It's time to start thinking about resistance.

[Synthaholic]

the next ideal situation would be to have a Supreme Court filled with true justices (such as Antonin Scalia)

Scalia was an activist Justice, creating laws from the bench and putting his religious beliefs ahead of the Constitution. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Oh please...that is the exact opposite of reality and you know it. Antonin Scalia was the one Supreme Court justice who actually acted like a true justice. He put his own opinions aside and objectively accepted the U.S. Constitution for exactly how it was written. He is forever the shining example of exactly what a justice was intended to be.

By the way, vintage example of the modern day "bleeding heart liberal" there - celebrating the death of a good and decent man.

He was not a good and decent man, he was a bigot.

He called the Voting Rights act a "racial entitlement".

He said that perhaps Blacks should go to easier colleges because they can't compete with Whites.

He thinks deciding Capital Punishment and Abortion is easy? What does he base that on, the Constitution? No. He bases it on his Catholicism:

“The death penalty? Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.”


Here, he fundamentally doesn't understand that SCOTUS is not deciding "social transformation", they are deciding Constitutionality:

“[T]o allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”

Here, he compares homosexuality to murder and animal cruelty - a view not based on Constitutionality but his religious beliefs:

“Of course, it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings. But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible — murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals — and could exhibit even ‘animus’ toward such conduct…”


More, based solely on his religious beliefs and not the Constitution:

“[The Texas anti-sodomy law] undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. … So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery.”

Also, comparing homosexuality to beastiality and incest:

“State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision.”

When asked about that comment he said this:

“If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”

It's not his job to be Moral Arbiter. It's his job to determine Constitutionality, and that's it.

“What minorities deserve protection? What? It’s up to me to identify deserving minorities? What about pederasts? What about child abusers? This is a deserving minority. Nobody loves them.”

Again, this has nothing to do with Constitutionality.


Scalia, professionally, was a shitty Justice and personally a shitty person.

Unfortunately, he was instrumental in protecting our right to bear arms.

So , would you be happy with a nice justice who is personally a great person who votes against our right to bear arms?


.

Ahh, so SCOTUS is illegitimate when you don't agree with them (Obamacare) but they are just dandy when you do (2nd).

And you Libertarians claim you're not Right-Wing dopes like those Republicans.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

She'll be president, not a dictator. She will still have to deal with congress. If the Republican leadership had any onions they won't let her run through them like BO does.

 

[Synthaholic]

It was the Obamacare mandates that caused the prices to go up. That's a simple fact.

It's not a fact, and there is no way you can prove that it is. And a bigger pool of insured should result in lower prices, but the companies decided to jack the rates.

It doesn't matter the pool size when government is removing free-market competition! The mandates on what a policy must include and offer cause prices to skyrocket.

No competition has been removed. Blue Cross can compete for insurers just like Aetna or Cigna or any other insurer.

The mandates include:

1. Abdominal aortic aneurysm one-time screening for men of specified ages who have ever smoked
2. Alcohol misuse screening and counseling
3. Aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease for men and women of certain ages
4. Blood pressure screening
5. Cholesterol screening for adults of certain ages or at higher risk
6. Colorectal cancer screening for adults over 50
7. Depression screening
8. Diabetes (Type 2) screening for adults with high blood pressure
9. Diet counseling for adults at higher risk for chronic disease
10. Hepatitis B screening for people at high risk, including people from countries with 2% or more Hepatitis B prevalence, and U.S.-born people not vaccinated as infants and with at least one parent born in a region with 8% or more Hepatitis B prevalence.
11. Hepatitis C screening for adults at increased risk, and one time for everyone born 1945 – 1965
12. HIV screening for everyone ages 15 to 65, and other ages at increased risk
13. Immunization vaccines for adults — doses, recommended ages, and recommended populations vary:
    • Diphtheria
    • Hepatitis A
    • Hepatitis B
    • Herpes Zoster
    • Human Papillomavirus (HPV)
    • Influenza (flu shot)
    • Measles
    • Meningococcal
    • Mumps
    • Pertussis
    • Pneumococcal
    • Rubella
    • Tetanus
    • Varicella (Chickenpox)
14. Lung cancer screening for adults 55 - 80 at high risk for lung cancer because they’re heavy smokers or have quit in the past 15 years
15. Obesity screening and counseling
16. Sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention counseling for adults at higher risk
17. Syphilis screening for adults at higher risk
18. Tobacco Use screening for all adults and cessation interventions for tobacco users

Now, are you going to try to tell me that catching diseases and other issues before they become life-threatening costs insurers more than what they would have to pay were these not caught and treated early?

If so, you're just a dumbass who I'm wasting my time with.

Where would a Libertarian be without dusty old quotes that bear no relevance to the modern age?

 

[Contumacious]

the next ideal situation would be to have a Supreme Court filled with true justices (such as Antonin Scalia)

Scalia was an activist Justice, creating laws from the bench and putting his religious beliefs ahead of the Constitution. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Oh please...that is the exact opposite of reality and you know it. Antonin Scalia was the one Supreme Court justice who actually acted like a true justice. He put his own opinions aside and objectively accepted the U.S. Constitution for exactly how it was written. He is forever the shining example of exactly what a justice was intended to be.

By the way, vintage example of the modern day "bleeding heart liberal" there - celebrating the death of a good and decent man.

He was not a good and decent man, he was a bigot.

He called the Voting Rights act a "racial entitlement".

He said that perhaps Blacks should go to easier colleges because they can't compete with Whites.

He thinks deciding Capital Punishment and Abortion is easy? What does he base that on, the Constitution? No. He bases it on his Catholicism:

“The death penalty? Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.”


Here, he fundamentally doesn't understand that SCOTUS is not deciding "social transformation", they are deciding Constitutionality:

“[T]o allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”

Here, he compares homosexuality to murder and animal cruelty - a view not based on Constitutionality but his religious beliefs:

“Of course, it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings. But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible — murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals — and could exhibit even ‘animus’ toward such conduct…”


More, based solely on his religious beliefs and not the Constitution:

“[The Texas anti-sodomy law] undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. … So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery.”

Also, comparing homosexuality to beastiality and incest:

“State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision.”

When asked about that comment he said this:

“If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”

It's not his job to be Moral Arbiter. It's his job to determine Constitutionality, and that's it.

“What minorities deserve protection? What? It’s up to me to identify deserving minorities? What about pederasts? What about child abusers? This is a deserving minority. Nobody loves them.”

Again, this has nothing to do with Constitutionality.


Scalia, professionally, was a shitty Justice and personally a shitty person.

Unfortunately, he was instrumental in protecting our right to bear arms.

So , would you be happy with a nice justice who is personally a great person who votes against our right to bear arms?


.

Ahh, so SCOTUS is illegitimate when you don't agree with them (Obamacare) but they are just dandy when you do (2nd).

And you Libertarians claim you're not Right-Wing dopes like those Republicans.

Well ,

there is NO SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED authority delegated to fedgov to operate an insurance scheme

on the other hand

we do have an extra-constitutional right to bear arms to defend our lives

See the distinction?

.

 

[Contumacious]

It was the Obamacare mandates that caused the prices to go up. That's a simple fact.

It's not a fact, and there is no way you can prove that it is. And a bigger pool of insured should result in lower prices, but the companies decided to jack the rates.

It doesn't matter the pool size when government is removing free-market competition! The mandates on what a policy must include and offer cause prices to skyrocket.

No competition has been removed. Blue Cross can compete for insurers just like Aetna or Cigna or any other insurer.

The mandates include:

1. Abdominal aortic aneurysm one-time screening for men of specified ages who have ever smoked
2. Alcohol misuse screening and counseling
3. Aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease for men and women of certain ages
4. Blood pressure screening
5. Cholesterol screening for adults of certain ages or at higher risk
6. Colorectal cancer screening for adults over 50
7. Depression screening
8. Diabetes (Type 2) screening for adults with high blood pressure
9. Diet counseling for adults at higher risk for chronic disease
10. Hepatitis B screening for people at high risk, including people from countries with 2% or more Hepatitis B prevalence, and U.S.-born people not vaccinated as infants and with at least one parent born in a region with 8% or more Hepatitis B prevalence.
11. Hepatitis C screening for adults at increased risk, and one time for everyone born 1945 – 1965
12. HIV screening for everyone ages 15 to 65, and other ages at increased risk
13. Immunization vaccines for adults — doses, recommended ages, and recommended populations vary:
    • Diphtheria
    • Hepatitis A
    • Hepatitis B
    • Herpes Zoster
    • Human Papillomavirus (HPV)
    • Influenza (flu shot)
    • Measles
    • Meningococcal
    • Mumps
    • Pertussis
    • Pneumococcal
    • Rubella
    • Tetanus
    • Varicella (Chickenpox)
14. Lung cancer screening for adults 55 - 80 at high risk for lung cancer because they’re heavy smokers or have quit in the past 15 years
15. Obesity screening and counseling
16. Sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention counseling for adults at higher risk
17. Syphilis screening for adults at higher risk
18. Tobacco Use screening for all adults and cessation interventions for tobacco users

Now, are you going to try to tell me that catching diseases and other issues before they become life-threatening costs insurers more than what they would have to pay were these not caught and treated early?

If so, you're just a dumbass who I'm wasting my time with.

Where would a Libertarian be without dusty old quotes that bear no relevance to the modern age?

Where would a Socialist be without dusty old quotes that bear no relevance to the modern age?


.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Any party cares about winning. The fact that you keep screaming about the evils of the Democrat's process betrays your recent indoctrination by conservative media. They have you so riled over the Dem process so that you won't notice that the Repub process will be far more nefarious than the Dems.You are clueless. The Republican process will result in a contested convention with it's own share of unbound delegates that will no doubt not go for the overall vote winner. Grow up dude. This has been the case since the beginning.

Hell no.. I'm riled about BOTH your parties and their priority on WINNING rather than governing or representing the people. THAT'S when resistance is warranted..

This weekend I will be volunteering to "screen" about 5000 ballot petition signatures from Pennsylvania in order to get a 3rd party choice on the ballot there.... THAT'S the hurdles and the litigation that the DEM/REPs put into place to prevent competition..

It has NOT been this way since the beginning,. We allowed these 2 parties to become tyrannical and rob the voters of real Democratic choice. They don't even care if they leave 15 or 18% of the Congress contests -- uncontested because they are not "winnable".. When you actually see how much democratic concepts have SHRUNK over the past 50 years --- you understand that unless these issues are addressed -- there WILL be organized resistance and conflict.. We don't have a Congress anymore.. We have FOUR party bosses allocating every pencil and every speech. And when one party takes control -- they pass blank check bills with the actual law to filled in by agencies that the Congress can't even control any more.

Except that's the way political parties work. It's the way they have always worked.At the very first Republican convention, Lincoln was not the front-runner and had only 39% of the popular vote, he won the nomination in the third round by rallying delegates to support him. By their nature, parties want to remain in power and do that by elevating the candidate they believe gives them the best chance to do so.There's nothing nefarious or secret about their goals. Any candidate can win but you have to play the game to get the support.

Face it Starsky -- You're just a party animal that doesn't care about representative govt or issues or principles or political philosophies. You LOVE winning.. And the parties have conditioned you to believe you're a patriot and a freedom lover by helping them win. This will be ABUNDANTLY clear to you when the "hot war" breaks out.. And people take back the government from the "establishment". The tyranny will be "insiders" and their control of the process. And the mainstream media will be the largest "collateral casualty"..

With any luck -- it'll be here before 2017.

You don't know me dude. Your worldview is so cynical and jaded you can't even see reality anymore.Obviously you hate losing as you're hoping the world burns before the next inauguration.The system is now what it's been your entire lifetime. Nothing has changed. There is no tyranny and no corruption. It is what it is and what it's always been. No two candidates from any party are the same. Some are better than others but they're all different. Different priorities, principles and political philosophies even within a the same party. You aren't enlightened, you're inculcated into the RW loony fever swamp.

Did you seriously just say, "There is no tyranny and no corruption"?!? Wow... just... uh....wow. That is a special kind of naive that I can't even begin to wrap my head around.

I did. It's all about perspective. Yours is darkly warped and decidedly immature.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It was the Obamacare mandates that caused the prices to go up. That's a simple fact.

It's not a fact, and there is no way you can prove that it is. And a bigger pool of insured should result in lower prices, but the companies decided to jack the rates.

It doesn't matter the pool size when government is removing free-market competition! The mandates on what a policy must include and offer cause prices to skyrocket.

It creates competition when insurers all vie for customers in the same exchange under the same rules. The only way that isn't true is if they're colluding to fix prices.

 

[P@triot]

You can post a radical left-wing article celebrating tens of thousands of people all you want.

Yeah, the New York Times is a bunch of radicals.

You're delusional, dude. Must be from the Right-Wing brainwashing you lap up daily from conservative media.

Do you notice that we started very amiable but the longer this goes with me providing indisputable facts, links to articles, etc. the angrier you are getting?

You don't want to see the truth. All you want is ideological comfort food that supports what you were trained to believe.

No, you just keep spewing Right-Wing talking points and spending your time in this thread on your knees to corporate America.

You believe ever corporate word. If they say they are raising prices due to Obamacare instead of confessing wanting to maintain obscene profits, you eat it up and spit it out again in this thread.

Says the person on their knees for government - playing the obedient little prostitute on the plantation in exchange for a few pitiful and paltry table scraps.

Tell me Syn...who decides what constitutes "obscene profits"? You? Some dictator in the Oval Office? An oligarchy?

It's says a lot that you feel not only qualified, but also justified to decide for the American people what constitutes "obscene profits". It says that you are extremely arrogant. It says that you have sociopathic desires for power and control. It says that you suffer from sinful envy for those who you perceive to have something you don't.

If you don't like the prices that Obamacare created - then start your own insurance company and provide the prices that you think the American people should have. That's how freedom and the free-market in America works. Oh wait - that's right. You're a liberal. You don't want to actually help anybody. You just want to sit on the sideline crying like a little bitch and demanding that one set of people (an oligarchy) place a gun to the head of another set of people (hardworking, successful American's) and steal what they've built and earned for you.

 

[P@triot]

It was the Obamacare mandates that caused the prices to go up. That's a simple fact.

It's not a fact, and there is no way you can prove that it is. And a bigger pool of insured should result in lower prices, but the companies decided to jack the rates.

It doesn't matter the pool size when government is removing free-market competition! The mandates on what a policy must include and offer cause prices to skyrocket.

It creates competition when insurers all vie for customers in the same exchange under the same rules. The only way that isn't true is if they're colluding to fix prices.

The collusion is created by Dumbocrats in the government! As usual, liberals create the problem, and then cry the loudest about the problem that they created themselves.

 

[P@triot]

Hell no.. I'm riled about BOTH your parties and their priority on WINNING rather than governing or representing the people. THAT'S when resistance is warranted..

This weekend I will be volunteering to "screen" about 5000 ballot petition signatures from Pennsylvania in order to get a 3rd party choice on the ballot there.... THAT'S the hurdles and the litigation that the DEM/REPs put into place to prevent competition..

It has NOT been this way since the beginning,. We allowed these 2 parties to become tyrannical and rob the voters of real Democratic choice. They don't even care if they leave 15 or 18% of the Congress contests -- uncontested because they are not "winnable".. When you actually see how much democratic concepts have SHRUNK over the past 50 years --- you understand that unless these issues are addressed -- there WILL be organized resistance and conflict.. We don't have a Congress anymore.. We have FOUR party bosses allocating every pencil and every speech. And when one party takes control -- they pass blank check bills with the actual law to filled in by agencies that the Congress can't even control any more.

Except that's the way political parties work. It's the way they have always worked.At the very first Republican convention, Lincoln was not the front-runner and had only 39% of the popular vote, he won the nomination in the third round by rallying delegates to support him. By their nature, parties want to remain in power and do that by elevating the candidate they believe gives them the best chance to do so.There's nothing nefarious or secret about their goals. Any candidate can win but you have to play the game to get the support.

Face it Starsky -- You're just a party animal that doesn't care about representative govt or issues or principles or political philosophies. You LOVE winning.. And the parties have conditioned you to believe you're a patriot and a freedom lover by helping them win. This will be ABUNDANTLY clear to you when the "hot war" breaks out.. And people take back the government from the "establishment". The tyranny will be "insiders" and their control of the process. And the mainstream media will be the largest "collateral casualty"..

With any luck -- it'll be here before 2017.

You don't know me dude. Your worldview is so cynical and jaded you can't even see reality anymore.Obviously you hate losing as you're hoping the world burns before the next inauguration.The system is now what it's been your entire lifetime. Nothing has changed. There is no tyranny and no corruption. It is what it is and what it's always been. No two candidates from any party are the same. Some are better than others but they're all different. Different priorities, principles and political philosophies even within a the same party. You aren't enlightened, you're inculcated into the RW loony fever swamp.

Did you seriously just say, "There is no tyranny and no corruption"?!? Wow... just... uh....wow. That is a special kind of naive that I can't even begin to wrap my head around.

I did. It's all about perspective. Yours is darkly warped and decidedly immature.

Yeah...uh....I can assure you that anyone who believes there is (and I quote) "no corruption" are the one's who have the decidedly warped and extraordinarily immature and naive perspective.

That....or they are just playing the good soldier trying to convince others of what they know not to be true in exchange for trying to "fundamentally transform" America into a Dumbocrat socialist nation so that they don't have to work and provide for themselves.

There is no denying you are one of the two. Since nobody could be so dumb, childish, and naive as to believe the former (even a liberal), I'm betting it's the latter.

 

[P@triot]

You're angry, you're finishing posts with "STFU", you're swearing. And literally nobody here agrees with you (at least over the past 20 pages or so). Nobody.

I'm not angry. I just recognize that FLACALTENN is a moron.

Just because they aren't posting doesn't mean they don't agree with me. More likely, they realize that I'm kicking your butt without needing any assistance.

Oh yeah....denying reality, being unable to make a coherent argument, and ignoring the undeniable truth that I posted regarding the U.S. Constitution is really "kicking some butt" Syn. That's kind of funny really. You're the coach in the locker room whose team is down 42-0 at the half trying to convince his dejected and defeated players that they actually outplayed the opposition - the scoreboard just doesn't show it.

 

[P@triot]

It doesn't matter that a Supreme Court stacked with political activist instead of justices ruled it "constitutional".

This is why it's fruitless to discuss this with you - you're delusional. The court has Justices confirmed from Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama. Yet you think they're all "political activists".

Get help.

Um....hey junior? It wasn't a 9-0 decision. Talk about "delusional". You have no idea what the actual ruling even was (why am I not surprised?).

It was a 5-4 decision. The Reagan justices did get it right and rejected the law on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. The one Bush justice played a political game (Roberts) - he saw the outrage of the American people and figured allowing it would ensure that Obama wouldn't get re-elected. That's why his opinion included the line "elections have consequences". He wasn't even shy about it - it was a direct slap in the face of the American people with the intent of pissing them off to ensure the end of the Obama reign of terror. Unfortunately for him it backfired in a big way. Which is why a-holes like him should stay out of politics and simply do the true job of a Supreme Court justice.

It is truly astounding how uninformed you are. I can't imagine commenting on something that I had no clue about. I guess liberals have no shame (they must not when you think about it - since they aren't ashamed to steal from others or demand handouts).

 

[Faun]

So the real question is - why does the government, engaging in highly illegal activity - get a pass from you?

Name the illegality. And STFU about how you know the law better than SCOTUS.

I already did, but I'm more than happy to do it again. Here you go...

It doesn't matter that a Supreme Court stacked with political activist instead of justices ruled it "constitutional". One only read the U.S. Constitution to comprehend two things:

1. The federal government is strictly limited to 18 enumerated powers. Healthcare is not one of those powers. Cut & Dry. Black & White. So simple, only a liberal could be confused by it.
2. The federal government has zero authority in the U.S. Constitution to force the American people to purchase a good or service. That power simply does not exist.

Nobody can deny #1 or #2 above. Not you. Not Obama. Those are the cold hard facts - and they are indisputable. And then there is this little gem: Barack Obama insisted over and over and over in front of the American people that this was not a tax. When the bill was challenged before the Supreme Court, both #1 and #2 above were the arguments for why this was unconstitutional. So what did Barack Obama and his administration do? They then reversed course and said "wait...this is a tax...and the Constitution grants us the power to lay and collect taxes". So Obama either egregiously lied to the American people over and over and over, or he committed perjury before the Supreme Court by lying to them. But wait! It gets better! (I feel like an infomercial). Even if this was a "tax" (and it's not - that is the most absurd argument ever put before the American people as a tax is something used to finance the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government - a tax is not a new regulation and unconstitutional power) - all revenue bills must be generated by the House of Representatives per the U.S. Constitution. But the Obamacare bill which ultimately passed and was signed into law was generated in the Senate. So no matter how many lies Obama comes up with, it is still the most illegal, unconstitutional legislation ever created in U.S. history.

You do realize that every time you point to the Supreme Court ruling you are simply proving just how illegal this bill was, don't you?

#1 and #2 only serve to reveal your ignorance of the Constitution.

 

[koshergrl]

So the real question is - why does the government, engaging in highly illegal activity - get a pass from you?

Name the illegality. And STFU about how you know the law better than SCOTUS.

I already did, but I'm more than happy to do it again. Here you go...

It doesn't matter that a Supreme Court stacked with political activist instead of justices ruled it "constitutional". One only read the U.S. Constitution to comprehend two things:

1. The federal government is strictly limited to 18 enumerated powers. Healthcare is not one of those powers. Cut & Dry. Black & White. So simple, only a liberal could be confused by it.
2. The federal government has zero authority in the U.S. Constitution to force the American people to purchase a good or service. That power simply does not exist.

Nobody can deny #1 or #2 above. Not you. Not Obama. Those are the cold hard facts - and they are indisputable. And then there is this little gem: Barack Obama insisted over and over and over in front of the American people that this was not a tax. When the bill was challenged before the Supreme Court, both #1 and #2 above were the arguments for why this was unconstitutional. So what did Barack Obama and his administration do? They then reversed course and said "wait...this is a tax...and the Constitution grants us the power to lay and collect taxes". So Obama either egregiously lied to the American people over and over and over, or he committed perjury before the Supreme Court by lying to them. But wait! It gets better! (I feel like an infomercial). Even if this was a "tax" (and it's not - that is the most absurd argument ever put before the American people as a tax is something used to finance the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government - a tax is not a new regulation and unconstitutional power) - all revenue bills must be generated by the House of Representatives per the U.S. Constitution. But the Obamacare bill which ultimately passed and was signed into law was generated in the Senate. So no matter how many lies Obama comes up with, it is still the most illegal, unconstitutional legislation ever created in U.S. history.

You do realize that every time you point to the Supreme Court ruling you are simply proving just how illegal this bill was, don't you?

#1 and #2 only serve to reveal your ignorance of the Constitution.

No, they don't. You fly your stupidity flag high and proud though..

 

[Faun]

So the real question is - why does the government, engaging in highly illegal activity - get a pass from you?

Name the illegality. And STFU about how you know the law better than SCOTUS.

I already did, but I'm more than happy to do it again. Here you go...

It doesn't matter that a Supreme Court stacked with political activist instead of justices ruled it "constitutional". One only read the U.S. Constitution to comprehend two things:

1. The federal government is strictly limited to 18 enumerated powers. Healthcare is not one of those powers. Cut & Dry. Black & White. So simple, only a liberal could be confused by it.
2. The federal government has zero authority in the U.S. Constitution to force the American people to purchase a good or service. That power simply does not exist.

Nobody can deny #1 or #2 above. Not you. Not Obama. Those are the cold hard facts - and they are indisputable. And then there is this little gem: Barack Obama insisted over and over and over in front of the American people that this was not a tax. When the bill was challenged before the Supreme Court, both #1 and #2 above were the arguments for why this was unconstitutional. So what did Barack Obama and his administration do? They then reversed course and said "wait...this is a tax...and the Constitution grants us the power to lay and collect taxes". So Obama either egregiously lied to the American people over and over and over, or he committed perjury before the Supreme Court by lying to them. But wait! It gets better! (I feel like an infomercial). Even if this was a "tax" (and it's not - that is the most absurd argument ever put before the American people as a tax is something used to finance the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government - a tax is not a new regulation and unconstitutional power) - all revenue bills must be generated by the House of Representatives per the U.S. Constitution. But the Obamacare bill which ultimately passed and was signed into law was generated in the Senate. So no matter how many lies Obama comes up with, it is still the most illegal, unconstitutional legislation ever created in U.S. history.

You do realize that every time you point to the Supreme Court ruling you are simply proving just how illegal this bill was, don't you?

#1 and #2 only serve to reveal your ignorance of the Constitution.

No, they don't. You fly your stupidity flag high and proud though..

Of course they do. Nothing in the Constitution says the government is limited to those 18 enumerated items. If they were, the government would not be allowed to fund the airforce, which of course, is not an enumerated power.

 

[Synthaholic]

It wasn't a 9-0 decision.

Neither was Heller: 5-4.

So that decision is illegitimate, too?

 

[PredFan]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

She'll be president, not a dictator. She will still have to deal with congress. If the Republican leadership had any onions they won't let her run through them like BO does.

Of course that's true but there is a possibility of the Dems taking back the Senate, and the GOP doesn't have the balls to stand up for conservatism, as you stated.

Even so, it isn't too early to start thinking about resistance. Even if it isn't yet needed.

 

[Faun]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

She'll be president, not a dictator. She will still have to deal with congress. If the Republican leadership had any onions they won't let her run through them like BO does.

Of course that's true but there is a possibility of the Dems taking back the Senate, and the GOP doesn't have the balls to stand up for conservatism, as you stated.

Even so, it isn't too early to start thinking about resistance. Even if it isn't yet needed.

Too funny... the GOP doesn't have the balls to stand up for conservatism -- so conservatives fight back by trying to nominate one of the least Conservative candidates running.

 

[P@triot]

It wasn't a 9-0 decision.

Neither was Heller: 5-4.

So that decision is illegitimate, too?

Where did anybody say that? Do you know how to tell when someone is getting their ass handed to them in a debate? When they edit what someone else posted (as you have done every time you've responded) in hopes that anyone else just joining the board will not see the entire statement in its full context and when you have to put words into the other person's mouth (as you have done every time you've responded). Why do you feel the need to edit what I wrote? They are my words - why can't you leave them be? Oh that's right - they unequivocally prove that you are not only wrong, but that you also have no idea what you're talking about.

To answer your disingenuous question - the vote tally doesn't make a ruling "illegitimate" - ignoring the U.S. Constitution in favor of political activism (like Sotomayor, Kagen, and Ginsburg do) is what makes a ruling "illegitimate".

No matter how many times you desperately grasp as straws - it doesn't change the fact that the U.S. Constitution grants the federal government 18 enumerated powers and healthcare is not one of them, or the fact that the Barack Obama Administration committed perjury before the Supreme Court, or the fact that the bill originated in the Senate and revenue bills must be created in the House by law, or the fact that the federal government has zero authority in the U.S. Constitution to force the American people to purchase a good or service.

Game. Set. Match. Thanks for playing Syn. Now get all angry, swear, and edit everything that was said since you can't dispute these realities on their merits.

 

[P@triot]

Well what do you know Synthaholic - another day, another unmitigated failure of government betting on a loser, unconstitutionally spending tax payer's money on something they have no authority to involve themselves in, and ensuring markets fail by picking and choosing winners and losers.

"A Spanish solar energy company benefiting from $191 million in financing from the Export-Import Bank declared bankruptcy last month, calling into question whether the embattled agency will see repayment of the tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer-backed loans on its balance sheets.

Abengoa, which operates worldwide, filed for Chapter 15 bankruptcy in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Del., and has until the end of October to restructure its $16.4 billion of debt."

After Receiving Taxpayer-Backed Loans, Solar Company Files for Bankruptcy