Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not an article. It's an opinion piece. Learn the difference.
Section 1514, which governs employer reporting of health-insurance coverage, says: "Every applicable large employer required to meet the requirements of section 4980H with respect to its full-time employees during a calendar year shall, at such time as the Secretary may provide, make a return." The section also sets the same start date for reporting requirements.
One way to read this is to read the passage is as a blank check to postpone the mandate by as long as a year. That comes from the key part: "during a calendar year, shall, at such time as the Secretary may provide."
Your interpretation is as flawed as your ideology.
The "calendar year" language has nothing to do with how long the mandate can be postponed. The language is merely restating that the reporting requirement is to provide the number of full time employees over a calendar year.
Embarrassing! Even for you! LOL
YET another reason to refer to you as a sheep in the Obama Pasture who has no ****ing idea what you're talking about.
I never said secession was over protection of slavery. There were several factors which led to secession, with slavery only being one of them, although if you combined them they would add up to the desire of economic domination over southern states by northern industrialists. The southern states had filed grievances concerning their concerns for 20 years prior to cessation without any satisfaction.
Secession was over the protection of slavery. Read Apostles of Disunion or any book by a scholarly person.
Read South Carolina's own words as they discussed secession.
Read the south's newspapers, political speeches, minister sermons.
The south broke off to protect their peculiar institution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom
Lincolns election was also a contributing factor to secession as Lincoln and most of the Republican Party ( 64 members of congress ) had adopted a political platform in support of terrorist acts against the South.
Please cite the terrorists actions within the Republican platform....besides stopping the expansion of slavery westward...if you want to call that terrorism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom
What I have always found interesting is the hypocrisy concerning slavery. Confederate General Robert E. Lee had freed his slaves prior to 1863 whereas Union General Grant did not free his slaves until after the war when forced to do so by court action.
Wait a minute. Lee freed his slaves after they were technically already freed. The Union Army occupied and controlled Arlington. The Emancipation Proclamation was issued September 22, 1862 to take effect on January 1st, 1863.
Lee freed his slaves on December 29th, 1862.
Could Lee remove his slaves from Arlington? No. The Union army wouldn't have allowed it.
So Lee's slaves were technically already freed, just waiting for it to be official...when Lee sped up the process by a mere 3 days.
The only known evidence that Grant owned slaves was evidence that he freed one before the war. The slaves you cite were owned by his father in law and lent to his daughter, Grant's wife...while Grant was away.
Not quite what you are saying is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom
Grant even stated that if the abolitionists claimed he was fighting to free slaves that he would offer his services to the South. Mildred Lewis Rutherford in her book Truths Of History she stated that there were more slaveholders in the Union Army ( 315,000 ) than the Confederate Army ( 200,000 ). Lincolns emancipation proclamation which is triumphed by his supporters as freeing the slaves in fact only freed the slaves in the south, leaving the northern slaves in bondage. And as there were no minimum wage laws at the time, many industrialists running sweat shops at the time employing black labor had such low wages and terrible conditions that many freed slaves returned to the south to seek return to their former lives.
Except Grant never said that. There is no document or historical record of Grant ever having said that or something similar to it. In fact many documents with Grant saying perhaps the opposite.
Your supposed Grant quote appears for the first time ever out of thin air with no citation years and years after Grant's death in a lost cause the south was right book. Hmmm....
Lincoln was smart...he couldn't upset the border states. Plus he had no legal authority to unilaterally free those slaves anyways - he did have that power in the rebel areas. Lincoln's top priority was to preserve the union.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom
The real agenda behind the civil war was the elimination of States rights, the reformation of the republic into a Federal controlled democracy, and assurance of the control of the natural resources of the south and the western states for the industrialists and bankers of New England.
Wars are always fought for power and wealth, never for issues of morality.
This is pure fiction as I detailed in my previous post.
The south was frequently anti-states rights pre civil war and the country returned to a strong pro-states rights era after reconstruction ended for decades.
Your interpretation is as flawed as your ideology.
The "calendar year" language has nothing to do with how long the mandate can be postponed. The language is merely restating that the reporting requirement is to provide the number of full time employees over a calendar year.
Embarrassing! Even for you! LOL
YET another reason to refer to you as a sheep in the Obama Pasture who has no ****ing idea what you're talking about.
Isn't it startling that the Obamabots cite a piece when read in context (you can do so from the official government page in my link previously) has nothing to do with a delay, but reports on health insurance.
They are so brainwashed by this president...they can't even read English.
They are so brainwashed by this president...they don't even mind that Obama himself could not or would not give a NY Times reporter a specific reason why this action is legal.
Secession was over the protection of slavery. Read Apostles of Disunion or any book by a scholarly person.
Read South Carolina's own words as they discussed secession.
Read the south's newspapers, political speeches, minister sermons.
The south broke off to protect their peculiar institution.
Please cite the terrorists actions within the Republican platform....besides stopping the expansion of slavery westward...if you want to call that terrorism.
Wait a minute. Lee freed his slaves after they were technically already freed. The Union Army occupied and controlled Arlington. The Emancipation Proclamation was issued September 22, 1862 to take effect on January 1st, 1863.
Lee freed his slaves on December 29th, 1862.
Could Lee remove his slaves from Arlington? No. The Union army wouldn't have allowed it.
So Lee's slaves were technically already freed, just waiting for it to be official...when Lee sped up the process by a mere 3 days.
The only known evidence that Grant owned slaves was evidence that he freed one before the war. The slaves you cite were owned by his father in law and lent to his daughter, Grant's wife...while Grant was away.
Not quite what you are saying is it?
Except Grant never said that. There is no document or historical record of Grant ever having said that or something similar to it. In fact many documents with Grant saying perhaps the opposite.
Your supposed Grant quote appears for the first time ever out of thin air with no citation years and years after Grant's death in a lost cause the south was right book. Hmmm....
Lincoln was smart...he couldn't upset the border states. Plus he had no legal authority to unilaterally free those slaves anyways - he did have that power in the rebel areas. Lincoln's top priority was to preserve the union.
This is pure fiction as I detailed in my previous post.
The south was frequently anti-states rights pre civil war and the country returned to a strong pro-states rights era after reconstruction ended for decades.
Lincoln was a tyrant, he cared not for blacks or the cause of slavery. He cared only for the institution of an all powerful Federal Government to do the bidding of the industrialists to whom he bowed. He destroyed States rights and killed more Americans than all foreign wars combined.
Slavery was a dying institution as most in the south had accepted long before the war and would have ended under the political pressure of time as it did throughout the Caribbean without force or war.
The civil war was fought to create an empire, where industrialists could use the Federal Government to strip the States of their wealth without compensating the true owners, the citizens, of what they would have been entitled.
The American people were the heirs of a continent containing more wealth than could be imagined.
Quadrillions of dollars of that wealth have been stolen by industrialists and bankers since the civil war and the American people today are struggling in a system where most will work a lifetime and die with nothing to show for a lifetime of labor. Do you know what that is? It is slavery. You see slavery was never abolished, it was simply perfected.
He's tried to compare himself to too many presidents to count, and he comes in well behind all of them in any method of measurement you choose to utilize, even the horrible ones such as LBJ, Carter & FDR.
He's undoubtedly the worst we've ever had, which boggles the mind because I thought that carter & FDR were untouchable as it related to being inept and clueless regarding taxes and a ton of other things.
Looks like business as usual for the republicans. Very frustrating. For 4 years the republicans have been moaning about how Obama won't work with business. Now, business asks for more time to implement the conditions of Obamacare. Obama works with them and gives them more time to comply and now the republicans are screaming "Unconstitutional!!!!, How could you do this without going through us?"
Standard republican playbook, right down the line. I'm reminded of Mitch McConnell's words, "Our Primary goal is to insure that Obama is a one term president."
If Obama gave out free ice-cream, the republicans would say he's pandering for votes. f he took away the free ice-cream they'd say he was destroying the middle class.
Lincoln was a tyrant, he cared not for blacks or the cause of slavery. He cared only for the institution of an all powerful Federal Government to do the bidding of the industrialists to whom he bowed. He destroyed States rights and killed more Americans than all foreign wars combined.
Slavery was a dying institution as most in the south had accepted long before the war and would have ended under the political pressure of time as it did throughout the Caribbean without force or war.
The civil war was fought to create an empire, where industrialists could use the Federal Government to strip the States of their wealth without compensating the true owners, the citizens, of what they would have been entitled.
The American people were the heirs of a continent containing more wealth than could be imagined.
Quadrillions of dollars of that wealth have been stolen by industrialists and bankers since the civil war and the American people today are struggling in a system where most will work a lifetime and die with nothing to show for a lifetime of labor. Do you know what that is? It is slavery. You see slavery was never abolished, it was simply perfected.
Careful, your white hood is showing.
Shouldn't you be off burning a cross somewhere?
I have to say that your post is the biggest steaming pike of puking nonsense I have ever seen this board - and that's saying a lot.
There is NO excuse for the slavery of the south - none, nada, zip. It was pure unadulterated evil of the worst kind.
So there was an excuse for slavery in the North, which lasted past the civil war?
Nope - and slavery was quickly abolished in the North. The Civil War ended in April 1865 and by mid-December slavery was abolished everywhere (even in those few remaining states of the north where it was still legal in April).
Ken
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
