The ONLY word for this is tragic

[rightwinger]

At the time our great Constitution was written, Conservatives backed the crown and were appalled at the idea of forming a country controlled by We the People

They still are

I love how you play this game because you're so ashamed of your parties history. The Constitution is a 100% conservative document. Small government. Limited Power. Maximum Freedom. All of the things You The Parasites hate.

You're the same jack-ass who keeps trying to claim the Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party who freed the slaves were "liberals" because you're ashamed of your parties pro-slavery, pro-oppression history (which, sadly, continues to this very day).

Progressives love freedom....we invented it

The Constitution says nothing about small government. Show me where it says anything about the size Government should be

The power of the Government is limited by the strength of We the People

 

[P@triot]

Obamacare is constitutional and I have a Supreme Court decision saying so. By what grounds do you claim it is unconstitutional?

The Constitution

(I win)

 

[eagle1462010]

Riddle me this....................................

If rates don't go down after implementation, how many waivers will be asked for by the General Public?

aka the 8% rule. Explain that while your at. I'm simply an Idiot Conservative, ya no............... Unable to comprehend the GREATNESS of Obamacare.

If I'm right and millions of waivers are asked for, how do you handle that Libbies?

 

[eagle1462010]

At the time our great Constitution was written, Conservatives backed the crown and were appalled at the idea of forming a country controlled by We the People

They still are

I love how you play this game because you're so ashamed of your parties history. The Constitution is a 100% conservative document. Small government. Limited Power. Maximum Freedom. All of the things You The Parasites hate.

You're the same jack-ass who keeps trying to claim the Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party who freed the slaves were "liberals" because you're ashamed of your parties pro-slavery, pro-oppression history (which, sadly, continues to this very day).

Progressives love freedom....we invented it

The Constitution says nothing about small government. Show me where it says anything about the size Government should be

The power of the Government is limited by the strength of We the People

You can't fix Stupid.

 

[P@triot]

Progressives love freedom....we invented it

That's why you vehemently supported slavery and attacked your country over it....to make sure people could never be free

That's why you force people into Social Security?

That's why you force people into Medicaid?

That's why you force people into Medicare?

That's why you force people into Obamacare?

Yep...You The Parasites sure are a freedom "loving" bunch...

 

[eagle1462010]

The Federalist Papers - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

First. It is a misfortune incident to republican government, though in a less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust. In this point of view, a senate, as a second branch of the legislative assembly, distinct from, and dividing the power with, a first, must be in all cases a salutary check on the government. It doubles the security to the people, by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy, where the ambition or corruption of one would otherwise be sufficient. This is a precaution founded on such clear principles, and now so well understood in the United States, that it would be more than superfluous to enlarge on it. I will barely remark, that as the improbability of sinister combinations will be in proportion to the dissimilarity in the genius of the two bodies, it must be politic to distinguish them from each other by every circumstance which will consist with a due harmony in all proper measures, and with the genuine principles of republican government.

A good government implies two things: first, fidelity to the object of government, which is the happiness of the people; secondly, a knowledge of the means by which that object can be best attained. Some governments are deficient in both these qualities; most governments are deficient in the first. I scruple not to assert, that in American governments too little attention has been paid to the last. The federal Constitution avoids this error; and what merits particular notice, it provides for the last in a mode which increases the security for the first.

Fourthly. The mutability in the public councils arising from a rapid succession of new members, however qualified they may be, points out, in the strongest manner, the necessity of some stable institution in the government. Every new election in the States is found to change one half of the representatives. From this change of men must proceed a change of opinions; and from a change of opinions, a change of measures. But a continual change even of good measures is inconsistent with every rule of prudence and every prospect of success. The remark is verified in private life, and becomes more just, as well as more important, in national transactions.

The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uniformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the FEW, not for the MANY.

 

[P@triot]

The Constitution says nothing about small government. Show me where it says anything about the size Government should be

More glaring evidence that He The Parasite has never read the Constitution. Ever.

The federal government was delegated 18 enumerated powers from the states. 18. That's all.

They have 18 responsibilities and nothing more.

 

[rightwinger]

Obamacare is constitutional and I have a Supreme Court decision saying so. By what grounds do you claim it is unconstitutional?

The Constitution

(I win)

The Constitutionally formed Supreme Court says otherwise

You lose again

 

[eagle1462010]

Riddle me this......................................

If I agree with Madison and Hamilton and consider this a MUTABLE POLICY, then should I call those who passed it

a. Mutants
b. Liberals.

It boogles the mind. Maybe I should stop using the term Liberals and simply call you a bunch of MUTANTS as the FOUNDERS WARNED US ABOUT.

But hey, we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it right?

 

[rightwinger]

The Constitution says nothing about small government. Show me where it says anything about the size Government should be

More glaring evidence that He The Parasite has never read the Constitution. Ever.

The federal government was delegated 18 enumerated powers from the states. 18. That's all.

They have 18 responsibilities and nothing more.

I agree. And nothing in those powers restricts the size of government

So, once again, you lose

 

[P@triot]

The Constitution says nothing about small government. Show me where it says anything about the size Government should be

More glaring evidence that He The Parasite has never read the Constitution. Ever.

The federal government was delegated 18 enumerated powers from the states. 18. That's all.

They have 18 responsibilities and nothing more.

I agree. And nothing in those powers restricts the size of government

So, once again, you lose

So 18 is a "large" number to you? If you have $18, you are wealthy? If you score 18% on a test, you've done well? If you have an IQ of 18, you are smart?

 

[rightwinger]

More glaring evidence that He The Parasite has never read the Constitution. Ever.

The federal government was delegated 18 enumerated powers from the states. 18. That's all.

They have 18 responsibilities and nothing more.

I agree. And nothing in those powers restricts the size of government

So, once again, you lose

So 18 is a "large" number to you? If you have $18, you are wealthy? If you score 18% on a test, you've done well? If you have an IQ of 18, you are smart?

OMG

I bet you wish you could take that stupid post back

 

[P@triot]

I agree. And nothing in those powers restricts the size of government

So, once again, you lose

So 18 is a "large" number to you? If you have $18, you are wealthy? If you score 18% on a test, you've done well? If you have an IQ of 18, you are smart?

OMG

I bet you wish you could take that stupid post back

Not at all.

 

[rightwinger]

Back on topic

Try as you might, Conservatives were unable to prove that Obamacare was unconstitutional. Even with a Conservative Supreme Court

 

[eagle1462010]

Back on topic

Try as you might, Conservatives were unable to prove that Obamacare was unconstitutional. Even with a Conservative Supreme Court

Back on topic. I've made points in areas of Obamacare that have not been answered.

 

[eagle1462010]

Intermission......................

Sing it Ray..............................

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFaCytKXOSQ]Ray Stevens - Obama Nation - YouTube[/ame]

 

[jasonnfree]

I know, I know.... this thread will soon be filled with the most absurd spin from radical leftists like RDean and Rightwinger whose entire "case" will be that this isn't actually happening (even though it undeniably is) and this is "right-wing fear tactics", blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

But here's the thing. When it's the end of the day, the pc is finally powered-down, and they are all alone in the dark with their thoughts, I refuse to believe that even the most radical among them believes this is actually good for America. To have some of the most well known corporations refuse to hire, cut back hours, or drop healthcare coverage for their employees all together is simply not good for America. Period. Obamacare has been one of the biggest embarrassing disasters in U.S. history. It was written half-assed, passed by Dumbocrats not one of which actually read it, implemented blindly.

\\

The only tragedy for you repiglickans is when a hungry child's mother gets food stamps or when a multibillionaire is in danger of having his taxes raised.

 

[rightwinger]

Back on topic

Try as you might, Conservatives were unable to prove that Obamacare was unconstitutional. Even with a Conservative Supreme Court

Back on topic. I've made points in areas of Obamacare that have not been answered.

Obamacare is legal and the law of the land

What is your point?

 

[eagle1462010]

Back on topic

Try as you might, Conservatives were unable to prove that Obamacare was unconstitutional. Even with a Conservative Supreme Court

Back on topic. I've made points in areas of Obamacare that have not been answered.

Obamacare is legal and the law of the land

What is your point?

My points were already mentioned and ignored. You are avoiding my other points and simply say THE LAW OF THE LAND..........................

Alrighty then...............THE LAW.......................

If you want a discussion BASED ON LAW, SO BE IT................

Riddle me this...........................................

If the ACA is the law of the land, which it is, should it be applied EQUALLY TO ALL AMERICANS INCLUDING THE UNIONS?

aka The Unions are applying for waivers because their member rates are going up to COMPLY WITH THE LAW. Since it hurts their members FINANCIALLY, as their rates go up to comply, should they get a Waiver that allows them to NOT COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT LAW.

If the Unions get a pass with a Waiver because of cost, then wouldn't you want others who's rates have increased as a result to get Waivers as well.

Secondly, if the Law is costing them more money, if we waiver them to bypass the Law .........................ARE WE NOW VIOLATING THE LAW.......................................

If they are granted Waivers, then you open PANDORA'S BOX that anyone who now pays a higher rate for insurance because of the law should get EQUAL PROTECTION under the act and be granted Waivers as well. How many groups or Corps or Unions would then feel that they should also be granted the waivers?

Finally, who decides who gets the waivers?

a. A committee appointed by the Gov't.
b. THE LAW.

What are the mandates for approval of waivers for Unions and Corps?
Are they standard in application and approval?
Can they only be approved in unusual circumstances?
Does the rule of Law apply first and foremost?

 

[eagle1462010]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0heL2Czeraw]I Am America - Krista Branch - YouTube[/ame]