Ty Webb;663459 wrote:Keep laughing....I'll have my laugh when this law is upheld by the SCOTUS and president Obama wins re-election.

Just for the record...you're not doing to well on your predictions over the past 12 months.

There's no possible way the mandate is upheld by the SCOTUS. I don't think they'll rule on the entire law, but w/o the mandate the law is screwed anyway.

fish82;663601 wrote:Just for the record...you're not doing to well on your predictions over the past 12 months.

There's no possible way the mandate is upheld by the SCOTUS. I don't think they'll rule on the entire law, but w/o the mandate the law is screwed anyway.

I mean I just don't think anybody can say there is NO possible way the mandate is upheld. Here is a reasonable analysis of the high court and some of their recent positions on the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/02/02/where_do_the_health_care_challenges_go_next_108759.html

And, for the sake of your beliefs about big government you'd better hope it gets upheld.

BoatShoes;663575 wrote:Who cares? It's people like you who are petty over campaign promises instead of embracing the realities of governance. Thank God Bush 41 raised taxes. Thank God BHO found wisdom and embraced a mandate grounding a predominantly private health insurance bill instead of creating Medicare for all. Thank God most people are more reasonable than Tea Party patriots, etc. Perhaps there is still hope??And, if I'm to take your reasoning seriously, I argued that a rational person might agree that raising taxes would be justified to prevent the destruction caused by an asteroid. You've compared the consequences of 14 trillion in debt to that of an asteroid. Nevertheless, I'm sure you wouldn't consider raising taxes to handle that debt problem.

1. You are probably right. It's people like me that actually try to hold these maroons to their word. Stupid Tea Partier me. For decades, we've been running under these type of "business as usual...yawn...rules". Guess what: We're about to reap what we've sown. That asteroid that you first brought up, is heading straight for us.

2. Raising taxes. Hmmm....I'm reminded of the Peanuts comic strip....you know, the one where Lucy promises to hold the football so stupid dumb-schmuck Charlie can kick it. She tells him she won't pull it away this time. She cajoles him to trust her. She swears she'll not lift it away "this time". Poor stupid ass dumbfuck Charlie trudges along and as he winds up....whoop...der it is...Lucy has DONE IT AGAIN and Charlie lands flat on his back wishing that he'd never listened to her. The statists and socialists are dead ringers for Lucy, promising sweeping spending cuts if only the dumbfucks will raise taxes. You know...trade spending cuts for tax increases. It's only fair. EVERY time we go down this road, the statists/socialists pull the football away just as the tax increases go into effect. They say we must have this spending for we cannot do without it. Sorry, schmuck...GOTCHA!! The RINO's fell for this shit time after time after time after..... Even good 'ol boy Tip O'Neill promised Ronnie a plethora of spending cuts if Ronnie would raise taxes just a smidgen. IT NEVER HAPPENS. THEY NEVER CUT SPENDING. EVER. And now, here you are pining away for tax hikes in exchange for phantom spending cuts. Well, the RINO's are in shorter supply these days and the Tea Party isn't going to kick your little football anymore. Time for the statists/socialists to FINALLY do what they've promised and hold the damn ball.

I'm thinking that BS is running some sort of experiment for college. One in which he purposely portrays himself and his beliefs to be oh so much better than .. just about everybody else. He then records and stockpiles the responses, adding them to a database, then makes a statistical chart to turn in to his one of his professors. The title of the experiment will be something like "Rage Against The Machine" or "Poli-Redux" or "Isa Gone Wild" or some sort of funky thing. In the meantime him and Gibby are in PMs plotting their next strike.

How close am I, BS?

CenterBHSFan;663688 wrote:I'm thinking that BS is running some sort of experiment for college. One in which he purposely portrays himself and his beliefs to be oh so much better than .. just about everybody else. He then records and stockpiles the responses, adding them to a database, then makes a statistical chart to turn in to his one of his professors. The title of the experiment will be something like "Rage Against The Machine" or "Poli-Redux" or "Isa Gone Wild" or some sort of funky thing. In the meantime him and Gibby are in PMs plotting their next strike.

How close am I, BS?

LMAO...you've pegged it!

ptown_trojans_1;662956 wrote:Fair enough.
I just find it odd posters were complaining about cutting spending (we had 2 or 3 threads on it) and now it seems that doing nothing is acceptable.
I agree the economy will grow, and is slowly. But, I'd press we do need common action to tackle this problems.

Not too speak for those posters, but I think what they are trying to make a point of is that given the situation, there isn't much of a chance of cutting much at this point in time. But if we can at least keep from any more spending being passed for the time being, it is a good thing. What some want to happen ideally isn't possible realistically.

Ty Webb;663245 wrote:Keep dreaming brother

Coming fromt he guy who said there was no way the R's would take the house, I'm not at all worried.

BoatShoes;663476 wrote:In fact, a lot of newly elected conservatives vowed never to vote to raise taxes at any time. To me, this is an absurd position to hold. If an asteroid is headed to Earth for instance I'd hope as a matter of principle a legislator might find it necessary to bring in revenue to prevent a celestial impact, etc.

I would privatize it, if you wanted success; the government wouldn't even have an environmental study concluded until 3 years after impact.

BGFalcons82;663680 wrote:2. Raising taxes. Hmmm....I'm reminded of the Peanuts comic strip....you know, the one where Lucy promises to hold the football so stupid dumb-schmuck Charlie can kick it. She tells him she won't pull it away this time. She cajoles him to trust her. She swears she'll not lift it away "this time". Poor stupid ass dumbfuck Charlie trudges along and as he winds up....whoop...der it is...Lucy has DONE IT AGAIN and Charlie lands flat on his back wishing that he'd never listened to her. The statists and socialists are dead ringers for Lucy, promising sweeping spending cuts if only the dumbfucks will raise taxes. You know...trade spending cuts for tax increases. It's only fair. EVERY time we go down this road, the statists/socialists pull the football away just as the tax increases go into effect. They say we must have this spending for we cannot do without it. Sorry, schmuck...GOTCHA!! The RINO's fell for this shit time after time after time after..... Even good 'ol boy Tip O'Neill promised Ronnie a plethora of spending cuts if Ronnie would raise taxes just a smidgen. IT NEVER HAPPENS. THEY NEVER CUT SPENDING. EVER. And now, here you are pining away for tax hikes in exchange for phantom spending cuts. Well, the RINO's are in shorter supply these days and the Tea Party isn't going to kick your little football anymore. Time for the statists/socialists to FINALLY do what they've promised and hold the damn ball.

BINGO!

They won't get an incremental dime from me until real spending is cut by at least 20%, and government actually shrinks.

I have had enough ..... F@#$% 'em.

BoatShoes;663677 wrote:I mean I just don't think anybody can say there is NO possible way the mandate is upheld. Here is a reasonable analysis of the high court and some of their recent positions on the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/02/02/where_do_the_health_care_challenges_go_next_108759.html

And, for the sake of your beliefs about big government you'd better hope it gets upheld.

Of course. It would be nigh impossible to cut Medicare/Medicaid without HRC. :rolleyes:

The lads in South Dakota did a nice job illustrating the stupidity of the mandate with the recently introduced gun law.

I have always been dumbfounded as to how the DCites can befoul the constitution by the abusive overstepping interpretation of their powers based on the commerce clause (The Congress shall have Power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes).

the commerce clause = congressional clausal tyranny


But yet totally circumvent something so lucidly written as the tenth amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

:shrugs:

Obama… “Constitutional Crisis” …..Resign or Impeachment

“Constitutional Crisis” see links

Defying a Federal Court Order and the Congress = “Constitutional crisis”

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/561796/201102021812/Obama-Invites-Crisis-If-He-Ignores-Ruling.htm

http://www.cnbc.com/id/41375835

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/obamacare_and_the_constitution.html

http://209.157.64.200/focus/news/2667394/posts?page=1

dwccrew;664416 wrote:Not too speak for those posters, but I think what they are trying to make a point of is that given the situation, there isn't much of a chance of cutting much at this point in time. But if we can at least keep from any more spending being passed for the time being, it is a good thing. What some want to happen ideally isn't possible realistically.



Coming fromt he guy who said there was no way the R's would take the house, I'm not at all worried.

You should be......

Belly35;664776 wrote:Obama… “Constitutional Crisis” …..Resign or Impeachment

“Constitutional Crisis” see links

Defying a Federal Court Order and the Congress = “Constitutional crisis”

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/561796/201102021812/Obama-Invites-Crisis-If-He-Ignores-Ruling.htm

http://www.cnbc.com/id/41375835

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/obamacare_and_the_constitution.html

http://209.157.64.200/focus/news/2667394/posts?page=1

Belly,you're joking right??

If (and that is a massive if) the SCOTUS rules this unconstitutional,and he still trys to find a way to keep it,then yes you may have a point with that. Until then,GTFO with that

CenterBHSFan;663688 wrote:I'm thinking that BS is running some sort of experiment for college. One in which he purposely portrays himself and his beliefs to be oh so much better than .. just about everybody else. He then records and stockpiles the responses, adding them to a database, then makes a statistical chart to turn in to his one of his professors. The title of the experiment will be something like "Rage Against The Machine" or "Poli-Redux" or "Isa Gone Wild" or some sort of funky thing. In the meantime him and Gibby are in PMs plotting their next strike.

How close am I, BS?

My cover is blown. I'm sure my burn notice is imminent and I will have to retreat in anonymity.

Ty Webb;664942 wrote:You should be......

And what exactly should I be worried about?

BoatShoes;665001 wrote:My cover is blown. I'm sure my burn notice is imminent and I will have to retreat in anonymity.

haha! All in good fun, BS!

ccrunner609;665242 wrote:You do realize that the SCOTUS is probably going to vote this down dont you? Its merely a coin flip right now but the public push against it is way stronger then for it and the court knows that.

When has the SCOTUS ever taken public opinion under consideration? They are supposed to rule on law and the Constitution. That said, I do believe they will rule against it, although Clarence Thomas' situation may make it interesting.

ccrunner609;665242 wrote:You do realize that the SCOTUS is probably going to vote this down dont you? Its merely a coin flip right now but the public push against it is way stronger then for it and the court knows that.

Yeah, gotta agree that the court should not take public opinion into play. They should use the blind eye of justice to make their decision.
That said, if it goes to that level, I expect a 5-4 decision against the law.

ptown_trojans_1;665456 wrote:Yeah, gotta agree that the court should not take public opinion into play. They should use the blind eye of justice to make their decision.
That said, if it goes to that level, I expect a 5-4 decision against the law.

ptown...I'm thinking this morning of this on another level. First...I agree it will be at least 5-4...outside shot at 6-3 with Breyer. But let's stay with your vote of 5-4. This means that after all of the hoopla, all of the lobbying, all of the debating on Capitol Hill/TV/backyards, all of the billions upon billions of special interest money flowing into both sides, all of EVERYTHING....it comes down to 1 vote by a judge in a black robe. People can argue all they want, but virtually all polling indicates that Americans at least want ObamaKare changed or repealed. Virtually all polling indicates this law, as it currently is in force, is only supported by about 40% of the population - http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

So my quandary is this regarding the recent posts on here regarding populism....clearly the people don't want it, and the elitist rulers deem it to be law, so we are down to 1 human being's vote to determine who wins the overall debate of the past few years. While I agree populism shouldn't be on the SCOTUS' dias, it needs to be represented somewhere....or are we Egypt-in-waiting?

BGFalcons82;665464 wrote:ptown...I'm thinking this morning of this on another level. First...I agree it will be at least 5-4...outside shot at 6-3 with Breyer. But let's stay with your vote of 5-4. This means that after all of the hoopla, all of the lobbying, all of the debating on Capitol Hill/TV/backyards, all of the billions upon billions of special interest money flowing into both sides, all of EVERYTHING....it comes down to 1 vote by a judge in a black robe. People can argue all they want, but virtually all polling indicates that Americans at least want ObamaKare changed or repealed. Virtually all polling indicates this law, as it currently is in force, is only supported by about 40% of the population - http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

So my quandary is this regarding the recent posts on here regarding populism....clearly the people don't want it, and the elitist rulers deem it to be law, so we are down to 1 human being's vote to determine who wins the overall debate of the past few years. While I agree populism shouldn't be on the SCOTUS' dias, it needs to be represented somewhere....or are we Egypt-in-waiting?

No we are not.
The Court has been through other decisions in the last 60 years that were just, if not more so larger. (Brown v. Board, Roe vs. Wade, etc.)
At its very core, the court is the unbiased side of the 3 branches, not swayed by public opinion (hence the life appointment). It represents the blind side of justice, not swayed by views, opinions, surroundings, but instead their interpretation of the Constitution-that's it. Now, there are various views on the Constitution, but all the arguments by the court should stay in that realm and not the views of the lay public.

The other two branches are where the public come in. And to suggest we are near Egypt is a gross miscalculation.

ptown_trojans_1;665468 wrote:At its very core, the court is the unbiased side of the 3 branches, not swayed by public opinion (hence the life appointment). It represents the blind side of justice, not swayed by views, opinions, surroundings, but instead their interpretation of the Constitution-that's it. Now, there are various views on the Constitution, but all the arguments by the court should stay in that realm and not the views of the lay public.

In theory yes, but to claim that SCOTUS is immune to political bias and skewed interpretation of Constitutionality is a bit of a stretch. Still the system has served us well.

ptown_trojans_1;665468 wrote:No we are not.
The Court has been through other decisions in the last 60 years that were just, if not more so larger. (Brown v. Board, Roe vs. Wade, etc.)
At its very core, the court is the unbiased side of the 3 branches, not swayed by public opinion (hence the life appointment). It represents the blind side of justice, not swayed by views, opinions, surroundings, but instead their interpretation of the Constitution-that's it. Now, there are various views on the Constitution, but all the arguments by the court should stay in that realm and not the views of the lay public.

The other two branches are where the public come in. And to suggest we are near Egypt is a gross miscalculation.

Maybe my Egypt Q was somewhat jestful in nature, however the Egyptians are rising up against a leader whom a vast part of their population views as a tyrant. 30 years in power? How is that not somewhat tyrranical? Before anyone leaps in to say Obama won't be prez for 30 years, I would offer that a very large percentage of Congresspeople have been there for multiple terms and have become entrenched to the point they can't lose elections. Are they tyrants? Probably not, but they act and vote above recourse, so they at least wear tyrant clothing

I agree with your assessment of the 3 branches. I just keep scratching my head and becoming frustrated that this law has literally been crammed down our throats against a significant majority's rejection and there is NO ONE to stop them...except 1 swing vote in the SCOTUS.

Regarding your comparison of this upcoming case with Brown v Board and Roe v Wade, I would offer this: ObamaKare is the most important law ever considered by the SCOTUS for one major reason...it affects each and EVERY American. The cases you refer to did not affect EVERY American. I can think of no law recently passed that has such power over each and EVERY American....even the unborn. I suppose it can be debated as to which ruling is the most important of all time, it can never be debated which ruling affects more people. This one is the crowning jewel in that category.

What Obamacare is Unconstitutional… made simple..

All you Liberal the Feds has now required you to buy a gun for your own protection and get a CCW… or pay a fine of $750.00

In a demonstration of the ridiculousness of governments forcing citizens to buy things, five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require all residents of that state to buy a firearm to provide for their own self defense. (http://www.argusleader.com/article/…)
The bill is, of course, being put forth solely to make a point: That governments have no business forcing citizens to buy things they don’t personally want or even believe in.
But if Obama can force you to buy health insurance, there’s no reason why someone else in Washington couldn’t force everybody to buy a firearm, or a pound of broccoli each week, or a water filter, or anything else the government says is “for your own good.”

The federal government has no power to force Americans to buy stuff

BGFalcons82;665477 wrote:Maybe my Egypt Q was somewhat jestful in nature, however the Egyptians are rising up against a leader whom a vast part of their population views as a tyrant. 30 years in power? How is that not somewhat tyrranical? Before anyone leaps in to say Obama won't be prez for 30 years, I would offer that a very large percentage of Congresspeople have been there for multiple terms and have become entrenched to the point they can't lose elections. Are they tyrants? Probably not, but they act and vote above recourse, so they at least wear tyrant clothing

I agree with your assessment of the 3 branches. I just keep scratching my head and becoming frustrated that this law has literally been crammed down our throats against a significant majority's rejection and there is NO ONE to stop them...except 1 swing vote in the SCOTUS.

Regarding your comparison of this upcoming case with Brown v Board and Roe v Wade, I would offer this: ObamaKare is the most important law ever considered by the SCOTUS for one major reason...it affects each and EVERY American. The cases you refer to did not affect EVERY American. I can think of no law recently passed that has such power over each and EVERY American....even the unborn. I suppose it can be debated as to which ruling is the most important of all time, it can never be debated which ruling affects more people. This one is the crowning jewel in that category.

That majority did vote for Obama when he'd been campaigning on this bill though.

I Wear Pants;669608 wrote:That majority did vote for Obama when he'd been campaigning on this bill though.

No they didn't. The bill hadn't even been written during the campaign. He campaigned on a general "reform" theme.