Who thinks tomorrow (Thurs) is gonna be looooong day for The ONE?

[Liability]

you get a tax penalty for not taking out a mortgage or having children, nimrod. There was no rape of the constitution.

See? You cannot be honest.

No. One does NOT get a penalty IMPOSED in the form of a fucking new TAX for not taking out a mortgage, shit bird.

Similarly, you dishonest liberal hack, one does not get a penalty imposed in the form of a fucking new TAX for not having children, you TdM-like truth-impaired wannabe.

Further, your false denial notwithstanding, the CJ Roberts' majority written SCOTUS opinion was indeed a fucking RAPE of the Constitution.

Old tax penalty, new tax penalty. It's still a tax penalty....you are breathlessly stupid.

False, you dishonest hack. There may be tax consequences from decisions we make, but there has never been a tax imposed on us by the fucking idiot Federal Government for delining to make a purchase of what THEY have MANDATED we must purchase, before.

They have imposed a specific new TAX.

Give honesty a try, Ravi. Really. You might find it refreshing. Your stale stable of dishonesty is tired and all boring and shit.

Your stupidity is boundless and your dishonesty is a thing beyond legends.

 

[Synthaholic]

you get a tax penalty for not taking out a mortgage or having children, nimrod. There was no rape of the constitution.

See? You cannot be honest.

No. One does NOT get a penalty IMPOSED in the form of a fucking new TAX for not taking out a mortgage, shit bird.

Similarly, you dishonest liberal hack, one does not get a penalty imposed in the form of a fucking new TAX for not having children, you TdM-like truth-impaired wannabe.

Further, your false denial notwithstanding, the CJ Roberts' majority written SCOTUS opinion was indeed a fucking RAPE of the Constitution.

Old tax penalty, new tax penalty. It's still a tax penalty....you are breathlessly stupid.

I'm starting to wonder if Liability pulled a Rand Paul, who started his own accreditation board when he couldn't get accredited by the actual eye doctor board.

 

[Liability]

See? You cannot be honest.

No. One does NOT get a penalty IMPOSED in the form of a fucking new TAX for not taking out a mortgage, shit bird.

Similarly, you dishonest liberal hack, one does not get a penalty imposed in the form of a fucking new TAX for not having children, you TdM-like truth-impaired wannabe.

Further, your false denial notwithstanding, the CJ Roberts' majority written SCOTUS opinion was indeed a fucking RAPE of the Constitution.

Old tax penalty, new tax penalty. It's still a tax penalty....you are breathlessly stupid.

I'm starting to wonder if Liability pulled a Rand Paul, who started his own accreditation board when he couldn't get accredited by the actual eye doctor board.

Synth: try again when you come OUT of your coma.

 

[Synthaholic]

Old tax penalty, new tax penalty. It's still a tax penalty....you are breathlessly stupid.

I'm starting to wonder if Liability pulled a Rand Paul, who started his own accreditation board when he couldn't get accredited by the actual eye doctor board.

Synth: try again when you come OUT of your coma.

It's really a very simple question that only requires a yes or no.

You can do it!

 

[Liability]

I'm starting to wonder if Liability pulled a Rand Paul, who started his own accreditation board when he couldn't get accredited by the actual eye doctor board.

Synth: try again when you come OUT of your coma.

It's really a very simple question that only requires a yes or no.

You can do it!

What part of "irrelevant" do you have the most difficulty with?

 

[Dot Com]

I like Liability & consider him a grown-up here on the board (more than I can say for a lot of others) BUT shows what happens when you listen to the Pundits when starting a thread

 

[bodecea]

Indeed going to be a long BAD day for Obama and his minions.

How bad a day was it?

 

[Liability]

I like Liability & consider him a grown-up here on the board (more than I can say for a lot of others) BUT shows what happens when you listen to the Pundits when starting a thread

* * * *

But I didn't.

I read the decision, so unlike lots of the libs here, I was able to come to the my conclusion without outside "help." And totally unlike the libs here, I was able to come to the CORRECT conclusion.

There is not a single solitary shred of honesty or integrity in the pertinent part of the CJ Roberts' opinion.

He was RIGHT in denying that the Act could be sustained on the basis of the Commerce Clause.

He was RIGHT in denying that the Act could be sustained on the basis of the Necessary and Proper Clause.

He lied and twisted and contorted to pretend that it could be sustained on the basis of the Taxing Authority.

If what he said were true (and it isn't) then there is NO rational basis to deny to the fucking Congress the power, authority and ability to use the taxing authority to legislate on ANY matter whatsoever.

It stuns me that you libs either cannot see this or refuse to admit it.

 

[The T]

I like Liability & consider him a grown-up here on the board (more than I can say for a lot of others) BUT shows what happens when you listen to the Pundits when starting a thread

* * * *

But I didn't.

I read the decision, so unlike lots of the libs here, I was able to come to the my conclusion without outside "help." And totally unlike the libs here, I was able to come to the CORRECT conclusion.

There is not a single solitary shred of honesty or integrity in the pertinent part of the CJ Roberts' opinion.

He was RIGHT in denying that the Act could be sustained on the basis of the Commerce Clause.

He was RIGHT in denying that the Act could be sustained on the basis of the Necessary and Proper Clause.

He lied and twisted and contorted to pretend that it could be sustained on the basis of the Taxing Authority.

If what he said were true (and it isn't) then there is NO rational basis to deny to the fucking Congress the power, authority and ability to use the taxing authority to legislate on ANY matter whatsoever.

It stuns me that you libs either cannot see this or refuse to admit it.

In other words? Roberts was MORE concerned with not only the legacy left by the Supreme Court...but of more import in his mind?

His Own.

 

[bodecea]

I like Liability & consider him a grown-up here on the board (more than I can say for a lot of others) BUT shows what happens when you listen to the Pundits when starting a thread

* * * *

But I didn't.

I read the decision, so unlike lots of the libs here, I was able to come to the my conclusion without outside "help." And totally unlike the libs here, I was able to come to the CORRECT conclusion.

There is not a single solitary shred of honesty or integrity in the pertinent part of the CJ Roberts' opinion.

He was RIGHT in denying that the Act could be sustained on the basis of the Commerce Clause.

He was RIGHT in denying that the Act could be sustained on the basis of the Necessary and Proper Clause.

He lied and twisted and contorted to pretend that it could be sustained on the basis of the Taxing Authority.

If what he said were true (and it isn't) then there is NO rational basis to deny to the fucking Congress the power, authority and ability to use the taxing authority to legislate on ANY matter whatsoever.

It stuns me that you libs either cannot see this or refuse to admit it.

In other words? Roberts was MORE concerned with not only the legacy left by the Supreme Court...but of more import in his mind?

His Own.

So, how bad a day was it?

 

[Dot Com]

I like Liability & consider him a grown-up here on the board (more than I can say for a lot of others) BUT shows what happens when you listen to the Pundits when starting a thread

* * * *

But I didn't.

I read the decision, so unlike lots of the libs here, I was able to come to the my conclusion without outside "help." And totally unlike the libs here, I was able to come to the CORRECT conclusion.

There is not a single solitary shred of honesty or integrity in the pertinent part of the CJ Roberts' opinion.

He was RIGHT in denying that the Act could be sustained on the basis of the Commerce Clause.

He was RIGHT in denying that the Act could be sustained on the basis of the Necessary and Proper Clause.

He lied and twisted and contorted to pretend that it could be sustained on the basis of the Taxing Authority.

If what he said were true (and it isn't) then there is NO rational basis to deny to the fucking Congress the power, authority and ability to use the taxing authority to legislate on ANY matter whatsoever.

It stuns me that you libs either cannot see this or refuse to admit it.

and YET, he set a precedent that might prove quite valuable to Establishment Repubs/corporatists in the long-run, circumscribing the commerce clause.

 

[Liability]

I like Liability & consider him a grown-up here on the board (more than I can say for a lot of others) BUT shows what happens when you listen to the Pundits when starting a thread

* * * *

But I didn't.

I read the decision, so unlike lots of the libs here, I was able to come to the my conclusion without outside "help." And totally unlike the libs here, I was able to come to the CORRECT conclusion.

There is not a single solitary shred of honesty or integrity in the pertinent part of the CJ Roberts' opinion.

He was RIGHT in denying that the Act could be sustained on the basis of the Commerce Clause.

He was RIGHT in denying that the Act could be sustained on the basis of the Necessary and Proper Clause.

He lied and twisted and contorted to pretend that it could be sustained on the basis of the Taxing Authority.

If what he said were true (and it isn't) then there is NO rational basis to deny to the fucking Congress the power, authority and ability to use the taxing authority to legislate on ANY matter whatsoever.

It stuns me that you libs either cannot see this or refuse to admit it.

and YET, he set a precedent that might prove quite valuable to Establishment Repubs/corporatists in the long-run, circumscribing the commerce clause.

I know you and I have butted heads, but I am trying to be a bit more rational here:

I do not WANT (and I am quite sure that other conservatives in general also DO NOT WANT) to empower the Federal Government in that fashion.

It has LONG been a CONSERVATIVE position that the Commerce Clause is NOT properly viewed as some end-run around the LIMITS of the ENUMERATED Powers.

I don't want Conservatives/Republicans etc to have such an end-run available and I certainly don't want libs/Democratics/socialistsand fellow Statists to have any such power in the hands of the Federal Government.

 

[Liability]

But I didn't.

I read the decision, so unlike lots of the libs here, I was able to come to the my conclusion without outside "help." And totally unlike the libs here, I was able to come to the CORRECT conclusion.

There is not a single solitary shred of honesty or integrity in the pertinent part of the CJ Roberts' opinion.

He was RIGHT in denying that the Act could be sustained on the basis of the Commerce Clause.

He was RIGHT in denying that the Act could be sustained on the basis of the Necessary and Proper Clause.

He lied and twisted and contorted to pretend that it could be sustained on the basis of the Taxing Authority.

If what he said were true (and it isn't) then there is NO rational basis to deny to the fucking Congress the power, authority and ability to use the taxing authority to legislate on ANY matter whatsoever.

It stuns me that you libs either cannot see this or refuse to admit it.

In other words? Roberts was MORE concerned with not only the legacy left by the Supreme Court...but of more import in his mind?

His Own.

So, how bad a day was it?

For the President, with the minor exception of his AG being properly held in contempt, it wasn't a bad day or a long day.

For America, whether the People get it at present or not, and for the principles of our Constitutional Republic, it was one of the worst days ever in the history of our nation's jurisprudence and government.

 

[The T]

In other words? Roberts was MORE concerned with not only the legacy left by the Supreme Court...but of more import in his mind?

His Own.

So, how bad a day was it?

For the President, with the minor exception of his AG being properly held in contempt, it wasn't a bad day or a long day.

For America, whether the People get it at present or not, and for the principles of our Constitutional Republic, it was one of the worst days ever in the history of our nation's jurisprudence and government.

No dispute here. And YES I don't answer Bodey...not even when she was a Moderator.

SHE is dismissed and not worth spit in my world.

Sad? Yes. Justified? Equally...yes.

 

[BreezeWood]

For the President, with the minor exception of his AG being properly held in contempt, it wasn't a bad day or a long day.

... being properly held in contempt


as though the Tea Party Republicans are not as guilty of the same trimmings to the Constitution against Holder you soundly accuse Roberts of in support of lawfully enacted legislation ...

 

[The T]

For the President, with the minor exception of his AG being properly held in contempt, it wasn't a bad day or a long day.

... being properly held in contempt


as though the Tea Party Republicans are not as guilty of the same trimmings to the Constitution against Holder you soundly accuse Roberts of in support of lawfully enacted legislation ...

Another idiot speaks.

TEA Party has ZERO to do with F&F but the Congress and oversight on a department THEY created...and should frankly defund.

THEY are out of hand...and that is the point. Holder and obama refuse to cooperate.

 

[Liability]

For the President, with the minor exception of his AG being properly held in contempt, it wasn't a bad day or a long day.

... being properly held in contempt


as though the Tea Party Republicans are not as guilty of the same trimmings to the Constitution against Holder you soundly accuse Roberts of in support of lawfully enacted legislation ...

There are damn few Tea Party Republicans, first of all, dopey. Secondly, if you imagine you have any examples of Tea Party Republicans being guilty of ANY such thing, dopey, link us up, you twit.

The CONTEMPT Citation against AG Holder AS proper since Holder did refuse to turn over the documents BEFORE he persuaded the Administration at the last second to alsely invoke Executive Privilege and the invocation IS purely dishonest.

The decision authored by CJ Roberts IS demonstrably bogus, too.

It's a tax. But they said penalty. What THEY labeled it doesn't count. So, fuck Congress, to save this shitbird act I declare that they meant "tax," so it's a tax. But it's not the kind of tax that would prevent us from even deciding the case. And it's not the kind of tax that requires apportionment.

Horse shit. His opinion is a self-contradictory psychotic psychobabble muddle. It is dishonest. And it has done serious damage to the Constitution.

Fucking liberals have a new hero. The putative "conservative" Chief Justice Roberts.

 

[BreezeWood]

For the President, with the minor exception of his AG being properly held in contempt, it wasn't a bad day or a long day.

... being properly held in contempt


as though the Tea Party Republicans are not as guilty of the same trimmings to the Constitution against Holder you soundly accuse Roberts of in support of lawfully enacted legislation ...

Another idiot speaks.

TEA Party has ZERO to do with F&F but the Congress and oversight on a department THEY created...and should frankly defund.

THEY are out of hand...and that is the point. Holder and obama refuse to cooperate.

they should defund the Justice Department ??? - no, we were not talking about Holders role in preventing voter suppression.

 

[Liability]

... being properly held in contempt


as though the Tea Party Republicans are not as guilty of the same trimmings to the Constitution against Holder you soundly accuse Roberts of in support of lawfully enacted legislation ...

Another idiot speaks.

TEA Party has ZERO to do with F&F but the Congress and oversight on a department THEY created...and should frankly defund.

THEY are out of hand...and that is the point. Holder and obama refuse to cooperate.

they should defund the Justice Department ??? - no, we were not talking about Holders role in preventing voter suppression.

Nobody is talking about the myth of voter suppression or Holder's bogus "role" in that bullshit fantasy.

When the asshole AG actually goes after the new black panther voter suppression scumbags instead of sucking them off, you might have a point.

Until then, you remain entirely full of shit.

 

[candycorn]

This is boring. Get over it.