# If republicans and tea baggers find the constitution so sacred...



## Billy000 (Oct 5, 2013)

...then why can't they accept a law that was ruled as constitutional?

For Christ's sakes, just because you don't support a law like ObamaCare, it does not mean it is justified to hold our country hostage over it. It is Ted Cruz and his band of douche tea baggers who own this shut down. Say what you want about Obama in general, but it is completely justified for him not to negotiate over this. Why should he? This is extortion of the worst kind. 

What's even worst about this is that it doesn't even represent the views of the people. While it is true that ObamaCare is unpopular nationwide (with a populace that knows very little about it anyway), polls show that most Americans do not want this shut down, EVEN WITH OBAMACARE AT STAKE.

Did you know that among the Americans who oppose ObamaCare, 14% want a single payer system as a replacement?


----------



## TNHarley (Oct 5, 2013)

it depends on what poll u look at. 
this is part of being America. Deal with it
some peoole might not actually like fascism shoved down their throat!


----------



## Billy000 (Oct 5, 2013)

TNHarley said:


> it depends on what poll u look at.
> this is part of being America. Deal with it
> some peoole might not actually like fascism shoved down their throat!



Are you calling ObamaCare fascist? I'm not sure you understand what the word fascist means...


----------



## Vox (Oct 5, 2013)

Billy000 said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > it depends on what poll u look at.
> ...



it is fascist. and it is YOU who has no idea what it means....


----------



## TNHarley (Oct 5, 2013)

very well aware sonny
I am one of the few that understand the difference between words like that. maybe you ahould learn


----------



## TNHarley (Oct 5, 2013)

I will give you a tutorial as long as you say you are my bitch


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 5, 2013)

Vox is far more fascistic than Obama.  Merriam-Webster defines it as "fas·cism noun \&#712;fa-&#716;shi-z&#601;m also &#712;fa-&#716;si-\ " as ": a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government."

Vox would not allow any dissent.

Vox has issues with people of color and minorities and immigrants and Jews.


----------



## Billy000 (Oct 5, 2013)

TNHarley said:


> I will give you a tutorial as long as you say you are my bitch





...so does anyone with an average intelligence or above have something to add to this discussion?


----------



## Vox (Oct 5, 2013)

fakey fuck off, you leftard imbecile


----------



## Vox (Oct 5, 2013)

Billy000 said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > I will give you a tutorial as long as you say you are my bitch
> ...



there is nothing to add to the topic which lacks intelligence by default


----------



## Black_Label (Oct 5, 2013)

Vox said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



Do explain, we'd hate to think you are a radical right wing idiot that has no clue to it's meaning,...


----------



## Sunshine (Oct 5, 2013)

Billy000 said:


> ...then why can't they accept a law that was ruled as constitutional?
> 
> For Christ's sakes, just because you don't support a law like ObamaCare, it does not mean it is justified to hold our country hostage over it. It is Ted Cruz and his band of douche tea baggers who own this shut down. Say what you want about Obama in general, but it is completely justified for him not to negotiate over this. Why should he? This is extortion of the worst kind.
> 
> ...



There have been many things ruled constitutional then ruled unconstitutional when the climate changed:

Unconstitutional Federal Laws

Read it and weep.


----------



## TNHarley (Oct 5, 2013)

Billy000 said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > I will give you a tutorial as long as you say you are my bitch
> ...



LOL
kinda expected a low level response from you on this. most people shudder at the debate of words like this. it takes.intellect to actually distinguish between them.
its OK.  you remain like most of society


----------



## Vox (Oct 5, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Billy000 said:
> ...



ask your clone fakey - he will explain to you


----------



## OriginalShroom (Oct 5, 2013)

Billy000 said:


> ...then why can't they accept a law that was ruled as constitutional?
> 
> For Christ's sakes, just because you don't support a law like ObamaCare, it does not mean it is justified to hold our country hostage over it. It is Ted Cruz and his band of douche tea baggers who own this shut down. Say what you want about Obama in general, but it is completely justified for him not to negotiate over this. Why should he? This is extortion of the worst kind.
> 
> ...



The means of mandating everyone to pay in, as a form of taxes ( Something Obama and the Democrats denied it was up until the moment they had to say that in the Supreme Court ) was ruled as Constitutional.

That's it.

That was the only part of the law that was before the SCotUS.

Now before you go hanging you hat on that....  Answer this simple question..  Has the Supreme Court ever overturned a previous Supreme Court Ruling?


----------



## zeke (Oct 5, 2013)

Billy000 said:


> ...then why can't they accept a law that was ruled as constitutional?
> 
> *For Christ's sakes, just because you don't support a law like ObamaCare, it does not mean it is justified to hold our country hostage over it. It is Ted Cruz and his band of douche tea baggers who own this shut down.* Say what you want about Obama in general, but it is completely justified for him not to negotiate over this. Why should he? This is extortion of the worst kind.
> 
> ...





But when the majority in the House is once again Democrats and the radical portion of the Democrats shut the government down because they want universal gun background checks, they Repubs will cry like babies and bitch and claim they NEVER used the exact same tactic. Even though the Dems learned it from the Repubs.

We all, even the  ignorant Teabaggers, need to hope and pray that Obama does not negotiate with the funding of government and the debt ceiling as pawns. We will be fucked forever if that happens.


----------



## OKTexas (Oct 5, 2013)

Billy000 said:


> ...then why can't they accept a law that was ruled as constitutional?
> 
> For Christ's sakes, just because you don't support a law like ObamaCare, it does not mean it is justified to hold our country hostage over it. It is Ted Cruz and his band of douche tea baggers who own this shut down. Say what you want about Obama in general, but it is completely justified for him not to negotiate over this. Why should he? This is extortion of the worst kind.
> 
> ...



Have you ever read the SCOTUS decision, there are constitutional holes you could put an aircraft carrier through.

1. maobamacare originated in the senate and had revenue raising powers, all bills raising revenues must originate in the house.

2. Without going into the constitutionality of a separability clause, maobamacare didn't have one. This means if one word in the 2000 page monstrosity was found unconstitutional then the whole law should have been stricken and sent back to congress. They didn't do that.

3. According to the constitution all legislative powers are vested in congress yet Mr. Roberts took it upon himself to rewrite the language of the law turning a penalty into a tax. The law should have been stricken and returned to congress for that fix.

4. Mr. Roberts took it upon himself to create a whole new unconstitutional direct tax for not entering into commerce. Direct taxes that are not apportioned among the states by population are unconstitutional.

Your welcome to try to argue these facts, but I doubt you'll have much luck.


----------



## TNHarley (Oct 5, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Billy000 said:
> ...



yea, you are the one to talk.about CLUES. google and MSN cant give you talking points on stuff like this, so u are in way over your head


----------



## Vox (Oct 5, 2013)

TNHarley said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



they expect to have a discussion on a derogatory premise?

leftards are really mentally deficient


----------



## TNHarley (Oct 5, 2013)

A LOT more than derogatory. Throw in fallacy, and you made a point  LOL


----------



## blackhawk (Oct 5, 2013)

No one is denying the law was ruled constitutional just because a law is ruled constitutional does not mean you can not challenge it or try and overturn it otherwise prohibition would still be the law of the land.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 5, 2013)

> If republicans and tea baggers find the constitution so sacred then why can't they accept a law that was ruled as constitutional?



Because they dont respect its case law, which is a failure to respect the Constitution  as the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.


----------



## Vox (Oct 5, 2013)

blackhawk said:


> No one is denying the law was ruled constitutional just because a law is ruled constitutional does not mean you can not challenge it or try and overturn it otherwise prohibition would still be the law of the land.



the law was not ruled constitutional as that was not the question in front of the SCOTUS.

the individual mandate was ruled constitutional.

which does not change it from being fascist ( or any other totalitarian regime variety  )


----------



## jon_berzerk (Oct 5, 2013)

Vox said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > No one is denying the law was ruled constitutional just because a law is ruled constitutional does not mean you can not challenge it or try and overturn it otherwise prohibition would still be the law of the land.
> ...



constitutional only as a tax

making it an appropriate topic in the cr bill


----------



## Nyvin (Oct 5, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> 1. maobamacare originated in the senate and had revenue raising powers, all bills raising revenues must originate in the house.



This is false.   The Senate made modification to H.R. 3590 and rewrote it as the ACA



Vox said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > No one is denying the law was ruled constitutional just because a law is ruled constitutional does not mean you can not challenge it or try and overturn it otherwise prohibition would still be the law of the land.
> ...



No, it really was the entire bill actually.   The only part deemed _un_constitutional was the expansion of medicaid in states, which the SCOTUS said the federal government couldn't force...just encourage.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 5, 2013)

> If republicans and tea baggers find the constitution so sacred then why can't they accept a law that was ruled as constitutional?



Because they are ignorant and inconsistent; they contrive a childish fantasy understanding of what they want to Constitution to mean and then pick the case law they like, such as _Heller_ or_ Citizens United_, for purely subjective, partisan reasons, and ignore the case law they dont like  again, for purely subjective, partisan reasons, not as a consequence of having any actual understanding of the meaning of the Constitution.


----------



## blackhawk (Oct 5, 2013)

Has anyone else noticed when the left can't argue their case they go right to the name calling from Harry Reid on the Senate floor to some of the posters on this board.


----------



## R.C. Christian (Oct 5, 2013)

We don't believe the SCOTUS opinion. We, the terrorists, will do whatever we can stop this monstrosity. It's about time the GOP grew some balls and started representing it's constituency, the terrorists!


----------



## The T (Oct 5, 2013)

Billy000 said:


> ...then why can't they accept a law that was ruled as constitutional?
> 
> For Christ's sakes, just because you don't support a law like ObamaCare, it does not mean it is justified to hold our country hostage over it. It is Ted Cruz and his band of douche tea baggers who own this shut down. Say what you want about Obama in general, but it is completely justified for him not to negotiate over this. Why should he? This is extortion of the worst kind.
> 
> ...


Slavery was LAW too...as was segregation...and other maladies of society...

Do YOU suggest WE bring those back?

YOU sir, are an idiot. LAWS are not written in stone and are prone to be challenged, corrected, and even repealed.

*MORON*


----------



## OKTexas (Oct 5, 2013)

Nyvin said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > 1. maobamacare originated in the senate and had revenue raising powers, all bills raising revenues must originate in the house.
> ...



HR 3590 originally titled: Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 was passed by the house, the senate stripped the entire contents of the bill, changed the name and inserted maobamacare. The content of the bill did not originate in the house, therefore the bill raising revenues did not originate in the house. Any questions?

Edit: The penalty for the individual was also found unconstitutional, that's when Roberts decided to resurrect it as a tax.


----------



## TNHarley (Oct 5, 2013)

Did Billy000 get humiliated and run from his OWN thread?


----------



## Vox (Oct 5, 2013)

Nyvin said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > 1. maobamacare originated in the senate and had revenue raising powers, all bills raising revenues must originate in the house.
> ...



no it was NOT. learn the basics first.


----------



## OKTexas (Oct 5, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > If republicans and tea baggers find the constitution so sacred then why can't they accept a law that was ruled as constitutional?
> 
> 
> 
> Because they dont respect its case law, which is a failure to respect the Constitution  as the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.



Yep, that's what every brainwashed lawyer will tell ya.


----------



## Billy000 (Oct 5, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Vox is far more fascistic than Obama.  Merriam-Webster defines it as "fas·cism noun \&#712;fa-&#716;shi-z&#601;m also &#712;fa-&#716;si-\ " as ": a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government."
> 
> Vox would not allow any dissent.
> 
> Vox has issues with people of color and minorities and immigrants and Jews.





The T said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> > ...then why can't they accept a law that was ruled as constitutional?
> ...



Well if that's the case, you aren't one of the hypocrites I am addressing, are you? They trust the consititution 100%.


----------



## Billo_Really (Oct 5, 2013)

TNHarley said:


> its OK.  you remain like most of society


If he _"remains like most of society"_, that puts him in the majority. 

 If you are not_ "like most of society"_, that puts you in the minority.  And in this country, the majority rules.

That ain't fascism, that's democracy.


----------



## Nyvin (Oct 5, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> HR 3590 originally titled: Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 was passed by the house, the senate stripped the entire contents of the bill, changed the name and inserted maobamacare. The content of the bill did not originate in the house, therefore the bill raising revenues did not originate in the house. Any questions?
> 
> Edit: The penalty for the individual was also found unconstitutional, that's when Roberts decided to resurrect it as a tax.



The bill originated in the House.   It was a cheese move...but it was legal.


----------



## OKTexas (Oct 5, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > its OK.  you remain like most of society
> ...



Majority rules, really, then why are you lefties bitching that dems received more total votes for the house, yet you remain the minority. This is a representative republic, not a democracy.


----------



## TNHarley (Oct 5, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > its OK.  you remain like most of society
> ...



VVVVRRROOOOOOOOMMMMMMM
Its a bird, its a plane, Its....TNHarleys point!!


----------



## OKTexas (Oct 5, 2013)

Nyvin said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > HR 3590 originally titled: Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 was passed by the house, the senate stripped the entire contents of the bill, changed the name and inserted maobamacare. The content of the bill did not originate in the house, therefore the bill raising revenues did not originate in the house. Any questions?
> ...



No, the bill number only originated in the house, the bill contents originated in the senate and there is currently a court case in progress challenging that very fact.


----------



## Billo_Really (Oct 5, 2013)

TNHarley said:


> VVVVRRROOOOOOOOMMMMMMM
> Its a bird, its a plane, Its....TNHarleys point!!


You lost me there.


----------



## Billo_Really (Oct 5, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Majority rules, really, then why are you lefties bitching that dems received more total votes for the house, yet you remain the minority. This is a representative republic, not a democracy.


They did receive more votes.  But because of creative gerrymandering in the red states, we got these psuedo-representatives that only represent 10% of the population of their districts.  That's the "only" reason these people got in.


----------



## Vox (Oct 5, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > VVVVRRROOOOOOOOMMMMMMM
> ...



he is mocking your admiration of majority mob rule


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 5, 2013)

Billy000 said:


> ...then why can't they accept a law that was ruled as constitutional?
> 
> For Christ's sakes, just because you don't support a law like ObamaCare, it does not mean it is justified to hold our country hostage over it. It is Ted Cruz and his band of douche tea baggers who own this shut down. Say what you want about Obama in general, but it is completely justified for him not to negotiate over this. Why should he? This is extortion of the worst kind.
> 
> ...



*If republicans and tea baggers find the constitution so sacred... 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...then why can't they accept a law that was ruled as constitutional?*

Exactly!

Dred Scott v. Sandford was decided by the Supreme Court.
Why would Republicans refuse to accept that decision?


----------



## Billo_Really (Oct 5, 2013)

Vox said:


> he is mocking your admiration of majority mob rule


I wasn't admiring it.  I was just stating a fact.

And the majority is not a mob.  It's just the majority.  But it does rule.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 5, 2013)

zeke said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> > ...then why can't they accept a law that was ruled as constitutional?
> ...



Yeah, if we cut spending, by the tiniest amount, we'll be fucked forever.


----------



## Vox (Oct 5, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > he is mocking your admiration of majority mob rule
> ...



no it does not. not by our Constitution, which was designed exactly to prevent this.

the mob can be a majority, or you don't believe it?


----------



## Billo_Really (Oct 5, 2013)

Vox said:


> no it does not. not by our Constitution, which was designed exactly to prevent this.


What part of the Constitution states the minority wins when they are done counting votes?





Vox said:


> the mob can be a majority, or you don't believe it?


I guess it depends on the context of "the mob".

The majority of American's, is not a mob.


----------



## Trajan (Oct 5, 2013)

Billy000 said:


> ...then why can't they accept a law that was ruled as constitutional?
> 
> For Christ's sakes, just because you don't support a law like ObamaCare, it does not mean it is justified to hold our country hostage over it. It is Ted Cruz and his band of douche tea baggers who own this shut down. Say what you want about Obama in general, but it is completely justified for him not to negotiate over this. Why should he? This is extortion of the worst kind.
> 
> ...



newsflash- they are not asking for the repeal or defunding of obamcare, they want the grassley amendment enforced in full and the individual mandate suspended, so obamacare is 'not at stake'. 

And if the populace knows little about obamcare after obama supposedly campaigned  on it, well, whose fault is that? Maybe they do know and , they don't like it?


----------



## OKTexas (Oct 5, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Majority rules, really, then why are you lefties bitching that dems received more total votes for the house, yet you remain the minority. This is a representative republic, not a democracy.
> ...



You really are clueless aren't you, if there are all the lefties out there why are most state houses ran by republicans, you folks may control some of the more populous states but not the majority of the states.


----------



## Billy000 (Oct 5, 2013)

Trajan said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> > ...then why can't they accept a law that was ruled as constitutional?
> ...



Um yeah those are the NEW conditions because those whiney children you call republicans are making concessions because they aren't getting their way.

Yeah i think Obama has done a terrible job explaining it. I agree with that.


----------



## Vox (Oct 5, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > no it does not. not by our Constitution, which was designed exactly to prevent this.
> ...



can easily be a mob.

read the Constitution. we are not a democracy, but a Republic. therefor the majority mob does not rule.


----------



## Billo_Really (Oct 5, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> You really are clueless aren't you, if there are all the lefties out there why are most state houses ran by republicans, you folks may control some of the more populous states but not the majority of the states.


That has nothing to do with what I said.


----------



## Billo_Really (Oct 5, 2013)

Vox said:


> can easily be a mob.
> 
> read the Constitution. we are not a democracy, but a Republic. therefor the majority mob does not rule.


Are you on crack?

All a republic means, is that you have elected representatives.  Those representatives get elected with a majority vote.  Bills become laws, with a majority vote.  Fillibusters were created, to stop the majority from voting.

You are fuckin' nuts!


----------



## Vox (Oct 5, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > can easily be a mob.
> ...



it is you who are nuts.

or you do not understand what representative Republic means? that's what I thought.


----------



## Trajan (Oct 5, 2013)

Billy000 said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Billy000 said:
> ...



yes they did make a_ concession_, they pulled the defund the ACA codicil they tried first.....so, read that again, they backed off and made it about exactly what it should be, so, let me ask you- when does obama back off or make a_ concession_?


----------



## Billy000 (Oct 5, 2013)

Trajan said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



Yeah they did make concessions. Are we supposed to pat them on the back for that? 

Explain to me with some intelligence why Obama has an ethical obligation to concede. Go ahead. I would love to hear it.


----------



## EriktheRed (Oct 5, 2013)

Vox said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



That doesn't mean the minority gets to dictate things, either.


----------



## EriktheRed (Oct 5, 2013)

Trajan said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



To borrow from someone else form another thread:


----------



## asterism (Oct 5, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Majority rules, really, then why are you lefties bitching that dems received more total votes for the house, yet you remain the minority. This is a representative republic, not a democracy.
> ...



Show me a district like that.

10%?


----------



## asterism (Oct 5, 2013)

EriktheRed said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Billy000 said:
> ...



Delaying the individual mandate is the same as burning down a house?


See that's the problems with "all or nothing" progressives.  They actually think that giving an inch is the same as burning down a house.  That's why your side let the government shut down instead of passing the budget and negotiating on the delays.

It's very transparent.


----------



## Intense (Oct 5, 2013)

*Moved To Tea Party*


----------



## EriktheRed (Oct 5, 2013)

asterism said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...




No delay is necessary, so your wingnut heroes in Congress ain't gettin' it. Instead, they can have the privilege of sniping from the sidelines, which they're doing anyway. 

Guess they better come up with something that doesn't affect the ACA.


----------



## OKTexas (Oct 5, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > You really are clueless aren't you, if there are all the lefties out there why are most state houses ran by republicans, you folks may control some of the more populous states but not the majority of the states.
> ...



Actually it does, the majority of the states are red so the congress should reflect that and it does.


----------



## Billo_Really (Oct 5, 2013)

asterism said:


> Show me a district like that.
> 
> 10%?


There's something wrong with this picture!




> _Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Virginia and Pennsylvania were the worst offenders. In each case, only a small number of seats from each state went to Democrats despite the fact that Obama won all of them. In Virginia, for instance, 27 percent of seats went to Democrats, while Obama got 52 percent of the vote. In Pennsylvania, 28 percent of seats went to Democrats, and Obama won 53 percent._


----------



## asterism (Oct 5, 2013)

EriktheRed said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > EriktheRed said:
> ...



If no delay is necessary, why were so many waivers and exemptions granted?

List of health reform waivers keeps growing - The Hill's Healthwatch


----------



## OriginalShroom (Oct 5, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > If republicans and tea baggers find the constitution so sacred then why can't they accept a law that was ruled as constitutional?
> 
> 
> 
> Because they dont respect its case law, which is a failure to respect the Constitution  as the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.



Hummmm...

Do you really and truly want to go there?


----------



## Billo_Really (Oct 5, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Actually it does, the majority of the states are red so the congress should reflect that and it does.


They are only red because of the way they drew district lines, not because the majority of the population is republican.


----------



## asterism (Oct 5, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Show me a district like that.
> ...



So you couldn't back up your claim, you're just pissed that people generally hate Congress but like their representative. Gallup backs this up.


----------



## Billo_Really (Oct 5, 2013)

Intense said:


> *Moved To Tea Party*


Did you wash your hands after?


----------



## EriktheRed (Oct 5, 2013)

asterism said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



Cuz they're politicians, I suppose.

The bulk of this law is gonna go on as scheduled and if the Republicans can successfully make the case next November that it's terrible, they might just get themselves a veto-proof majority. But they're gonna have to rip at it while it's in effect.


----------



## Billo_Really (Oct 5, 2013)

asterism said:


> So you couldn't back up your claim, you're just pissed that people generally hate Congress but like their representative. Gallup backs this up.


You get the picture.

I gave you one link of many.

If I can remember the Congressman who represented only 10% of his district, I will post it.  Until then, you'll just have to settle on the point I was making.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Oct 5, 2013)

Billo Reilly..

Do us all a favor and go back to school, take a basic American Government Class and learn what is what please.

The U.S. is a Constitutional Representative Republic.  We are NOT a Democracy.  While there is a form of "Majority Rule", there are protections for the "Minority".  That is why when Reid was the Senate Minority Leader, he decried the rules that favored the Republican Majority and fought for rules that gave him, in the Minority, an effective voice in the Senate..  Now that he is the Senate Majority Leader, he decries the rules that allow the minority Republicans to have an effective voice in the Senate.


----------



## asterism (Oct 5, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Actually it does, the majority of the states are red so the congress should reflect that and it does.
> ...



I don't think you understand how elections work.

The majority of the voters elected Republicans in the districts that have Republican Representatives.  Therefore, the majority of the voters are Republican in those districts.  If your beef is with Gerrymandering, you should start by abolishing the Voting Rights Act that deliberately mandates minority districts.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 5, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



If the House adopted the bill, the House owned its origination.  Look up case law.


----------



## asterism (Oct 5, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > So you couldn't back up your claim, you're just pissed that people generally hate Congress but like their representative. Gallup backs this up.
> ...



The point you made is bullshit, that's why you can't show any facts to prove it.  The only thing you can prove is that you don't like the current laws.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 5, 2013)

One idiot reactionary of the right was arguing that majority should rule in another thread.

Here we have folks arguing that we aren't a democracy.

I suspect that the far right distrusts itself even more than the other 90% of America.


----------



## Billo_Really (Oct 5, 2013)

asterism said:


> I don't think you understand how elections work.
> 
> The majority of the voters elected Republicans in the districts that have Republican Representatives.  Therefore, the majority of the voters are Republican in those districts.  If your beef is with Gerrymandering, you should start by abolishing the Voting Rights Act that deliberately mandates minority districts.


The majority of voters in those states voted democrat.  

The representatives from those states should reflect that, but they don't.

Because of the fucked up way they redraw the districts.


----------



## Billo_Really (Oct 5, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> Billo Reilly..
> 
> Do us all a favor and go back to school, take a basic American Government Class and learn what is what please.
> 
> The U.S. is a Constitutional Representative Republic.  We are NOT a Democracy.  While there is a form of "Majority Rule", there are protections for the "Minority".  That is why when Reid was the Senate Minority Leader, he decried the rules that favored the Republican Majority and fought for rules that gave him, in the Minority, an effective voice in the Senate..  Now that he is the Senate Majority Leader, he decries the rules that allow the minority Republicans to have an effective voice in the Senate.


You can take that condescending attitude and shove it up your ass!

You're taking what I said out of context.


----------



## Billo_Really (Oct 5, 2013)

asterism said:


> The point you made is bullshit, that's why you can't show any facts to prove it.  The only thing you can prove is that you don't like the current laws.


I didn't say anything about any laws and I posted my citations to back up my claim.

You may think its bullshit, but you certainly haven't proven it's bullshit.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 5, 2013)

EriktheRed said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Billy000 said:
> ...



That's it exactly.


----------



## asterism (Oct 5, 2013)

EriktheRed said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > EriktheRed said:
> ...



As it turns out there are a few things that can be done before then.  All this pissing and moaning about something that is perfectly legal.

A 1 year delay would have been a huge bonus to the Democrats and the President, it would have shown sensible governance.  Too bad egos, butthurt, and arrogance seem to be more important.


----------



## asterism (Oct 5, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think you understand how elections work.
> ...



I don't think you understand how elections work.

We have separate districts inside these states for a reason.  If you don't like it you are free to try and enact legislation that fits your tastes.


----------



## asterism (Oct 5, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > The point you made is bullshit, that's why you can't show any facts to prove it.  The only thing you can prove is that you don't like the current laws.
> ...



So which Congressman represents 10% of his district?


----------



## Billo_Really (Oct 6, 2013)

asterism said:


> So which Congressman represents 10% of his district?


I told you, as soon as I can remember his name, I'll post the link.


----------



## Billo_Really (Oct 6, 2013)

asterism said:


> I don't think you understand how elections work.
> 
> We have separate districts inside these states for a reason.  If you don't like it you are free to try and enact legislation that fits your tastes.


Yeah, but those districts should be evenly proportioned.  Not drawn in such a ridiculous way as to manufacture a majority in an area where there isn't one.


----------



## asterism (Oct 6, 2013)

asterism said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > They did receive more votes.  But because of creative gerrymandering in the red states, we got these psuedo-representatives that only represent 10% of the population of their districts.  That's the "only" reason these people got in.
> ...







Billo_Really said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > The point you made is bullshit, that's why you can't show any facts to prove it.  The only thing you can prove is that you don't like the current laws.
> ...





Billo_Really said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > So which Congressman represents 10% of his district?
> ...



So you claimed that you posted your citations to back up your claim and then said you'd post the link that proves your claim when you can remember his name.

That means you have not posted a citation to prove your claim.


----------



## asterism (Oct 6, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think you understand how elections work.
> ...



Take it up with the Supreme Court, enforcing the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandating "Minority Majority" districts.

Google Scholar


----------



## EriktheRed (Oct 6, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



Good luck with that.


_/snicker_


----------



## Trajan (Oct 6, 2013)

EriktheRed said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Billy000 said:
> ...



 so, do you want to discuss this rationally or?


----------



## Billo_Really (Oct 6, 2013)

asterism said:


> Take it up with the Supreme Court, enforcing the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandating "Minority Majority" districts.
> 
> Google Scholar


The intent of the VRA was not to make *red* majorities in _*blue*_ districts.


----------



## Billo_Really (Oct 6, 2013)

asterism said:


> So you claimed that you posted your citations to back up your claim and then said you'd post the link that proves your claim when you can remember his name.
> 
> That means you have not posted a citation to prove your claim.


No, I didn't say that at all.


----------



## Spiderman (Oct 6, 2013)

Billy000 said:


> ...then why can't they accept a law that was ruled as constitutional?
> 
> For Christ's sakes, just because you don't support a law like ObamaCare, it does not mean it is justified to hold our country hostage over it. It is Ted Cruz and his band of douche tea baggers who own this shut down. Say what you want about Obama in general, but it is completely justified for him not to negotiate over this. Why should he? This is extortion of the worst kind.
> 
> ...



You make it seem that no law that was found to be Constitutional was ever repealed.

You are wrong of course.


----------



## legaleagle_45 (Oct 6, 2013)

Billy000 said:


> ...then why can't they accept a law that was ruled as constitutional?



There is nothing unconstitutional about trying to repeal a law, even if that law has been ruled constitutional.



Billy000 said:


> For Christ's sakes, just because you don't support a law like ObamaCare, it does not mean it is justified to hold our country hostage over it.



Yes they are.  Can you point out a part of the Constitution which prohibits them from doing so?


----------



## Billy000 (Oct 6, 2013)

legaleagle_45 said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> > ...then why can't they accept a law that was ruled as constitutional?
> ...



You're missing the point. I am not against the attempt to repeal the law. What i am against is bratty children like the Tea Party shutting down the country to get their way. This isn't repeal. This is childish extortion.

I never said anything about it being "constitutional". Just because it is it doesn't mean its right. Obviously you feel ObamaCare shouldn't have been made constitutional but it was, am I right?


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 6, 2013)

Billy000 said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > it depends on what poll u look at.
> ...



yeah yeah, NOBODY in this country knows or understands what fascist means...

only you enlightened people I guess

my gawd you people get tired of this?

the Unaffordable nocare act is as fascist as it gets...


----------



## legaleagle_45 (Oct 6, 2013)

Billy000 said:


> You're missing the point.



No I am not.  You are upset because they are doing something which is perfectly legal but which you oppose.



Billy000 said:


> I am not against the attempt to repeal the law. What i am against is bratty children like the Tea Party shutting down the country to get their way. This isn't repeal. This is childish extortion.



I suppose when the Democrats did it you were equally outspoken in your opposition? 



Billy000 said:


> I never said anything about it being "constitutional". Just because it is it doesn't mean its right.



You seem to assume that if a law is constitutional then they should give up their opposition to same after all you were the one who stated:





> * If republicans and tea baggers find the constitution so sacred... *



As if that was the only legitimate reason to oppose a law.



Billy000 said:


> Obviously you feel ObamaCare shouldn't have been made constitutional but it was, am I right?



Nope.  Want to try again?


----------



## asterism (Oct 6, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > So you claimed that you posted your citations to back up your claim and then said you'd post the link that proves your claim when you can remember his name.
> ...



Your own posts in this thread say otherwise.

Still can't prove your claim huh?


----------



## asterism (Oct 6, 2013)

Billy000 said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy000 said:
> ...



Congress doesn't have the authority to shut the government down.  An appropriations bill was passed in the House.  The Senate failed to act.


----------



## EriktheRed (Oct 9, 2013)




----------



## Stephanie (Oct 9, 2013)

any thread with the word, teabaggers IN the title should be shunned

it is not a thread for discussion it is for shit stirring and hate


----------



## PredFan (Oct 9, 2013)

Billy000 said:


> ...then why can't they accept a law that was ruled as constitutional?
> 
> For Christ's sakes, just because you don't support a law like ObamaCare, it does not mean it is justified to hold our country hostage over it. It is Ted Cruz and his band of douche tea baggers who own this shut down. Say what you want about Obama in general, but it is completely justified for him not to negotiate over this. Why should he? This is extortion of the worst kind.
> 
> ...



Well I can't say that I know what the people who paricipate in the sexual act of Teabagging think (youseem to be well aquainted with them), but we conservatives are, unlike you, smart enough to understand that supporting the constitution and not supporting a law that "is constitutional" is not in any way hypocritical. They are two very different concepts.

Perhaps you should spend less time hanging out with teabaggers and other sexual deviants and spend some time in an effort to educate yourself.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 9, 2013)

Stephanie said:


> any thread with the word, teabaggers IN the title should be shunned
> 
> it is not a thread for discussion it is for shit stirring and hate



Many lefties are obsessed with the act of teabagging. I come to these threads to point that out to them. Otherwise yeah, it's a total troll thread.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2013)

Billy000 said:


> ...then why can't they accept a law that was ruled as constitutional?
> 
> For Christ's sakes, just because you don't support a law like ObamaCare, it does not mean it is justified to hold our country hostage over it. It is Ted Cruz and his band of douche tea baggers who own this shut down. Say what you want about Obama in general, but it is completely justified for him not to negotiate over this. Why should he? This is extortion of the worst kind.
> 
> ...


----------

