# 28th Amendment to the Constitution



## DGS49 (Nov 30, 2018)

FIRST:  Effective two (2) years from the effective date of ratification of this Amendment, legal residents of the United States shall be entitled to health care, according to the best contemporary standardsof the medical art.

SECOND:  Congress shall have the power to enact all laws and make all expenditures necessary to bring Paragraph FIRST to fruition, notwithstanding any possible contradiction with the Tenth Amendment.

Would Bernie Sanders have the balls to introduce such an Amendment?

Anyone else?

Would Democrats in Congress have the balls to  vote for it?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Nov 30, 2018)

THIRD: Congress and Bernie Sanders have no idea who is going to pay for it.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Nov 30, 2018)

FOURTH: Bernie and Congress shall have the power to meet all expenditures necessary to provide themselves with much better contemporary standards of the medical art.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 1, 2018)

DGS49 said:


> 28th Amendment to the Constitution



  A proposed Amendment doesn't get a number until it's ratified.  Whatever the next Amendment is that is made to the Constitution will be the Twenty-Eighth Amendment.  There are plenty of other ideas floating around that have a much better chance of becoming the Twenty-Eighth Amendment than the one you've just proposed.


----------



## DGS49 (Dec 1, 2018)

This is why i bring it up:  HEALTH CARE is the biggest policy initiative that the Democrats have to work with ( other than legalizing 30 million border-jumpers).

And yet, any manifestation of their dream is unconstitutional, and THIS version of the USSC will shoot it down.

They want Single Payer?  They want to make healthcare a Right?

There is only one way for that to happen.  A constitutional amendment.

And isn't that appropriate?  A major national policy change like that REQUIRES more than a 51-49 vote.

And yet...the Democrats know that they lack the votes, both in Congress and the State legislatures.  So they keep dangling these bullshit proposals..."MEDICARE for all", and pretending that it is only Republican obstruction that stands in the way - not the Constitution.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 1, 2018)

We don’t need an amendment to provide universal healthcare

Why won’t republicans support it


----------



## Anathema (Dec 1, 2018)

If thst were to pass, I would be leaving the USA and giving up my citizenship. Thst is the absolute opposite of what the Constitution was intended for.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 1, 2018)

Anathema said:


> If thst were to pass, I would be leaving the USA and giving up my citizenship. Thst is the absolute opposite of what the Constitution was intended for.


We will miss you


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 1, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> We don’t need an amendment to provide universal healthcare
> 
> Why won’t republicans support it



  Where, in the Constitution, is the power delegated to the federal government to provide universal health care?

  Hint:   It's not.  Therefore, per the Tenth Amendment, the federal government has no such power, and would be acting illegally if it were to do so.

  Yes, you do need an amendment to provide universal healthcare; at the federal level, at least.


----------



## Anathema (Dec 1, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> We will miss you



No you won’t. Nor will I miss you, or what this entire country is becoming. 

Of course it will make the other 10 people who live in this duplex homeless, but thst will be your problem, not mine.


----------



## Pellinore (Dec 12, 2018)

Bob Blaylock said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > We don’t need an amendment to provide universal healthcare
> ...



"The Congress shall have power"
...
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes"
...
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."


It's called the "elastic clause," in Article I, Section 8.  It has that name for a reason.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 13, 2018)

Pellinore said:


> "The Congress shall have power"
> ...
> "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes"
> ...
> ...



  No rational reading of it supports the abuse of federal power to meddle in areas where the Constitution does not specifically delegate authority to the federal government.  Otherwise, what would be the point of the Tenth Amendment?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 13, 2018)

DGS49 said:


> FIRST: Effective two (2) years from the effective date of ratification of this Amendment, legal residents of the United States shall be entitled to health care, according to the best contemporary standardsof the medical art.
> 
> SECOND: Congress shall have the power to enact all laws and make all expenditures necessary to bring Paragraph FIRST to fruition, notwithstanding any possible contradiction with the Tenth Amendment.
> 
> ...



No, because the Constitution shouldn't be about legislation... it should be about the mechanics of government.  

This is why the 18th and 21st Amendments were such a fiasco.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 13, 2018)

Bob Blaylock said:


> No rational reading of it supports the abuse of federal power to meddle in areas where the Constitution does not specifically delegate authority to the federal government. Otherwise, what would be the point of the Tenth Amendment?



Again, why are we limiting our thinking to the thoughts of slave rapists who shit in chamber pots and treated colds by bleeding people?


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 13, 2018)

Bob Blaylock said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > We don’t need an amendment to provide universal healthcare
> ...


Article 1, Section 1


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 13, 2018)

Anathema said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > We will miss you
> ...


Such a humanitarian


----------



## Anathema (Dec 13, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Such a humanitarian



Actually at the moment I pretty much am a humanitarian. There are 13 people living in the 5 bedroom duplex my wife and I currently own. Beyond us there are her parents, 4 of her 5 siblings (all adults), my sil Stephanie’s husband and her four kids. 

My income is roughly 35-40% of the money that comes in lot the house on a monthly basis. Especially when you consider only 2 of the 9 adults in the house are employed. 

If I were to leave the country, the others would not go with me. On their minimal income they would not be able to keep the house and would end up homeless and on the streets.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Dec 13, 2018)

Anathema said:


> If thst were to pass, I would be leaving the USA and giving up my citizenship. Thst is the absolute opposite of what the Constitution was intended for.


No, you wouldn't.  You would scream and yell and bitch and piss and moan...and nothing else.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 13, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > Where, in the Constitution, is the power delegated to the federal government to provide universal health care?
> ...



_All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives._​
  Where, in that sentence, does it say anything about the federal government having any authority to provide health care?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 14, 2018)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Where, in that sentence, does it say anything about the federal government having any authority to provide health care?



Yes, we absolutely should let poor people die because they don't have the money to treat easily curable diseases. 

After all, it's what Jesus would do.


----------



## Anathema (Dec 14, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> ...After all, it's what Jesus would do.



Please show me a Constitutional reference to what Jesus would do having ANY bearing on US Governmental policy. 

Please also realize that not all Conservatives are religious nuts. In fact, while many Republicans may be religious, most actual Conservatives are not (in my experience).


----------



## Pellinore (Dec 15, 2018)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Pellinore said:
> 
> 
> > "The Congress shall have power"
> ...


This was argued over by people far more intelligent and qualified than the two of us, a couple of times about two hundred years ago, with the result being our National Bank.  Marshall's decision (for the second bank) was that the "necessary and proper" clause gave the government "implied powers," including the ability to establish the bank.  These days, that can easily be applied to health care.

The Tenth Amendment is still in full effect for any issues that aren't related to Commerce, or anything else covered under I:8.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 15, 2018)

Anathema said:


> Please show me a Constitutional reference to what Jesus would do having ANY bearing on US Governmental policy.
> 
> Please also realize that not all Conservatives are religious nuts. In fact, while many Republicans may be religious, most actual Conservatives are not (in my experience).



Oh, do believe actual conservative AREA ABSOLUTELY CLUELESS about what Jesus was talking about. 

So essentially, you need a philosophy that rationalizes your hate and anger, as though dumping on people who are worse off than you are makes you feel any better.   What a sad little man you are.


----------



## Anathema (Dec 15, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Oh, do believe actual conservatives ARE ABSOLUTELY CLUELESS about what Jesus was talking about.
> 
> So essentially, you need a philosophy that rationalizes your hate and anger, as though dumping on people who are worse off than you are makes you feel any better.   What a sad little man you are.



No. We aren’t clueless about Jesus, we just don’t believe that his teachings are not as divinely inspired as others believe them to be. 

I bought thst shit for 27 years, until my father passed away in 2001. At that point I did some serious philosophical and spiritual soul-searching thst lead me to turn way from ALL organized religion to a more spiritual path. One that made sense from my life experiences and the realities of what I saw in the world around me. Over time I’ve found many others who follow this path for one reason or another.


----------



## hadit (Dec 15, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > No rational reading of it supports the abuse of federal power to meddle in areas where the Constitution does not specifically delegate authority to the federal government. Otherwise, what would be the point of the Tenth Amendment?
> ...



Because the laws they wrote have not been overturned or replaced. You don't get to just ignore the law because you don't like who wrote it.


----------



## hadit (Dec 15, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > Where, in that sentence, does it say anything about the federal government having any authority to provide health care?
> ...



I thought we weren't supposed to have a theocracy.  Can you pick a horse and stay on it?


----------



## OldLady (Dec 15, 2018)

DGS49 said:


> This is why i bring it up:  HEALTH CARE is the biggest policy initiative that the Democrats have to work with ( other than legalizing 30 million border-jumpers).
> 
> And yet, any manifestation of their dream is unconstitutional, and THIS version of the USSC will shoot it down.
> 
> ...


We didn't need a Constitutional Amendment to provide Medicare for some or Social Security for all, so why do we need a Constitutional Amendment to expand Medicare to all?


----------



## Anathema (Dec 15, 2018)

[QUOTE="OldLady, post: 21392392, member: 56127”]We didn't need a Constitutional Amendment to provide Medicare for some or Social Security for all, so why do we need a Constitutional Amendment to expand Medicare to all?[/QUOTE]

We should have needed a Constitutional Amendment for both of those programs AND for any extension of them... including a Medicare for All program. 

I’d like to think it takes more than a 50%+1 vote of both Congressional bodies to end my life


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 15, 2018)

Anathema said:


> [QUOTE="OldLady, post: 21392392, member: 56127”]We didn't need a Constitutional Amendment to provide Medicare for some or Social Security for all, so why do we need a Constitutional Amendment to expand Medicare to all?



We should have needed a Constitutional Amendment for both of those programs AND for any extension of them... including a Medicare for All program.

I’d like to think it takes more than a 50%+1 vote of both Congressional bodies to end my life[/QUOTE]
End your life?

What a Drama Queen


----------



## Anathema (Dec 15, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> End your life?
> 
> What a Drama Queen



As a Principled Nab I cannot take Government assistance in any form; therefore a Nedicare for All program means I lose my ability to see a doctor, go to an ER or even get prescriptions filled. Within probably 18 months that leads to me being DEAD.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 15, 2018)

DGS49 said:


> FIRST:  Effective two (2) years from the effective date of ratification of this Amendment, legal residents of the United States shall be entitled to health care, according to the best contemporary standardsof the medical art.
> 
> SECOND:  Congress shall have the power to enact all laws and make all expenditures necessary to bring Paragraph FIRST to fruition, notwithstanding any possible contradiction with the Tenth Amendment.
> 
> ...




What a stupid idea for an amendment.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 15, 2018)

Anathema said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > End your life?
> ...


You makes your choices
Ya pay your consequences


----------



## OldLady (Dec 15, 2018)

Anathema said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > End your life?
> ...


What's a Nab?


----------



## Anathema (Dec 15, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> You makes your choices
> Ya pay your consequences



I value my Soul far more than my body/life.


----------



## Anathema (Dec 15, 2018)

OldLady said:


> What's a Nab?



A typo. It should have read Principled Man.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 16, 2018)

hadit said:


> Because the laws they wrote have not been overturned or replaced. You don't get to just ignore the law because you don't like who wrote it.



So if we throw Trump out through impeachment or the 25th Amendment, you'd be cool with that?  Or for that matter, if we indicted him in a criminal court (as there is nothing in the constitution that says you can't.) 

Me... I'm of the philosophy, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.


----------



## vasuderatorrent (Jan 5, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > Where, in that sentence, does it say anything about the federal government having any authority to provide health care?
> ...


 
I love darkmatters2525


----------



## Monk-Eye (Jan 6, 2019)

*" Affordable Care Act Was Supposed To Decrease Medicaid Costs To National Debt Through Private Insurance Requirements "*

** Giant Holes In The Bucket **

THREE - the legal migrant status of all receiving treatment under medicaid will be verified and any illegal migrant will be deported to their nation of origin immediately following treatment ; and , any realized costs will be levied against any us trade debts to their country of origin .

FOUR - any child of an illegal migrant will receive the citizenship to the country from that of the mother and both will be deported to their nation of origin immediately following delivery .

** National Debt Tax Not Feasible But Premiums At Least Doubled **

An impetus for implementing the affordable care act was to create a different statistic for reducing the effects of medical costs , as medical costs represented a large block of government expenses contributing to the national debt .

Had the government passed a bond measure to pay down the medicaid portion of the national debt in a manner that exacted a cost matching the more than doubled  premiums that was the consequence to health insurance premiums consequent to the affordable care act , the national debt might be much , much lower , but the average citizen would likely have launched a revolution .

** Obvious Necessity For Accountability **

The government does not collect premiums and offset losses with investments as do private insurance providers , rather the government pays medical costs directly to private health care providers from taxes or by increasing the national debt .

Supposedly those most likely to use medicaid were those with incomes between 100% and 400% of the poverty line and their premiums were socialized on a graduated scale with a maximum expenditures for those at 400% of the poverty line being approximately 4% of total earned income .

What has been accomplished if there is not a reduction in medicaid costs to the national debt that should be commensurate with the additional expenditures for health insurance incurred by the more than doubled premiums of those beyond the 400% socialized cutoff , for who the government did not " purchase insurance " ?


----------



## hadit (Jan 6, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Because the laws they wrote have not been overturned or replaced. You don't get to just ignore the law because you don't like who wrote it.
> ...



If it's done legally, of course. I don't have to agree with something to accept it as legal. Of course, that's just me, as I'm finding out. Apparently, there are some who want to ignore the law of they hate someone enough.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 7, 2019)

hadit said:


> If it's done legally, of course. I don't have to agree with something to accept it as legal. Of course, that's just me, as I'm finding out. Apparently, there are some who want to ignore the law of they hate someone enough.



I have no problem throwing out trump, legally or illegally, because I never accepted him as legitimate to start with.


----------



## hadit (Jan 7, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > If it's done legally, of course. I don't have to agree with something to accept it as legal. Of course, that's just me, as I'm finding out. Apparently, there are some who want to ignore the law of they hate someone enough.
> ...



And there's your problem, because he doesn't require your acceptance to be legitimate. He won by the only metric that matters and is President, whether you like it or not. for rational people, hating someone, even irrationally, is not a valid reason to ignore the law. 

I don't see Hillary in the White House, do you?


----------



## TNHarley (Jan 7, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> We don’t need an amendment to provide universal healthcare
> 
> Why won’t republicans support it


Right? Its amazing how people forget that is an enumerated power.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 7, 2019)

hadit said:


> And there's your problem, because he doesn't require your acceptance to be legitimate. He won by the only metric that matters and is President, whether you like it or not. for rational people, hating someone, even irrationally, is not a valid reason to ignore the law.
> 
> I don't see Hillary in the White House, do you?



NOt yet... but don't worry, we'll take care of your Fuhrer soon enough. 


Impeach the Mother Fucker!


----------



## hadit (Jan 8, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > And there's your problem, because he doesn't require your acceptance to be legitimate. He won by the only metric that matters and is President, whether you like it or not. for rational people, hating someone, even irrationally, is not a valid reason to ignore the law.
> ...



Yeah, you've been saying that for quite a while now. You do realize, don't you, that all you're doing is setting the precedent of impeaching an opposition president simply because a bunch of ignorant, uncivilized, flame farting internet keyboard jockeys don't like him, right?

Until you manage to actually do something about it, Trump is your president, Pence is your VP, and if you make up enough crap to get rid of Trump, he'll be your president and pick his own VP. Hillary will have to run again if she wants to be president, and Pelosi simply won't be.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 9, 2019)

hadit said:


> Yeah, you've been saying that for quite a while now. You do realize, don't you, that all you're doing is setting the precedent of impeaching an opposition president simply because a bunch of ignorant, uncivilized, flame farting internet keyboard jockeys don't like him, right?
> 
> Until you manage to actually do something about it, Trump is your president, Pence is your VP, and if you make up enough crap to get rid of Trump, he'll be your president and pick his own VP. Hillary will have to run again if she wants to be president, and Pelosi simply won't be.



Again, by the time we are done exposing Trump's corruption, the GOP will go the way of the Whigs and we will all be better off for it. 

Trump killed your party.. it just hasn't stopped flopping around on the deck yet.  

If you were smart, you'd impeach him and disown him. 

But you guys aren't very smart.


----------



## hadit (Jan 9, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, you've been saying that for quite a while now. You do realize, don't you, that all you're doing is setting the precedent of impeaching an opposition president simply because a bunch of ignorant, uncivilized, flame farting internet keyboard jockeys don't like him, right?
> ...



When it's proven that he's committed crimes, he'll get justice, but until then, you're no better than the anti-Hillary extremists, "We'll get her this time, for sure". 

I mean, heck, the same thing can be said about your party's slavish allegiance to the Clintons. You're going to have to get rid of their spectre before you can move forward.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 10, 2019)

hadit said:


> When it's proven that he's committed crimes, he'll get justice, but until then, you're no better than the anti-Hillary extremists, "We'll get her this time, for sure".



Again, your side impeached BILL Clinton for getting a blow job. I promise you, when we impeach Trump, it will be something more serious than that.  



hadit said:


> I mean, heck, the same thing can be said about your party's slavish allegiance to the Clintons. You're going to have to get rid of their spectre before you can move forward.



Again, I realize the Clintons are living in your head rent free, but that wasn't the issue here.  You guys blew up the country because Hillary hurt your feelings back in the 1990's.  How's that working out for you again?


----------



## hadit (Jan 10, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > When it's proven that he's committed crimes, he'll get justice, but until then, you're no better than the anti-Hillary extremists, "We'll get her this time, for sure".
> ...



Still haven't read that history book I see. Until you move past the lie that Bubba was impeached for having sex with the least powerful woman in the office, there's no point in wasting time on you. You've drunk the Clinton Kool-aid. 

And I notice that you don't even know what you're going to impeach Trump for, but you're sure you're going to get him THIS time. I'm sure it'll make up for all those times you were left in the dust, twirling your mustache and muttering, "curses, foiled again". Or was that watching the road runner disappear in the distance as your Acme brand super duper rocket powered roller skates sent you flying off a cliff?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 11, 2019)

hadit said:


> Still haven't read that history book I see. Until you move past the lie that Bubba was impeached for having sex with the least powerful woman in the office, there's no point in wasting time on you. You've drunk the Clinton Kool-aid.



A woman who willing had sex with him and told her friends she was going to Washington to get her "Presidential Kneepads".  

If you guys came impeach Clinton for getting a beej, we can impeach Trump for just about anything.  There's so much too choose from. 



hadit said:


> And I notice that you don't even know what you're going to impeach Trump for, but you're sure you're going to get him THIS time. I'm sure it'll make up for all those times you were left in the dust, twirling your mustache and muttering, "curses, foiled again". Or was that watching the road runner disappear in the distance as your Acme brand super duper rocket powered roller skates sent you flying off a cliff?



Just judging by how much Trump is screaming, he knows he's in trouble.  Kind of sucks when all the disreputable people you've surrounded yourself with turn on you.


----------



## Monk-Eye (Jan 11, 2019)

*" Perjury On Record "*

** Consternation Of Legal Protocol **


JoeB131 said:


> If you guys came impeach Clinton for getting a beej, we can impeach Trump for just about anything.  There's so much too choose from.


One can get into worse trouble than the crime itself for making false statements under oath .

Not all courts are a court of record , one can state any lie under the sun in a court that is not a court of record , and not one charge can be levied against them even if they were " under oath " .


----------



## hadit (Jan 11, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Still haven't read that history book I see. Until you move past the lie that Bubba was impeached for having sex with the least powerful woman in the office, there's no point in wasting time on you. You've drunk the Clinton Kool-aid.
> ...



It's obvious you either weren't around then, weren't paying attention, or went to a government school, because Bubba wasn't impeached for getting a bj. 

And you still really don't know how you're going to get rid of Trump, you're just sure that you got him this time.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 12, 2019)

hadit said:


> It's obvious you either weren't around then, weren't paying attention, or went to a government school, because Bubba wasn't impeached for getting a bj.



Actually, at the time, I was one of you Right Wing Assholes, and I sputtered out "Obstruction of Justice" and "Subornation of Perjury" like those were real things anyone should care about.  And normal people looked at the first good economic times they enjoyed since the 1960's and looked at us like we were nuts, because we were.  

Then George W. Stupid became president, and I realized lying about a blow job wasn't a big deal. 

So, Crazy Right Wing world... getting a blow job is an impeachable offense, and getting 6000 Americans killed in an immoral war isn't. 



hadit said:


> And you still really don't know how you're going to get rid of Trump, you're just sure that you got him this time.



I've laid out the three conditions to get rid of Trump. 

1) Dems take Congress- Done
2) Economy goes into the tank due to his policies. Clearly happening at this point. 
3) Mueller, Congress or some other prosecutor defines a criminal act by Trump he's committed.  

So much to choose from, from Russia, Stormy Daniels, Emoluments, Obstruction of justice.


----------



## hadit (Jan 12, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > It's obvious you either weren't around then, weren't paying attention, or went to a government school, because Bubba wasn't impeached for getting a bj.
> ...



1. Be sure to tell the judge that lying under oath isn't a big deal and she shouldn't care about it. The rest of us will care about the law. And, before you explode, if Trump is convicted of breaking the law, he needs to face justice too. 
2. This is the one, we got him this time. Keep the faith.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 12, 2019)

hadit said:


> 1. Be sure to tell the judge that lying under oath isn't a big deal and she shouldn't care about it. The rest of us will care about the law. And, before you explode, if Trump is convicted of breaking the law, he needs to face justice too.
> 2. This is the one, we got him this time. Keep the faith.



Buddy, if your party was smart, they'd throw Trump out under the 25th Amendment... and hold yourself blameless instead of drinking the koolaid. 

And, no, lying about a blow job wasn't a big deal.  If you spend $70MM to investigate a blow job and only come up with a $10K fine offense, that's a real waste of money.  

Weren't you guys the "Party of Fiscal Responsibility"?


----------



## hadit (Jan 12, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Be sure to tell the judge that lying under oath isn't a big deal and she shouldn't care about it. The rest of us will care about the law. And, before you explode, if Trump is convicted of breaking the law, he needs to face justice too.
> ...


Now I know you weren't paying attention.  Bubba's handlers paid a LOT more than $10K.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 13, 2019)

hadit said:


> Now I know you weren't paying attention. Bubba's handlers paid a LOT more than $10K.



that was the fine Judge Susan Weber Wright imposed.  

Yes, the legal fees on all sides were huge and bankrupted everyone...


----------



## hadit (Jan 13, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Now I know you weren't paying attention. Bubba's handlers paid a LOT more than $10K.
> ...



Are you deliberately ignoring the $90,686 contempt of court fine that same judge imposed? How are any of us supposed to take you seriously about anything when you do that?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 13, 2019)

hadit said:


> Are you deliberately ignoring the $90,686 contempt of court fine that same judge imposed? How are any of us supposed to take you seriously about anything when you do that?



Wow... so we spent $70MM to get back $100K in a fine?  Really?  

Party of Fiscal Responsibility strikes again.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 13, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Wow... so we spent $70MM to get back $100K in a fine?  Really?
> 
> Party of Fiscal Responsibility strikes again.



  Law enforcement is not supposed to be done for profit.  That path leads to a sort of corruption and abuse that can already be seen in many jurisdictions, at a much lower level.  Insane parking rules, speed limits, traffic cameras, and such, set up not to promote safety and order, but to entrap citizens into being caught committing violations they did not intend to commit, just so that localities can shake them down for fines.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 13, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Law enforcement is not supposed to be done for profit. That path leads to a sort of corruption and abuse that can already be seen in many jurisdictions, at a much lower level. Insane parking rules, speed limits, traffic cameras, and such, set up not to promote safety and order, but to entrap citizens into being caught committing violations they did not intend to commit, just so that localities can shake them down for fines.



I agree, there's too much of that sort of  thing.  But that wasn't the point I was making.  I know you LDS guys lack basic reasoning skills.  

SO let's Review. Ken Starr was appointed to investigate Whitewater.  He didn't find the Clintons did anything Criminal there.  He also investigated the Travel Office Firings, Vince Fosters Suicide, and the retention of FBI records by the White House- and in all those cases, he had to admit that, gosh darn, the Clintons didn't do anything Criminal there, either. 

But then he found out that Bill Clinton MIGHT have lied during the Paula Jones trial. Or he might not actually consider a blow job to be sex, because a lot of men don't.  So he spent 70 Million dollars investigating whether or not Bill Clinton considered that blow job he got sex or not.  

This is not a good use of the taxpayer's money.


----------



## DOTR (Jan 13, 2019)

DGS49 said:


> FIRST:  Effective two (2) years from the effective date of ratification of this Amendment, legal residents of the United States shall be entitled to health care, according to the best contemporary standardsof the medical art.
> 
> SECOND:  Congress shall have the power to enact all laws and make all expenditures necessary to bring Paragraph FIRST to fruition, notwithstanding any possible contradiction with the Tenth Amendment.
> 
> ...




No! Emphatically no. Liberals do not work within the Constitution. They use courts to amend it.


----------



## DOTR (Jan 13, 2019)

I think we should repeal the 17th amendment. That will right a lot of wrongs. (and maybe the 19th)


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 13, 2019)

DOTR said:


> I think we should repeal the 17th amendment. That will right a lot of wrongs. (and maybe the 19th)



Let's repeal the third and station some gay soldiers at your house.


----------



## boedicca (Jan 13, 2019)

DGS49 said:


> FIRST:  Effective two (2) years from the effective date of ratification of this Amendment, legal residents of the United States shall be entitled to health care, according to the best contemporary standardsof the medical art.
> 
> SECOND:  Congress shall have the power to enact all laws and make all expenditures necessary to bring Paragraph FIRST to fruition, notwithstanding any possible contradiction with the Tenth Amendment.
> 
> ...




What a stupid idea for an Amendment.


----------



## DOTR (Jan 13, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > I think we should repeal the 17th amendment. That will right a lot of wrongs. (and maybe the 19th)
> ...



  Back to your homosexuals?


----------



## hadit (Jan 14, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Are you deliberately ignoring the $90,686 contempt of court fine that same judge imposed? How are any of us supposed to take you seriously about anything when you do that?
> ...



Wow, you're REALLY playing obtuse now. Like I said, it's obvious you weren't paying attention then.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 14, 2019)

hadit said:


> Wow, you're REALLY playing obtuse now. Like I said, it's obvious you weren't paying attention then.



Like I said, back then, I was one of you right wing assholes who said "Impeach him".  

Then Bush got in, and I realized just how badly you guys could fuck things up when left in charge.


----------

