Fearmongers' were right about Obamacare
Comments
-
prfctlefts wrote:tonifig8 wrote:prfctlefts,
i rather not jump into this debate, but I must ask are you satisfied with the current health care system? Do you believe it is the best system America can produce? If you are not happy with it, what would you do different?
Do you feel Obama has no clue as to what he is doing?
thanks,
No Im not happy with the current system. I just believe that this bill is not the way to go about doing it.
:!: :!:
All the Statist, "Big Brother, Please Take Care of Me" types need to understand one thing, and understand it FAST:
Just because someone doesn't agree with the proposed or enacted "solution", DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE SIMPLY PHOBIC, BIGOTED, REGRESSIVE, BACKWARDS, OR STUPID.
MAYBE THEY HAVE A LEGITIMATE, AND WELL REASONED CONTENTION WITH THE "SOLUTION"
Further, more broadly, and more importantly:
JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THE CURRENT SITUATION
DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE GOVERNMENT "SOLUTION" IS THE ANSWER!
When someone hands you something for "free", or gives you an "easy way" out of a tough situation, do you ever wonder if you are being played? When someone with SO MUCH CONTROL OVER THE CURRENT STATUS-QUO offers you a way to change it, DO YOU EVER THINK THEY MIGHT BE "IN ON IT"?
Why if these same people have been part of the problem for decades, do you now think they have had a change of heart and want to HELP you !??!
Why just because you know the current situation sucks,
do you think that having the government step in and muck it up some more is a good "solution"?
WHY CANT THERE BE ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE COERCION !?!
If its so fucking great, WHY ARE WE BEING FORCED IN TO IT?
Sounds like Social "Security".
WHAT A FUCKING JOKE.
I would opt out of that horseshit scheme in a motherfucking New York heartbeat if i could.
BUT ITS A RIGGED GAME, A STACKED DECK, AND A HOLLOW SHAM.
& now all you blind statists want to throw this crock of shit on the pile?
Hmmpphh.If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?0 -
DriftingByTheStorm wrote:prfctlefts wrote:tonifig8 wrote:prfctlefts,
i rather not jump into this debate, but I must ask are you satisfied with the current health care system? Do you believe it is the best system America can produce? If you are not happy with it, what would you do different?
Do you feel Obama has no clue as to what he is doing?
thanks,
No Im not happy with the current system. I just believe that this bill is not the way to go about doing it. :!: :!:
All the Statist, "Big Brother, Please Take Care of Me" types need to understand one thing, and understand it FAST:
Just because someone doesn't agree with the proposed or enacted "solution", DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE SIMPLY PHOBIC, BIGOTED, REGRESSIVE, BACKWARDS, OR STUPID.
MAYBE THEY HAVE A LEGITIMATE, AND WELL REASONED CONTENTION WITH THE "SOLUTION"
Further, more broadly, and more importantly:
JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THE CURRENT SITUATION
DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE GOVERNMENT "SOLUTION" IS THE ANSWER!
When someone hands you something for "free", or gives you an "easy way" out of a tough situation, do you ever wonder if you are being played? When someone with SO MUCH CONTROL OVER THE CURRENT STATUS-QUO offers you a way to change it, DO YOU EVER THINK THEY MIGHT BE "IN ON IT"?
Why if these same people have been part of the problem for decades, do you now think they have had a change of heart and want to HELP you !??!
Why just because you know the current situation sucks,
do you think that having the government step in and muck it up some more is a good "solution"?
WHY CANT THERE BE ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE COERCION !?!
If its so fucking great, WHY ARE WE BEING FORCED IN TO IT?
Sounds like Social "Security".
WHAT A FUCKING JOKE.
I would opt out of that horseshit scheme in a motherfucking New York heartbeat if i could.
BUT ITS A RIGGED GAME, A STACKED DECK, AND A HOLLOW SHAM.
& now all you blind statists want to throw this crock of shit on the pile?
Hmmpphh.
well...if PRIVATE FOR-PROFIT INSURANCE COMPANIES did not ENGAGE in the practice of DENYING COVERAGE ONCE A PERSON GOT SICK we would not be discussing this...
if PRIVATE FOR-PROFIT INSURANCE COMPANIES did not raise rates simply to MAKE A PROFIT and did not DENY COVERAGE to MAKE A PROFIT we would not be discussing this...
maybe when the NEW WORLD ORDER is in place we can finally get a SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM...0 -
inmytree wrote:maybe when the NEW WORLD ORDER is in place we can finally get a SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM...
Oh happy day that it will be. :roll:
What a bitter trade it must have been for the private insurance corporate devils who had to sacrifice the payout on a score of little kid's cancer bills in order to gain an entire nation worth of forced customers. :roll:
Hmm.
Once again, your focus on the current distopic system has caused you to hurl headlong in to the much yearned for new national "socialist" global order that ensures that you will enjoy your new serfdom, because it provides you with enough health and entertainment to keep you mindlessly engaged in your worker-drone existence, and keeps you from protest in the streets.
Man, we really ... uh ... stuck it ... to the ... uh ... man?
Hmm.If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?0 -
DriftingByTheStorm wrote:inmytree wrote:maybe when the NEW WORLD ORDER is in place we can finally get a SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM...
Oh happy day that it will be. :roll:
What a bitter trade it must have been for the private insurance corporate devils who had to sacrifice the payout on a score of little kid's cancer bills in order to gain an entire nation worth of forced customers. :roll:
Hmm.
Once again, your focus on the current distopic system has caused you to hurl headlong in to the much yearned for new national "socialist" global order that ensures that you will enjoy your new serfdom, because it provides you with enough health and entertainment to keep you mindlessly engaged in your worker-drone existence, and keeps you from protest in the streets.
Man, we really ... uh ... stuck it ... to the ... uh ... man?
Hmm.
worker-drone existence...
I guess you're right...let's burn this shit down and take to "the man"...
I do find it interesting that you offer no alternative to anything...anyway, I've got to go listen to Illuminate Princes Lady Gaga...she is soooo hypnotic...I just want to dance like I've got ants in my pants....0 -
inmytree wrote:DriftingByTheStorm wrote:inmytree wrote:maybe when the NEW WORLD ORDER is in place we can finally get a SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM...
Oh happy day that it will be. :roll:
What a bitter trade it must have been for the private insurance corporate devils who had to sacrifice the payout on a score of little kid's cancer bills in order to gain an entire nation worth of forced customers. :roll:
Hmm.
Once again, your focus on the current distopic system has caused you to hurl headlong in to the much yearned for new national "socialist" global order that ensures that you will enjoy your new serfdom, because it provides you with enough health and entertainment to keep you mindlessly engaged in your worker-drone existence, and keeps you from protest in the streets.
Man, we really ... uh ... stuck it ... to the ... uh ... man?
Hmm. worker-drone existence...
I guess you're right...let's burn this shit down and take to "the man"...
I do find it interesting that you offer no alternative to anything...anyway, I've got to go listen to Illuminate Princes Lady Gaga...she is soooo hypnotic...I just want to dance like I've got ants in my pants....
Well, she definately has all the markings of a temple whore.
it does seem to fit, and god knows the symbolism is all over her videos.
The youtube freaks are right about most of those claims.
As for not offering alternatives,
man i've done this before, over and over.
Prfctlfts has a good one posted here too.
Open up the market to MORE CHOICE for the consumer,
NOT FORCED DICTATORIAL CONTROL OF THE "MARKET".
What a crock of shit.If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?0 -
DriftingByTheStorm wrote:Well, she definately has all the markings of a temple whore.
it does seem to fit, and god knows the symbolism is all over her videos.
The youtube freaks are right about most of those claims.
As for not offering alternatives,
man i've done this before, over and over.
Prfctlfts has a good one posted here too.
Open up the market to MORE CHOICE for the consumer,
NOT FORCED DICTATORIAL CONTROL OF THE "MARKET".
What a crock of shit.
yeah, yeah..."buy across state lines, blah blah blah"...."the free market, blah blah blah"...I guess if the free market was the answer, we wouldn't be talking about this...everything would be lollipops and butterflies...
the More Choice argument is a crock of shit...there is lots of choice when it comes to buying health insurance, that is if I want to sell my left nut to pay for it...0 -
I just feel, in response to Miss being the unhealthiest state in the union is noting but a self inflicted result of their ignorance of self care. Making someone else pay for their poor choices does not mean a healthier state. Look around, who are the healthy individuals in this country. Not the overly wealthy, over drugged and consuming everything and anything to "feel" good about who they are, and not those on state care, they too are sick and unhealthy as well. Does this mean the system is broke? MJ didn't think so. The mother with 12 kids by nine different fathers feels the same sentiments. Seriously, forcing others to pay for anothers poor choices is not democracy, it is noting more that a fuedal system. I just think if you take/ accept health care based on government, you have surrendered your rights. Open up the market and let people buy what they can and those who can't, well we live in the USA, where people come to "make it". Why can't they "make it" America has become the land of laziness and handouts. Just look around. A free market is how the global economy has changed, and yes there are individuals who take the system, distort it to their personal gains, but mostly it is not a sin to have money and spend it how you desire. This man put us on a slippery slope and every liberal will state victory and conservative loss, but we the people as individuals have lost....alot!0
-
inmytree wrote:DriftingByTheStorm wrote:Well, she definately has all the markings of a temple whore.
it does seem to fit, and god knows the symbolism is all over her videos.
The youtube freaks are right about most of those claims.
As for not offering alternatives,
man i've done this before, over and over.
Prfctlfts has a good one posted here too.
Open up the market to MORE CHOICE for the consumer,
NOT FORCED DICTATORIAL CONTROL OF THE "MARKET".
What a crock of shit.
yeah, yeah..."buy across state lines, blah blah blah"...."the free market, blah blah blah"...I guess if the free market was the answer, we wouldn't be talking about this...everything would be lollipops and butterflies...
the More Choice argument is a crock of shit...there is lots of choice when it comes to buying health insurance, that is if I want to sell my left nut to pay for it...
You know, you can force corporations to change their business practice without outright subverting the constitution.
Did you know states have the RIGHT to revoke corporate charters?
Why don't (didn't) states threaten these insurance companies with the loss of their state charters for business if they didn't change their business practices?
WHY DOES YOUR SOLUTION TO ONE SIMPLE PROBLEM (ie. pre-existing conditions OR dropping coverage) NECESSARILY ENTAIL A GOVERNMENT MANDATE OF COVERAGE FOR ALL ???
What kind of sense does that make?
You say THIS is the problem but THAT is the solution?
The proposed solution has so much in it that has nothing to do with the problem,
and it is dictatorship by coercion\compulsion.
You are talking about systemic problems that really only have to do with corporate business practice.
If the masses were so concerned about BUSINESS PRACTICES there are PLENTY OF WAYS TO ADDRESS THAT WITHOUT FORCING COVERAGE or making comprehensive FEDERAL level changes that place Old Daddy Government in charge.
We could have had congressional hearings,
we could have had state investigation,
we could have had the state attorney generals bring charges (you do know they handle CONSUMER COMPLAINTS, right???),
we could had state legislatures deal with the issue by overturning charters if changes weren't induced,
blah blah blah.
BUT THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE WHAT YOU ARE AFTER,
YOU DON'T EVEN SEEM TO CONSIDER ANY OF THAT AN OPTION,
NONE OF YOU GUYS EVEN BOTHER TO MENTION THEM,
ALL YOU DO IS
"OH YAY YAY YAY. OBAMA AND THE 'DEMOCRATS' HAVE SAVED THE DAY.
WE GOT 'REFORM' WE GOT HEALTHCARE. YAY YAY YAY."
They gave you one crock ass system before,
and they are about to hand you an even larger crock,
one that may address some of your concerns (to appease you),
but one that is full of sick hypocritical and insidious measures of control
that do little more than hand over a fork load of clients to the same corrupt corporations,
and funnel it first through the controlling hands of our pathetically corrupt and fraudulent government.
WAS ANY ALTERNATIVE EVER CONSIDERED OTHER THAN A FEDERAL REFORM BILL?
NO.
WHY?
DUH.If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?0 -
DriftingByTheStorm wrote:inmytree wrote:DriftingByTheStorm wrote:Well, she definately has all the markings of a temple whore.
it does seem to fit, and god knows the symbolism is all over her videos.
The youtube freaks are right about most of those claims.
As for not offering alternatives,
man i've done this before, over and over.
Prfctlfts has a good one posted here too.
Open up the market to MORE CHOICE for the consumer,
NOT FORCED DICTATORIAL CONTROL OF THE "MARKET".
What a crock of shit.
yeah, yeah..."buy across state lines, blah blah blah"...."the free market, blah blah blah"...I guess if the free market was the answer, we wouldn't be talking about this...everything would be lollipops and butterflies...
the More Choice argument is a crock of shit...there is lots of choice when it comes to buying health insurance, that is if I want to sell my left nut to pay for it...
You know, you can force corporations to change their business practice without outright subverting the constitution.
Did you know states have the RIGHT to revoke corporate charters?
Why don't (didn't) states threaten these insurance companies with the loss of their state charters for business if they didn't change their business practices?
WHY DOES YOUR SOLUTION TO ONE SIMPLE PROBLEM (ie. pre-existing conditions OR dropping coverage) NECESSARILY ENTAIL A GOVERNMENT MANDATE OF COVERAGE FOR ALL ???
What kind of sense does that make?
You say THIS is the problem but THAT is the solution?
The proposed solution has so much in it that has nothing to do with the problem,
and it is dictatorship by coercion\compulsion.
You are talking about systemic problems that really only have to do with corporate business practice.
If the masses were so concerned about BUSINESS PRACTICES there are PLENTY OF WAYS TO ADDRESS THAT WITHOUT FORCING COVERAGE or making comprehensive FEDERAL level changes that place Old Daddy Government in charge.
We could have had congressional hearings,
we could have had state investigation,
we could have had the state attorney generals bring charges (you do know they handle CONSUMER COMPLAINTS, right???),
we could had state legislatures deal with the issue by overturning charters if changes weren't induced,
blah blah blah.
BUT THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE WHAT YOU ARE AFTER,
YOU DON'T EVEN SEEM TO CONSIDER ANY OF THAT AN OPTION,
NONE OF YOU GUYS EVEN BOTHER TO MENTION THEM,
ALL YOU DO IS
"OH YAY YAY YAY. OBAMA AND THE 'DEMOCRATS' HAVE SAVED THE DAY.
WE GOT 'REFORM' WE GOT HEALTHCARE. YAY YAY YAY."
They gave you one crock ass system before,
and they are about to hand you an even larger crock,
one that may address some of your concerns (to appease you),
but one that is full of sick hypocritical and insidious measures of control
that do little more than hand over a fork load of clients to the same corrupt corporations,
and funnel it first through the controlling hands of our pathetically corrupt and fraudulent government.
WAS ANY ALTERNATIVE EVER CONSIDERED OTHER THAN A FEDERAL REFORM BILL?
NO.
WHY?
DUH.
um...you say:
We could have had congressional hearings,
we could have had state investigation,
we could have had the state attorney generals bring charges (you do know they handle CONSUMER COMPLAINTS, right???),
we could had state legislatures deal with the issue by overturning charters if changes weren't induced,
call me kooky, but isn't that gov't intervention...? I thought that was a bad thing...
and I love how you play the mindreader card and assume you know what I'm thinking...
I think you're one of those people who will complain simply to complain and look for little men dressed in black suits hiding in your bushes...0 -
DriftingByTheStorm wrote:inmytree wrote:DriftingByTheStorm wrote:Well, she definately has all the markings of a temple whore.
it does seem to fit, and god knows the symbolism is all over her videos.
The youtube freaks are right about most of those claims.
As for not offering alternatives,
man i've done this before, over and over.
Prfctlfts has a good one posted here too.
Open up the market to MORE CHOICE for the consumer,
NOT FORCED DICTATORIAL CONTROL OF THE "MARKET".
What a crock of shit.
yeah, yeah..."buy across state lines, blah blah blah"...."the free market, blah blah blah"...I guess if the free market was the answer, we wouldn't be talking about this...everything would be lollipops and butterflies...
the More Choice argument is a crock of shit...there is lots of choice when it comes to buying health insurance, that is if I want to sell my left nut to pay for it...
You know, you can force corporations to change their business practice without outright subverting the constitution.
Did you know states have the RIGHT to revoke corporate charters?
Why don't (didn't) states threaten these insurance companies with the loss of their state charters for business if they didn't change their business practices?
WHY DOES YOUR SOLUTION TO ONE SIMPLE PROBLEM (ie. pre-existing conditions OR dropping coverage) NECESSARILY ENTAIL A GOVERNMENT MANDATE OF COVERAGE FOR ALL ???
What kind of sense does that make?
You say THIS is the problem but THAT is the solution?
The proposed solution has so much in it that has nothing to do with the problem,
and it is dictatorship by coercion\compulsion.
You are talking about systemic problems that really only have to do with corporate business practice.
If the masses were so concerned about BUSINESS PRACTICES there are PLENTY OF WAYS TO ADDRESS THAT WITHOUT FORCING COVERAGE or making comprehensive FEDERAL level changes that place Old Daddy Government in charge.
We could have had congressional hearings,
we could have had state investigation,
we could have had the state attorney generals bring charges (you do know they handle CONSUMER COMPLAINTS, right???),
we could had state legislatures deal with the issue by overturning charters if changes weren't induced,
blah blah blah.
BUT THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE WHAT YOU ARE AFTER,
YOU DON'T EVEN SEEM TO CONSIDER ANY OF THAT AN OPTION,
NONE OF YOU GUYS EVEN BOTHER TO MENTION THEM,
ALL YOU DO IS
"OH YAY YAY YAY. OBAMA AND THE 'DEMOCRATS' HAVE SAVED THE DAY.
WE GOT 'REFORM' WE GOT HEALTHCARE. YAY YAY YAY."
They gave you one crock ass system before,
and they are about to hand you an even larger crock,
one that may address some of your concerns (to appease you),
but one that is full of sick hypocritical and insidious measures of control
that do little more than hand over a fork load of clients to the same corrupt corporations,
and funnel it first through the controlling hands of our pathetically corrupt and fraudulent government.
WAS ANY ALTERNATIVE EVER CONSIDERED OTHER THAN A FEDERAL REFORM BILL?
NO.
WHY?
DUH. 0 -
inmytree wrote:call me kooky, but isn't that gov't intervention...? I thought that was a bad thing...
Go read the constitution again.
There is nothing wrong with states, or the people ENACTING A RIGHT THAT HAS BEEN RESERVED SPECIFICALLY TO THEM.
If the people want government intervention, then so be it.
Obviously, i'm of the opinion it should be done sparingly.
In this case you are talking about a "market" that has been mostly cornered by large interests, that in all probability have colluded to perform the same types of nearly-fraudulent behavior en masse.
What is NOT, and should NEVER be acceptable is an outright subversion of the constitution, and especially never simply JUST BECAUSE IT FITS YOUR POLITICAL BENT OR PERSONAL MOTIVES:
Here, look how far i had to look to find an appropriate article.
OMG, i'm agreeing with the Rupert Murdock owned WSJ, what's going on!
The Wall Street Journal
ObamaCare and the Constitution
If Congress can force you to buy insurance, Article I limits on federal power are a dead letter.
The constitutional challenges to ObamaCare have come quickly, and the media are portraying them mostly as hopeless gestures—the political equivalent of Civil War re-enactors. Discussion over: You lost, deal with it.
The press corps never dismissed the legal challenges to the war on terror so easily, but then liberals have long treated property rights and any limits on federal power to regulate commerce as 18th-century anachronisms. In fact, the legal challenges to ObamaCare are serious and carry enormous implications for the future of American liberty.
The most important legal challenge turns on the "individual mandate"—the new requirement that almost every U.S. citizen must buy government-approved health insurance. Failure to comply will be punished by an annual tax penalty that by 2016 will rise to $750 or 2% of income, whichever is higher. President Obama opposed this kind of coercion as a candidate but has become a convert [suprise suprise! :roll: :roll: :roll: ]. He even argued in a September interview that "I absolutely reject that notion" that this tax is a tax, because it is supposedly for your own good.
Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum and 13 other state AGs—including Louisiana Democrat Buddy Caldwell—claim this is an unprecedented exercise of state power. Never before has Congress required people to buy a private product to qualify as a law-abiding citizen.
As the Congressional Budget Office noted in 1994, "Federal mandates typically apply to people as parties to economic transactions, rather than as members of society." The only law in the same league is conscription [wow. what great legal company, Obamorons!], though in that case the Constitution gives Congress the explicit power to raise a standing army.
Democrats claim the mandate is justified under the Commerce Clause, because health care and health insurance are a form of interstate commerce. They also claim the mandate is constitutional because it is structured as a tax, which is legal under the 16th Amendment. And it is true that the Supreme Court has ruled as recently as 2005, in the homegrown marijuana case Gonzales v. Raich, that Congress can regulate essentially economic activities that "taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce."
But even in Raich the High Court did not say that the Commerce Clause can justify any federal regulation, and in other modern cases the Court has rebuked Congress for overreaching. In U.S. v. Lopez(1995), the High Court ruled that carrying a gun near a school zone was not economically significant enough to qualify as interstate commerce, while in Morrison (2000) it overturned a law about violence against women on the same grounds.
All human activity arguably has some economic footprint. So if Congress can force Americans to buy a product, the question is what remains of the government of limited and enumerated powers, as provided in Article I. The only remaining restraint on federal power would be the Bill of Rights, though the Founders considered those 10 amendments to be an affirmation of the rights inherent in the rest of the Constitution, not the only restraint on government. If the insurance mandate stands, then why can't Congress insist that Americans buy GM cars, or that obese Americans eat their vegetables or pay a fat tax penalty?
The mandate did not pose the same constitutional problems when Mitt Romney succeeded in passing one in Massachusetts, because state governments have police powers and often wider plenary authority under their constitutions than does the federal government. Florida's constitution also has a privacy clause that underscores the strong state interest in opposing Congress's health-care intrusion.
As for the assertion that the mandate is really a tax, this is an attempt at legal finesse. The mandate is the legal requirement to buy a certain product, while the tax is the means of enforcement. This is not a true income or even excise tax. Congress cannot, merely by invoking a tax, blow up the Framers' attempt to restrain government under Article I.
The states also have a strong case with their claim that ObamaCare upsets the Constitution's federalist framework by converting the states into arms of the federal government. The bill requires states to spend billions of dollars to rearrange their health-care markets and vastly expands who can enroll in Medicaid, whether or not states can afford it.
Florida already spends a little over a quarter of its budget on Medicaid, and under ObamaCare that will expand by at least 50% as some 1.3 million new people enroll. Those benefits, and the burden of setting up the new exchanges, will cost Florida $149 million in 2014 and $1.05 billion annually by 2018. The state will either have to cut other priorities or raise taxes. In legal essence, ObamaCare infringes on state sovereignty and unconstitutionally conscripts state officials.
Less potent, at least to our reading, is the challenge on behalf of state laws that bar or exempt their citizens from the mandate. Virginia passed such a law earlier this year, and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is suing on those grounds. But while such efforts serve as healthy political protest, federal laws that are constitutional are supreme under the 10th Amendment, and states can't "nullify" a Congressional action.
***
Judicial and media liberals are trying to dismiss these challenges as a revanchist attempt to repeal the New Deal, or, worse, as a way to restore the states's rights of Jim Crow. Modern liberals genuinely believe the federal government can order the states and individuals to do anything as long as it is in pursuit of their larger social agenda. They also want to deter more state Attorneys General from joining these lawsuits.
The AGs should not be deterred, because the truth is that ObamaCare breaks new constitutional ground. Neither the House nor Senate Judiciary Committees held hearings on the law's constitutionality, and we are not aware of any Justice Department opinion on the matter. Judges have an obligation not to be so cavalier in dismissing claims on behalf of political liberty. Under the Constitution, American courts don't give advisory opinions. They rule on specific cases, and the states have a good one to make.
Democrats may have been able to trample the rules of the Senate to pass their unpopular bill on a narrow partisan vote, but they shouldn't be able to trample the Constitution as well.
OMFG. GO WSJ GO! If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?0 -
sweet fn jesus...what are you babbling about...I'm serious...
I take it you're whining about the individual mandate to purchase insurance and that you view it as "unconstitutional"...I guess the courts will decide that...
I guess you and others are up in arms about Auto insurance and homeowners insurance...you know, that's not in the constitution either...I find amusing that some will only pull out he Constitution when it fits them...
I looked for the author of this article, and couldn't find it...
to me, it's interesting that folks cling to the constitution like some cling to the Bible or the Qur’an...
anyhoo, back to being a working drone...have a good one... :thumbup:0 -
inmytree wrote:sweet fn jesus...what are you babbling about...I'm serious...
I take it you're whining about the individual mandate to purchase insurance and that you view it as "unconstitutional"...I guess the courts will decide that...
I guess you and others are up in arms about Auto insurance and homeowners insurance...you know, that's not in the constitution either...I find amusing that some will only pull out he Constitution when it fits them...
I looked for the author of this article, and couldn't find it...
to me, it's interesting that folks cling to the constitution like some cling to the Bible or the Qur’an...
anyhoo, back to being a working drone...have a good one... :thumbup:
IF THERE IS NO LISTED AUTHOR IN A MAIN STREAM NEWS ARTICLE
IT USUALLY MEANS IT WAS WRITTEN BY THE EDITORIAL STAFF AS A WHOLE
That means the editors of the WSJ no likey likey Obama care.
And, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT,
YOU NEED TO PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS
and get an idea of what the constitution is laying out as law.
This is the 2nd or 3rd time in 2 days that you have asked me, AFTER A FULL RESPONSE, "what the hell are you talking about"? Read the fucking article. Pull out a dictionary. Go over some reference material. Do some of your own research, and FIGURE IT OUT.
That article is written in PLAIN ENGLISH.
The method employed by Obamacare to FORCE YOU IN TO BUYING PRIVATE INSURANCE is A BLATANT SUBVERSION OF THE ARTICLE 1 LIMITS ON FEDERAL POWER.
Do you not understand that?
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN NOT DO ANYTHING UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED TO DO SO BY THE CONSTITUTION.
DO YOU SEE "PROVIDE HEALTHCARE OR TAX TO INDUCE COMPLIANCE" IN THE LIST OF FEDERALLY GRANTED POWERS IN THE CONSTITUTION?
If not, then it is blatantly unconstitutional.
Perhaps you don't have the sharpest legal mind, but go reread the WSJ article.
THEY MAKE IT EXPLICIT AS TO IN WHICH WAYS THIS LAW IS IN CLEAR CONTRADICTION WITH THE LIMITS TO POWER IMPOSED ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY THE CONSTITUTION.
I don't know if you aren't an American or what,
but you seem to clearly have ZERO comprehension of the expressed opinions of our founding fathers with relation to what the federal government CAN and CAN NOT DO.
Obamacare, at least in it's attempt to MANDATE COVERAGE, BLATANTLY VIOLATES THIS CONSTRAINT.
So let me ask you,
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU BABBLING ABOUT?If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?0 -
Right fuckin on Drifting!!!!!! Goddamn it's good to see some actual common fucking sense on here.
As far as the whole argument that car INS. Is no different is a joke. You only have to have auto INS. If you own and drive a car also it is designed to protect not only you but other drivers as well. Also you have the ablity to buy across state lines so you can find the best policy that suits you and your wallet unlike health INS.0 -
DriftingByTheStorm wrote:inmytree wrote:sweet fn jesus...what are you babbling about...I'm serious...
I take it you're whining about the individual mandate to purchase insurance and that you view it as "unconstitutional"...I guess the courts will decide that...
I guess you and others are up in arms about Auto insurance and homeowners insurance...you know, that's not in the constitution either...I find amusing that some will only pull out he Constitution when it fits them...
I looked for the author of this article, and couldn't find it...
to me, it's interesting that folks cling to the constitution like some cling to the Bible or the Qur’an...
anyhoo, back to being a working drone...have a good one... :thumbup:
IF THERE IS NO LISTED AUTHOR IN A MAIN STREAM NEWS ARTICLE
IT USUALLY MEANS IT WAS WRITTEN BY THE EDITORIAL STAFF AS A WHOLE
That means the editors of the WSJ no likey likey Obama care.
And, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT,
YOU NEED TO PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS
and get an idea of what the constitution is laying out as law.
This is the 2nd or 3rd time in 2 days that you have asked me, AFTER A FULL RESPONSE, "what the hell are you talking about"? Read the fucking article. Pull out a dictionary. Go over some reference material. Do some of your own research, and FIGURE IT OUT.
That article is written in PLAIN ENGLISH.
The method employed by Obamacare to FORCE YOU IN TO BUYING PRIVATE INSURANCE is A BLATANT SUBVERSION OF THE ARTICLE 1 LIMITS ON FEDERAL POWER.
Do you not understand that?
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN NOT DO ANYTHING UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED TO DO SO BY THE CONSTITUTION.
DO YOU SEE "PROVIDE HEALTHCARE OR TAX TO INDUCE COMPLIANCE" IN THE LIST OF FEDERALLY GRANTED POWERS IN THE CONSTITUTION?
If not, then it is blatantly unconstitutional.
Perhaps you don't have the sharpest legal mind, but go reread the WSJ article.
THEY MAKE IT EXPLICIT AS TO IN WHICH WAYS THIS LAW IS IN CLEAR CONTRADICTION WITH THE LIMITS TO POWER IMPOSED ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY THE CONSTITUTION.
I don't know if you aren't an American or what,
but you seem to clearly have ZERO comprehension of the expressed opinions of our founding fathers with relation to what the federal government CAN and CAN NOT DO.
Obamacare, at least in it's attempt to MANDATE COVERAGE, BLATANTLY VIOLATES THIS CONSTRAINT.
So let me ask you,
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU BABBLING ABOUT?
so, I guess you're ok with mandatory auto and homeowners insurance...it's funny how you ignore points and yell about your own...
you cling to the constitution as it were your bible...oh wait, you don't want to address that point...
As I mentioned before, you must be big fan of the 3/5 compromise...oh, I'm sorry, you'll ignore that to...
maybe I'm just part of the illuminate...here to drive you nuts...bwwww ha ha ha... :twisted:
anyhoo, suck it up buttercup,because you'll be buying insurance just like the rest of us in few years...ha ha ha...
simpletons cling to old ideas and notions...Post edited by inmytree on0 -
prfctlefts wrote:Right fuckin on Drifting!!!!!! Goddamn it's good to see some actual common fucking sense on here.
As far as the whole argument that car INS. Is no different is a joke. You only have to have auto INS. If you own and drive a car also it is designed to protect not only you but other drivers as well. Also you have the ablity to buy across state lines so you can find the best policy that suits you and your wallet unlike health INS.
wait a minute...you're ok with forcing me to buy auto insurance because I'm successful and can own a car...
what about me liberty...? me freedom...? what are you, some socialist fascist marxist....why do you hate America and Freedom...?0 -
I was just reading my copy of the constitution and found this tid-bit under Article VI:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
interesting stuff this bible of yours...0 -
:roll: :roll:
Are you really that lame where is I have to explain to you why any Home owner must have Home owners INS.
Gee let's think about this for a sec.As long as you have a loan on your home you have to have homeowners insurance. Becuase if something happens to the Home like you know a Fire or some other natrual disaster the bank doesn't loose any money because it belongs to the bank until you pay off the loan. You do under stand that right ? Now when you pay off your home you can choose not to cary homeowners INS. You Fowllow me ?inmytree wrote:wait a minute...you're ok with forcing me to buy auto insurance because I'm successful and can own a car...
Dude why do you get off on acting like a jack ass ?? If you cant understand the difference between why you have to have car Ins and the FEDERAL GOV. FORCING YOU TO BUY HEALTH INS. then I don't know what else to say. Think about it.0 -
prfctlefts wrote:No I don't think Obama is doing a good job. I think he is way out of his league when it comes to running this country. I have never seen a president belittle and put down his own countries citizens like he does. But I guess that's what someone does that think's and acts a dictator.
seriously?????
we could debate the job he is doing for ages and there is not point becuase we will never agree.
however he is not out of his league, maybe you would rather have Palin :roll: she would be right at home running the country. If not then who is in your league?
Puts the citizens down, when? where? that just sounds like some oversensitive whining. Acts like a dictator??? well maybe you should go live in a country with a real dictatorship for 6 months come back and see if you have the same opinion.
when you make these complaints it is hard not to make the comparisons to Bush Jr, which leads me to laughing my ass off..... talk about out of their league **CUBS GO ALL THE WAY IN......never **0 -
KDH12 wrote:prfctlefts wrote:No I don't think Obama is doing a good job. I think he is way out of his league when it comes to running this country. I have never seen a president belittle and put down his own countries citizens like he does. But I guess that's what someone does that think's and acts a dictator.
seriously?????
we could debate the job he is doing for ages and there is not point becuase we will never agree.
however he is not out of his league, maybe you would rather have Palin :roll: she would be right at home running the country. If not then who is in your league?
Puts the citizens down, when? where? that just sounds like some oversensitive whining. Acts like a dictator??? well maybe you should go live in a country with a real dictatorship for 6 months come back and see if you have the same opinion.
when you make these complaints it is hard not to make the comparisons to Bush Jr, which leads me to laughing my ass off..... talk about out of their league
yeah seriously... I suppport constitutionalist like Ron Paul. Something that Obama could never be. I see that you're just another Obama drone who thinks that he can do no wrong.
you ask when and where has he disrespected americans ?? Everytime he opens his mouth he does. Most recently at a commencment speech he gave and before that at a fundraiser in Miami.
and I don't need to go somewhere for 6 months when we have a president that acts like one right here.But like I said you're just another Obama drone so I wouldn't expect you to see it that way..0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help