A Question for Rightwingers

[daws101]

So...the question isn't really for rightwingers...it's okay for people posing as rightwingers to pretend vote?

Got it.

Pretty much the way dems run elections, too.

more proof of your tenuous grip on reality.
no one posed as anything and the votes were not pretend. no where did the op infer or announce that this thread was for right wingers only.

 

[daws101]

It's not really a choice when one alternative is punished by the government, is it?

By that logic, making abortion illegal is still freedom of choice.

It's still a choice, is it not? And considering that the alternative to paying the tax is affordable health care coverage, what's there to really bitch about? Seriously, why are Conservatives so against the individual mandate when it was a Conservative think tank idea?

News flash: It's a bad idea no matter who came up with it. Well, at least to anyone who values the Constitution.

Meanwhile, some people can think for themselves and don't need their opinions dictated to them by a think tank or talking head or the media.

Give it a shot!

it's funny how the people who scream think for yourself rarely do.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

It's not really a choice when one alternative is punished by the government, is it?

By that logic, making abortion illegal is still freedom of choice.

It's still a choice, is it not? And considering that the alternative to paying the tax is affordable health care coverage, what's there to really bitch about? Seriously, why are Conservatives so against the individual mandate when it was a Conservative think tank idea?

News flash: It's a bad idea no matter who came up with it. Well, at least to anyone who values the Constitution.

Meanwhile, some people can think for themselves and don't need their opinions dictated to them by a think tank or talking head or the media.

Give it a shot!

Hmm. Well, it would seem that the Constitution is up for some interpretation, and according to the Conservative majority court, the mandate IS constitutional. So I guess...suck it?

 

[koshergrl]

If there's any sucking to be done, we will cede that privilege to you, conservaterds. I hear it means a lot to you.

 

[daveman]

It's still a choice, is it not? And considering that the alternative to paying the tax is affordable health care coverage, what's there to really bitch about? Seriously, why are Conservatives so against the individual mandate when it was a Conservative think tank idea?

News flash: It's a bad idea no matter who came up with it. Well, at least to anyone who values the Constitution.

Meanwhile, some people can think for themselves and don't need their opinions dictated to them by a think tank or talking head or the media.

Give it a shot!

it's funny how the people who scream think for yourself rarely do.

Really? Let's examine this, shall we?

Derrps can't understand why conservatives don't support an idea that a conservative think tank came up with -- a common talking point on the left. This shows that:

1. He can't think for himself (as evidenced by his mindless repetition of a talking point).

2. He can't understand that conservatives can (as evidenced by disagreeing with a conservative think tank).

Now, would you like to talk about your support of Derrp in this matter?

 

[daveman]

It's still a choice, is it not? And considering that the alternative to paying the tax is affordable health care coverage, what's there to really bitch about? Seriously, why are Conservatives so against the individual mandate when it was a Conservative think tank idea?

News flash: It's a bad idea no matter who came up with it. Well, at least to anyone who values the Constitution.

Meanwhile, some people can think for themselves and don't need their opinions dictated to them by a think tank or talking head or the media.

Give it a shot!

Hmm. Well, it would seem that the Constitution is up for some interpretation, and according to the Conservative majority court, the mandate IS constitutional. So I guess...suck it?

Except the mandate is NOT constitutional.

Tortured reasoning transforms an unconstitutional mandate into law » Columns » Bluefield Daily Telegraph, Bluefield, WV

Last week U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy in correctly identifying the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional. That is what the Supreme Court is expected to do: follow the original intent of the authors, who created a document to protect America from over-reaching government actions like this one.

Writing for the court’s majority, Chief Justice Roberts said: “The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.” He continued, correctly identifying the chaos that would result from finding the mandate constitutional: “Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.” Exactly. But the majority didn’t stop there.​

No, SCOTUS decided the government can tax you for doing nothing (not buying health insurance).

 

[logical4u]

I know I am wrong about some things. Who isn't?? But not this. Too many accidents happen and I just don't think it's worth it. Also, I don't get the feeling that people that just insist on carying guns are worried about protection. Look at Zimmerman. I just get the sense that he was not going to be happy until he shot someone. Look at his behavior!!! And I'm sure that there are plenty more like him. These are the fools I mentioned. Lastly, families have used a gun on each other in moments of extreme rage. And you don't get to go back and make a different decision. I'm against guns for many reasons.

At what point do liberals think you have a "right" to defend yourself? When you are jumped from the bushes? When you are being beaten? When someone is pounding your head on the concrete? When your brains start spilling from your broken skull? Please answer the questions.

When is it "worth" it? When you have enough money to hire bodyguards (that carry)? When the only people with guns are those subjugating the population? When someone with a gun is protecting you or your family? When a rabid dog is going after a child?

I get that "you" are against guns. Please wear a sign that says "I don't believe guns are necessary", and see how that works out for you. You seem to really enjoy the freedoms that gun ownership has provided for you, but now, you think it is okay to take away others' freedom (when you take away guns, liberty is the next to go). Take a serious look at history and how civilizations are taken down (first you disarm the population, and then when the gov't uses violence against the "subjects", there is no way to stop them).

Wow. What a typical right wing response. I was born and raised in Hollywood and have lived here all my life. I have never been robbed or assaulted. I don't put myself at risk and I've been okay. But if I had had an incident of some kind and shot someone, there is no gurantee that I would not end up in jail. You see it all the time.

Let law enforcement carry the guns. Lock your doors and windows and don't run around dangerous places in the middle of the night. That still doesn't mean nothing will happen, but you'll have a better chance at not having to, "defend yourself". I am more afraid of people like you with your itchy trigger finger than I am of someone trying to rob me.

Nice dodge! Now try and answer the question. At what point should you defend yourself? You want to lock your doors and windows, when do you defend yourself? When they break into your house? When they threaten you? When they rape you? When they are in the process of murdering you? Just when do you, "Rinata", put up a fight, and defend yourself?

As for being afraid of someone like me... you probably work with me and don't give me a thought. I am one of the quiet ones, that comes to work, does my job, and goes home. I don't get in other people's face. I might ask them some common sense questions, as I have asked you. Like you, most will not answer (you see they are barely worth having a serious conversation with, unless you want to "parrot" everything they say). I do not believe in encouraging bullies (you know, not fighting back, either physically or verbally), and it is usually easy to tell those that are frauds, and those that are real bullies.

 

[jillian]

News flash: It's a bad idea no matter who came up with it. Well, at least to anyone who values the Constitution.

Meanwhile, some people can think for themselves and don't need their opinions dictated to them by a think tank or talking head or the media.

Give it a shot!

Hmm. Well, it would seem that the Constitution is up for some interpretation, and according to the Conservative majority court, the mandate IS constitutional. So I guess...suck it?

Except the mandate is NOT constitutional.

Tortured reasoning transforms an unconstitutional mandate into law » Columns » Bluefield Daily Telegraph, Bluefield, WV

Last week U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy in correctly identifying the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional. That is what the Supreme Court is expected to do: follow the original intent of the authors, who created a document to protect America from over-reaching government actions like this one.

Writing for the court’s majority, Chief Justice Roberts said: “The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.” He continued, correctly identifying the chaos that would result from finding the mandate constitutional: “Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.” Exactly. But the majority didn’t stop there.​

No, SCOTUS decided the government can tax you for doing nothing (not buying health insurance).

Except the mandate is still in effect...so it's constitutional, isn't it?

 

[logical4u]

I know I am wrong about some things. Who isn't?? But not this. Too many accidents happen and I just don't think it's worth it. Also, I don't get the feeling that people that just insist on carying guns are worried about protection. Look at Zimmerman. I just get the sense that he was not going to be happy until he shot someone. Look at his behavior!!! And I'm sure that there are plenty more like him. These are the fools I mentioned. Lastly, families have used a gun on each other in moments of extreme rage. And you don't get to go back and make a different decision. I'm against guns for many reasons.

Did you know that criminals prefer their victims unarmed?

How would you know??? Are you a criminal???

How many victims in giving police reports say they fought their attackers?

 

[logical4u]

It's still a choice, is it not? And considering that the alternative to paying the tax is affordable health care coverage, what's there to really bitch about? Seriously, why are Conservatives so against the individual mandate when it was a Conservative think tank idea?

News flash: It's a bad idea no matter who came up with it. Well, at least to anyone who values the Constitution.

Meanwhile, some people can think for themselves and don't need their opinions dictated to them by a think tank or talking head or the media.

Give it a shot!

it's funny how the people who scream think for yourself rarely do.

A self-proclaimed "deep thinker"? Please in all your great thought processes can you demonstrate where another country that has no "Bill of Rights" is as great as this one? It must be really easy, all you that live in fear of "guns", and want to see them banned, to just show these great societies that top the USA in freedom and productivity.

 

[daveman]

Hmm. Well, it would seem that the Constitution is up for some interpretation, and according to the Conservative majority court, the mandate IS constitutional. So I guess...suck it?

Except the mandate is NOT constitutional.

Tortured reasoning transforms an unconstitutional mandate into law » Columns » Bluefield Daily Telegraph, Bluefield, WV

Last week U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy in correctly identifying the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional. That is what the Supreme Court is expected to do: follow the original intent of the authors, who created a document to protect America from over-reaching government actions like this one.

Writing for the court’s majority, Chief Justice Roberts said: “The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.” He continued, correctly identifying the chaos that would result from finding the mandate constitutional: “Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.” Exactly. But the majority didn’t stop there.​

No, SCOTUS decided the government can tax you for doing nothing (not buying health insurance).

Except the mandate is still in effect...so it's constitutional, isn't it?

Yes, with some gymnastics from the majority.

It's still in effect -- for the moment.

 

[daveman]

I know I am wrong about some things. Who isn't?? But not this. Too many accidents happen and I just don't think it's worth it. Also, I don't get the feeling that people that just insist on carying guns are worried about protection. Look at Zimmerman. I just get the sense that he was not going to be happy until he shot someone. Look at his behavior!!! And I'm sure that there are plenty more like him. These are the fools I mentioned. Lastly, families have used a gun on each other in moments of extreme rage. And you don't get to go back and make a different decision. I'm against guns for many reasons.

Did you know that criminals prefer their victims unarmed?

How would you know??? Are you a criminal???

I see you're unfamiliar with a simple concept called "common sense".

 

[logical4u]

Hmm. Well, it would seem that the Constitution is up for some interpretation, and according to the Conservative majority court, the mandate IS constitutional. So I guess...suck it?

Except the mandate is NOT constitutional.

Tortured reasoning transforms an unconstitutional mandate into law » Columns » Bluefield Daily Telegraph, Bluefield, WV

Last week U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy in correctly identifying the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional. That is what the Supreme Court is expected to do: follow the original intent of the authors, who created a document to protect America from over-reaching government actions like this one.

Writing for the court’s majority, Chief Justice Roberts said: “The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.” He continued, correctly identifying the chaos that would result from finding the mandate constitutional: “Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.” Exactly. But the majority didn’t stop there.​

No, SCOTUS decided the government can tax you for doing nothing (not buying health insurance).

Except the mandate is still in effect...so it's constitutional, isn't it?

It was re-defined as a "TAX". Along with several other taxes in the obama care bill, it will hurt the middle class that this President has claimed to "protect". It will hurt women when they discover their "femine hygiene" products are now "taxed" as medical devices (wasn't this the team that was accusing the other side of a war against women? Now the gov't will pay for your birth control, but the "poor" will not be able to afford napkins and tampons). Vote the fraud in again, he hasn't "bilked" the taxpayer out of enough money. Bernie Madoff is probably thinking he should have been a politician instead of investment banker, then he would have gotten away with it, just like the fraud in the white house.

 

[USMCSergeant]

A mandate forcing concealed carry is nonsense. It's a personal choice to own a firearm, and a choice to carry concealed.

I think an abortion is a horrific, disgusting act.. BUT, it is their choice and I will support the right to choose. Individual liberty is an amazing thing.

A mandate to buy health insurance is different than buying car insurance. How are these two compared?
Each state has their own insurance laws, requiring you to have insurance coverage while operating a vehicle. Owning a car is optional. In large cities there are many people that use public transportation or walk, take a taxi, bike to their destinations.

Some people own scooters or mopeds and most states depending on the cc's of the engine do not require them to carry insurance. Your auto insurance quote depends more on your individual driving record and experience, along with the type of vehicle you drive. You are not require by law to have auto insurance. You are not required to own a vehicle. If you own a vehicle, you are not required to drive it. You could choose at any time to park it in your garage and turn the tags in and cease paying insurance for it. You have options. Obamacare gives you no options. If you're born, you will either buy insurance or pay a tax.

I hear people say, usually liberals, that this will lower healthcare costs. I can't refute that because I'm not in the healthcare industry. Let's hope this has a positive affect. I'm very skeptical anytime our government gets involved with anything due to waste, fraud, and inefficiency. Can anyone here name a government program that is efficient and saves money?

 

[jillian]

Except the mandate is NOT constitutional.

Tortured reasoning transforms an unconstitutional mandate into law » Columns » Bluefield Daily Telegraph, Bluefield, WV

Last week U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy in correctly identifying the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional. That is what the Supreme Court is expected to do: follow the original intent of the authors, who created a document to protect America from over-reaching government actions like this one.

Writing for the court’s majority, Chief Justice Roberts said: “The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.” He continued, correctly identifying the chaos that would result from finding the mandate constitutional: “Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.” Exactly. But the majority didn’t stop there.​

No, SCOTUS decided the government can tax you for doing nothing (not buying health insurance).

Except the mandate is still in effect...so it's constitutional, isn't it?

It was re-defined as a "TAX". Along with several other taxes in the obama care bill, it will hurt the middle class that this President has claimed to "protect". It will hurt women when they discover their "femine hygiene" products are now "taxed" as medical devices (wasn't this the team that was accusing the other side of a war against women? Now the gov't will pay for your birth control, but the "poor" will not be able to afford napkins and tampons). Vote the fraud in again, he hasn't "bilked" the taxpayer out of enough money. Bernie Madoff is probably thinking he should have been a politician instead of investment banker, then he would have gotten away with it, just like the fraud in the white house.

It was defined as a tax by one justice. The others concurred in the result.

As for the rest of your rant.... *yawn*

 

[Abatis]

How about supreme court ruling lewis vs. u.s. or miller vs. u.s.?

Not following the significance of those cases to the topic of the thread or my reply (unless I missed some drift along the way).

 

[Abatis]

Did you know that criminals prefer their victims unarmed?

How would you know??? Are you a criminal???

How many victims in giving police reports say they fought their attackers?

In 1994 the US Dept. of Justice puts the number of persons defending themselves against crime of violence with a firearm averages 62,000 annually plus 20,000 stopping property crimes.

"During the same period an estimated annual average of 62,000 violent crime victims . . . used a firearm in an effort to defend themselves. In addition, an annual average of about 20,000 victims of theft, household burglary or motor vehicle theft attempted to defend their property with guns. -- U.S. Department of Justice - Office of Justice Programs - Bureau of Justice Statistics: Crime Data Brief Guns and Crime: Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self-Defense, and Firearm Theft, April 1994, NCJ-147003​

That 62,000 annual average is certainly higher now; the number of citizens that now possess CCW permits number in the millions. Given that, 62,000 remains an impressive number though; that is 170 people a day that defended their lives and person from bodily harm.

Interestingly, those who use a firearm to defend themselves are the least likely group to sustain injuries in the incident. They were even less likely to be injured than those who offered no resistance.

"At a minimum, victims use guns to attack or threaten the perpetrators in . . . about 70,000 times per year--according to NCVS data for recent years. These victims were less likely to report being injured than those who either defended themselves by other means or took no self-protective measures at all. Thus, while 33 percent of all surviving robbery victims were injured, only 25 percent of those who offered no resistance and 17 percent of those who defended themselves with guns were injured. For surviving assault victims, the corresponding injury rates were, respectively, 30 percent, 27 percent, and 12 percent. -- National Institute of Justice - Firearms and Violence. by Jeffrey A. Roth​

Those armed citizens have an impact on criminal behavior.

"Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either "often" or "regularly" worried that they "[m]ight get shot at by the victim"; and 57% agreed with the statement, "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." -- Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (1986). See Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? by Don B. Kates, et. al. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 (1994).​

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Hmm. Well, it would seem that the Constitution is up for some interpretation, and according to the Conservative majority court, the mandate IS constitutional. So I guess...suck it?

Except the mandate is NOT constitutional.

Tortured reasoning transforms an unconstitutional mandate into law » Columns » Bluefield Daily Telegraph, Bluefield, WV

Last week U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy in correctly identifying the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional. That is what the Supreme Court is expected to do: follow the original intent of the authors, who created a document to protect America from over-reaching government actions like this one.

Writing for the court’s majority, Chief Justice Roberts said: “The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.” He continued, correctly identifying the chaos that would result from finding the mandate constitutional: “Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.” Exactly. But the majority didn’t stop there.​

No, SCOTUS decided the government can tax you for doing nothing (not buying health insurance).

Except the mandate is still in effect...so it's constitutional, isn't it?

Hahaha! Exactly. Sorry Daveman, but the whole point of the ruling was that the mandate is Constitutional.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Oh, and the ACA is actually a tax break for the Middle Class, despite what RW rhetoric says.

 

[007]

Concealed carry shouldn't be mandated OR require some permit. It should simply be legal, as it is in Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming.

12 states on path to guns with no permits