014 4:17:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux http://caseymulligan.blogspot.com/2013/08/is-affordable-care-act-different-from_29.html The tax rate effects of Romneycare are in various directions. In combination, they raised marginal tax rates in 2010 by less than one half of one percentage point relative to what they would have been without Romneycare. The ACA adds about 4.9 percentage points to marginal tax rates: about twelve times Romneycare’s addition. The 2006 law didn't do anything about controlling the state's health costs My point: one of the many calculated lies of obamacare was that 30 million people could be added to insurance rolls while decreasing costs $2500 for a family of 4. That was an outright lie. And they knew it. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You want to bring up romneycare? OK. Studies showing romneycare reduced ER visits http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+effect+of+the+Massachusetts+reform+on+health+care+utilization.-a0320845612 http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mille/MA%20Outpatient%20ER%20Usage%20-%20Miller.pdf http://www.nber.org/papers/w16012.pdf?new_window=1 http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/early/2012/01/24/hlthaff.2011.0653 And in reality ER visits have decreased in Oregon as well. The study just didn't cover a long enough period of time. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/03/new-research-shows-medicaid-increases-er-trips-oregon-has-a-plan-to-stop-that/ You just tried to handwave away tuff again. The subject was whether the ACA would increase ER visits based on the Oregon study. Now why did you try and change the subject? Couldn't actually deal with the facts?

DomKen -> RE: The next shoe to drop.... (1/4/2014 4:21:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Yeah And where is your source for such crap? Anti Catholic quarterly? investigative journalists actually. For instance: http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/10/forbes-india-mother-teresa-charity-critical-public-review.html

Phydeaux -> RE: The next shoe to drop.... (1/4/2014 8:57:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Yeah And where is your source for such crap? Anti Catholic quarterly? investigative journalists actually. For instance: http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/10/forbes-india-mother-teresa-charity-critical-public-review.html since you omitted it here was your original lie on this topic: quote: Almost all, as in I couldn't find any that don't, Catholic orders deposit their money in the Vatican bank. The requirements of 501(c)3 status are not nearly as restrictive as you believe. As to auditing, all that the charities have to prove is that no profits were generated inside the US Article said nothing about catholic orders depositing their money in the vatican bank. At most, it said ONE organization made donations to the vatican. Other sources, such as stern, document that the sisters bank locally. Not surprisingly, the vatican uses the vatican bank. So unless you want to provide documentation that 19000 odd catholic orders bank at the vatican your article says nothing.

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625