Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You stopped about 1793, bigrebnc, and simply don't . . . get . . . it. You can't be helped.
1793 was the intent of what was meant within the Constitution. You lefties have tried to change what was meant in 1793 to what you want it too be.
You are not a conservative. I am not a liberal. You are a whack, and I am right of center.
It negates the Rule of Law for the Rule of Man...
Nonsense. We live in a republican form of government, and that government uses regulatory agencies created by the Representatives of We the People. Want it changed? Get a majority.
You stopped about 1793, bigrebnc, and simply don't . . . get . . . it. You can't be helped.
1793 was the intent of what was meant within the Constitution. You lefties have tried to change what was meant in 1793 to what you want it too be.
You are not a conservative. I am not a liberal. You are a whack, and I am right of center.
Dr. H and the other reactionaries don't have the power and never will to take us back to 1793.
Nonsense. We live in a republican form of government, and that government uses regulatory agencies created by the Representatives of We the People. Want it changed? Get a majority.
That's not necessary. The Rule of Law is embodied by Constitutional limitations on government that prevent the majoritarian dominance you prefer. We have some hope yet that the Court will protect individual rights and uphold those limitations, setting clear boundaries on the majority's ability to dictate to the minority.
1793 was the intent of what was meant within the Constitution. You lefties have tried to change what was meant in 1793 to what you want it too be.
You are not a conservative. I am not a liberal. You are a whack, and I am right of center.
Dr. H and the other reactionaries don't have the power and never will to take us back to 1793.
I have noticed that you have a high regard for politicians like Hamilton, Wilson, FDR. Carter
You are a liberal, And I have some values that are conservative and some that are libertarian, and you are a liar.
Nonsense. We live in a republican form of government, and that government uses regulatory agencies created by the Representatives of We the People. Want it changed? Get a majority.
That's not necessary. The Rule of Law is embodied by Constitutional limitations on government that prevent the majoritarian dominance you prefer. We have some hope yet that the Court will protect individual rights and uphold those limitations, setting clear boundaries on the majority's ability to dictate to the minority.
So you wish to use SCOTUS to legislate on your behalf.
Someone who poses as something that he is not and calls others what they are not that is you jake most of the board members have called you on it. Maybe you should take your case to them.You are not a conservative. I am not a liberal. You are a whack, and I am right of center.
Dr. H and the other reactionaries don't have the power and never will to take us back to 1793.
I have noticed that you have a high regard for politicians like Hamilton, Wilson, FDR. Carter
You are a liberal, And I have some values that are conservative and some that are libertarian, and you are a liar.
Look at D Black's graph and peg yourself. You are such a trool, and no, you are not conservative.
That's not necessary. The Rule of Law is embodied by Constitutional limitations on government that prevent the majoritarian dominance you prefer. We have some hope yet that the Court will protect individual rights and uphold those limitations, setting clear boundaries on the majority's ability to dictate to the minority.
So you wish to use SCOTUS to legislate on your behalf.
Well, we haven't granted the court the power to 'legislate'. I want them to overrule legislation that steps beyond the bounds of the Constitution. I want them to uphold the social contract as embodied therein. The social contract is a two way street. It says, essentially, that we all agree to abide by consensus rule - via our democratically elected representatives. And with that agreement comes that promise that their powers will be constrained to an explicit scope and reach.
A crucial element of the concept of a contract is that it can't be unilaterally changed by one party. If the government decides to change the details of that contract, expanding their power by fiat or decree, the original contract is null and void - regardless of whether the change is supported by the majority or not. Under such circumstances the people have every right to revoke sovereignty.
Someone who poses as something that he is not and calls others what they are not that is you jake most of the board members have called you on it. Maybe you should take your case to them. Liberal know thy sin that is you jake.I have noticed that you have a high regard for politicians like Hamilton, Wilson, FDR. Carter
You are a liberal, And I have some values that are conservative and some that are libertarian, and you are a liar.
Look at D Black's graph and peg yourself. You are such a trool, and no, you are not conservative.
Someone who poses as something that he is not and calls others what they are not that is you jake most of the board members have called you on it. Maybe you should take your case to them. Liberal know thy sin that is you jake.Look at D Black's graph and peg yourself. You are such a trool, and no, you are not conservative.
Many of the far right reactionary sillies misdefine me, yes.
But since none of you reflect real America, who really cares?
The Swiss have had an individual mandate for 20 years, and it works quite well.
The centerpiece of the case against Obamacare is the requirement that everyone buy some kind of health insurance or face stiff penalties--the so-called individual mandate. It is a way of moving toward universal coverage without a government-run or single-payer system. It might surprise Americans to learn that another advanced industrial country, one with a totally private health care system, made precisely the same choice nearly 20 years ago: Switzerland. The lessons from Switzerland and other countries can't resolve the constitutional issues, but they suggest the inevitability of some version of Obamacare.
Switzerland is not your typical European welfare-state society. It is extremely business-friendly and has always gone its own way, shunning the euro and charting its own course on health care. The country ranks higher than the U.S. on the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom.
Twenty years ago, Switzerland had a system very similar to America's--private insurers, private providers--with very similar problems. People didn't buy insurance but ended up in emergency rooms, insurers screened out people with pre-existing conditions, and costs were rising fast. The country came to the conclusion that to make health care work, everyone had to buy insurance. So the Swiss passed an individual mandate and reformed their system along lines very similar to Obamacare. The reform law passed by referendum, narrowly. The result two decades later: quality of care remains very high, everyone has access, and costs have moderated. Switzerland spends 11% of its GDP on health care, compared with 17% in the U.S. Its 8 million people have health care that is not tied to their employers, they can choose among many plans, and they can switch plans every year. Overall satisfaction with the system is high.
TIME: Fareed Zakaria
Amelia, is that the very best you can do? Tenthers, like you, are next to nothing in numbers. You will never change anything about the 10th as you understand it. Until you can properly quote me, then you are acting like a maroon, which shows poorly on you, not me.
But I want you to vote for Romney.
What has Obama done wrong in your eyes?
He won't answer your question....
