|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On June 29 2012 03:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I have a really honest but curious question to ask to Republican TL'ers here: You are pissed at Roberts today but not yesterday on his stance on Citnzens United which is the poster boy of big government telling a State what it can and cannot do. Hypocrisy no?
I'm not pissed at Roberts. I'm surprised, but not pissed. When properly considered, from a legal standpoint, I tend to agree. Roberts didn't 'endorse' the ABA as good law. He simply said that when the individual mandate is considered a tax, it is not unconstitutional. Bad policy is not for the Court to correct and people have to live with the decisions made by the politicians they elect. He's right. My problem is with what politicians have done, not Roberts. Of course, I speak for myself, not others.
As for Citizens United, I don't understand this whole corporations controlling elections argument. They don't vote. We have 'Freedom of Speech' and 'Freedom of Expression' in this country, and the Court has decided that money spent on voicing your opinions is protected. I don't have any issue with that. I work in a small business, which is legally a corporation. Our business, including our clients and employees are affected by laws, taxes, administrative policies, etc. Why is it wrong to speak out about how what the government does affects our business ? People vote. If people aren't smart enough to make up their own minds and think about issues, that is not a reason to limit the Constitutional Rights of others.
|
On June 29 2012 03:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I have a really honest but curious question to ask to Republican TL'ers here: You are pissed at Roberts today but not yesterday on his stance on Citnzens United which is the poster boy of big government telling a State what it can and cannot do. Hypocrisy no?
How is Citizens United a case about telling a state what it can and cannot do? Citizen's United was all about affirming the rights of corporate entities to spend money as they will as a protection of free speech. I'm not seeing how being upset with Roberts for this decision is at all inconsistent with favoring the outcome in Citizen's United.
|
On June 29 2012 04:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:55 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:
Secondly, I wasn't calling you or any of the people on this forum braindead. I was calling parts of the american electorate braindead, specifically those that reject all government intervention while at the same time profiting from it most of their lives, yet failing to reckognize that fact. These people read 'tax increase' and go beserk, without even realizing what it means for their own personal circumstances. Conservatives vote for what is good for the Country, not for our 'own personal circumstances'. That's how Liberals vote. It's why Republicans are always portrayed by Democrats as saying no to everything. People who want free stuff from the government vote for tax and spend Democrats because it's in the interest of 'their own personal circumstances' because the taxes are paid by others, but the spending is coming to them. Yeah. Voting tax increases because they help your own personal circumstances. Right. More like voting for others to pay for you to get stuff is more like it. It's not even just about ACA, it's why people vote Democrat in this country. That's a gross exaggeration. Many wealthy Republicans vote for lower taxes for their own personal benefits. Many wealthy Democrats vote for higher taxes for the good of the country. Surely you can put together a better argument than "all Democrats are free-riders."
Nah, Democrats vote for higher taxes to force others to pay more. Nothing is stopping wealthy Democrats from paying additional amounts of money. However, they don't. In fact, Republicans, at least by example of public tax returns of politicians, are much more charitable than Democrats. Joe Biden and Al Gore gave barely anything to charity, while George Bush and Mitt Romney have given substantially. Voting for tax increases is nothing more than voting to force OTHERS to pay more. Conservatives have shown to be very willing to pay more themselves, since they give to church, charities, etc, but they realize it's bad for the country to impose higher taxes.
|
On June 29 2012 03:55 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:
Secondly, I wasn't calling you or any of the people on this forum braindead. I was calling parts of the american electorate braindead, specifically those that reject all government intervention while at the same time profiting from it most of their lives, yet failing to reckognize that fact. These people read 'tax increase' and go beserk, without even realizing what it means for their own personal circumstances. Conservatives vote for what is good for the Country, not for our 'own personal circumstances'. That's how Liberals vote. It's why Republicans are always portrayed by Democrats as saying no to everything. People who want free stuff from the government vote for tax and spend Democrats because it's in the interest of 'their own personal circumstances' because the taxes are paid by others, but the spending is coming to them. Yeah. Voting tax increases because they help your own personal circumstances. Right. More like voting for others to pay for you to get stuff is more like it. It's not even just about ACA, it's why people vote Democrat in this country.
What a load of BS this is. Like there aren't millions of Republicans that don't vote on single issues, like gay marriage, or abortion, or gun control etc.
Some people vote for the good of a country, some people vote for themselves. It's a bi-partisan characteristic that's inevitable in a democracy.
I can guarantee, all the billionaires that are financing the Romney campaign right now could give two shits about their country, and their primary motivation is getting a massive tax break they might be able to hoard to themselves.
|
On June 29 2012 03:44 MaYuu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:37 ixi.genocide wrote:On June 29 2012 03:19 MaYuu wrote:
It's so hard to be happy for the people in the US that now can get healthcare when you read peoples reactions. You are so proud of your country and yet still doesn't care if your people are sick and dying because universal health care is "comminist"
Grow up. It's fucking 21th centuray. Calling something communistic is a bad habit that republicans have gotten into, the better thing to call government programs that can't and won't try to cut spending and increase the power of government in the private sector is Socialism. While the EU is failing harder than the US (which I don't have pride for, it's just true) there still is a majority of people on this site and many others that advocate for socialism in the US. Understanding the basic concept that the inflation of the US dollar, the increase in government size and a unsupporting country for businesses is not a plan for success. The US debt is going to hit 16 trillion soon and the Deficit is 1.3 trillion on top of the largest budget in history (total comes to about 30% of our gdp). You could cut every program outside of medicare, medicaid and social security and still not pay for an entire year of the government running. You can take all the money from the top 1% and you won't be able to pay for a year. As a country US is predominantly built on the idea that government should not be intruding into our lives yet when you have government intrusion you get bubbles like the housing bubble and you have ridiculous inefficiency. I hope that your grammar mistakes were for a dramatic effect. It's not, English is not my first language.
Ok, sorry. Don't mean to be rude 
|
On June 29 2012 03:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I have a really honest but curious question to ask to Republican TL'ers here: You are pissed at Roberts today but not yesterday on his stance on Citnzens United which is the poster boy of big government telling a State what it can and cannot do. Hypocrisy no?
I'm not so much pissed at Roberts, but I do disagree with him. I thought the ruling was a bit bizzare, it was obviously a question of how to interpret the commerce clause. To side step that by declairing the individual mandate a tax is ignoring the entire issue.
And wasn't Citizens United about limiting political contributions to candidates from non-profit organizations and corporations? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.
On June 29 2012 03:54 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:47 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 03:39 farvacola wrote:On June 29 2012 03:35 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 03:30 MaYuu wrote:On June 29 2012 03:21 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 03:19 MaYuu wrote:
It's so hard to be happy for the people in the US that now can get healthcare when you read reactions. You are so proud of your country and yet still doesn't care if your people are sick and dying because of no universal health care.
Grow up. It's fucking 21th centuray. So because it's the 21st century I have to allow my government to tell me I have to buy a product? That makes no sense. Americans know our healthcare system is broken, we know costs are out of control. I personally just don't think having the federal government make healthcare insurance manditory is the proper solution. You can affect costs without infringing on personal liberty. To me it's kind of absurd to see it as a product, it's more like a service everyone should be eligable to. Even if you don't wanna pay for it right now, there will be some time when you'll be happy you did, and you'll be greatfull that everyone paid all this time so you and everyone else could get good care. Don't you agree that health care should be about helping people first hand, and getting a profit second hand? But the law doesn't preclude insurance companies from making a profit. It doesn't stop big healthcare companies from making a profit. All that changed is that the Federal government is now mandating that I carry insurance or I will be fined. This isn't a nationalization, it's coersion. Whether it's a product or service, I'm still being forced into buying it. Whether I will or will not be greatful in the future is irrelevant to my ability to make a decision in the present. This is a clear violation of my freedom to choose. While it doesn't preclude profit-making per se, the act itself...... Prevents insurance companies from denying customers for pre-existing conditions. Allows young adults to stay on their parent's insurance until age 26. Limits age-rating, or charging premiums several times higher for older customers. Eliminates lifetime insurance caps and restricts annual limits. Restricts how much insurance companies can spend on non-medical costs (overhead). Mandates that everyone acquire health insurance by 2014 or face a tax, offering subsidies or Medicaid for those who can't afford it. In other words, any wiggle room insurance companies previously had in terms of squeezing out dollar signs has been reduced significantly. Which will just raise insurance premiums for everyone across the board and insurance companies will keep making money. On June 29 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:On June 29 2012 03:35 TheToast wrote:
But the law doesn't preclude insurance companies from making a profit. It doesn't stop big healthcare companies from making a profit. All that changed is that the Federal government is now mandating that I carry insurance or I will be fined. This isn't a nationalization, it's coersion.
Whether it's a product or service, I'm still being forced into buying it. Whether I will or will not be greatful in the future is irrelevant to my ability to make a decision in the present. This is a clear violation of my freedom to choose.
I don't get this objection. Aren't you also forced to pay for streetlights? Highways? Social security? Aren't those taxes also a clear violation of your freedom to choose? It seems to me like a convenient excuse to object to programs you personally don't want to see implemented. There's a clear difference between saying one needs to pay a small percentage of their income to the state to run basic government services and mandating that one has to buy a specific product. The other issue is I still don't think it's constitutional. Bypassing the commerce clause by calling the individual mandate a "tax" is bizzare if not outright stupid. What needs to happen to convince you then? Isn't the Supreme Court the "supreme" Court in your country which is based ( one might say very intelligently so) on checks and balances? Man up and don't be a sore loser... Personal responsibility all the way, even if one is on the losing side of a legal argument - no?
So, because the Supreme Court decided one way I can't disagree with it? I would point out there were four justices in disagreement with the majority ruling. So their opinion just doesn't count? If four highly intelligent, highly educated legal minds are arguing against the ruling, there is at obviously a legitimate argument to be made against the law. I would say you're being a sore winner with the attitude that all dissenting opinions are now invalid. That's rediculous.
The law may have been ruled constitutional by a plurality of justices, but I reserve my right to agree with Justice Kennedy and the other opposing Justices. If you don't like it, well that's too bad.
|
On June 29 2012 03:55 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:
Secondly, I wasn't calling you or any of the people on this forum braindead. I was calling parts of the american electorate braindead, specifically those that reject all government intervention while at the same time profiting from it most of their lives, yet failing to reckognize that fact. These people read 'tax increase' and go beserk, without even realizing what it means for their own personal circumstances. Conservatives vote for what is good for the Country, not for our 'own personal circumstances'. That's how Liberals vote. It's why Republicans are always portrayed by Democrats as saying no to everything. People who want free stuff from the government vote for tax and spend Democrats because it's in the interest of 'their own personal circumstances' because the taxes are paid by others, but the spending is coming to them. Yeah. Voting tax increases because they help your own personal circumstances. Right. More like voting for others to pay for you to get stuff is more like it. It's not even just about ACA, it's why people vote Democrat in this country.
That is an incredibly incorrect opinion of what the liberals and the Democratic Party stands for. Do you really believe that? This isn't class warfare, it makes sense that the rich have to pay more taxes because they don't need their money as much as someone making $15,000 per year.
The problem with capitalism is that the capitalists, those who control the wealth and use it to invest, do not have to actually work, they just invest. Now, if the people who actually worked owned the means of production, this would not be a problem, but as we all know Communism does not work very well. The best way to strike a balance between the two is through socialism, by taxing the very wealthy capitalists and giving much of the money back to everyone through services.
|
On June 29 2012 04:08 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 04:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 29 2012 03:55 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:
Secondly, I wasn't calling you or any of the people on this forum braindead. I was calling parts of the american electorate braindead, specifically those that reject all government intervention while at the same time profiting from it most of their lives, yet failing to reckognize that fact. These people read 'tax increase' and go beserk, without even realizing what it means for their own personal circumstances. Conservatives vote for what is good for the Country, not for our 'own personal circumstances'. That's how Liberals vote. It's why Republicans are always portrayed by Democrats as saying no to everything. People who want free stuff from the government vote for tax and spend Democrats because it's in the interest of 'their own personal circumstances' because the taxes are paid by others, but the spending is coming to them. Yeah. Voting tax increases because they help your own personal circumstances. Right. More like voting for others to pay for you to get stuff is more like it. It's not even just about ACA, it's why people vote Democrat in this country. That's a gross exaggeration. Many wealthy Republicans vote for lower taxes for their own personal benefits. Many wealthy Democrats vote for higher taxes for the good of the country. Surely you can put together a better argument than "all Democrats are free-riders." Nah, Democrats vote for higher taxes to force others to pay more. Nothing is stopping wealthy Democrats from paying additional amounts of money. However, they don't. In fact, Republicans, at least by example of public tax returns of politicians, are much more charitable than Democrats. Joe Biden and Al Gore gave barely anything to charity, while George Bush and Mitt Romney have given substantially. Voting for tax increases is nothing more than voting to force OTHERS to pay more. Conservatives have shown to be very willing to pay more themselves, since they give to church, charities, etc, but they realize it's bad for the country to impose higher taxes.
you are highly misinformed, too much fox news maybe?
|
On June 29 2012 04:09 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I have a really honest but curious question to ask to Republican TL'ers here: You are pissed at Roberts today but not yesterday on his stance on Citnzens United which is the poster boy of big government telling a State what it can and cannot do. Hypocrisy no? I'm not so much pissed at Roberts, but I do disagree with him. I thought the ruling was a bit bizzare, it was obviously a question of how to interpret the commerce clause. To side step that by declairing the individual mandate a tax is ignoring the entire issue. And wasn't Citizens United about limiting political contributions to candidates from non-profit organizations and corporations? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:54 Doublemint wrote:On June 29 2012 03:47 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 03:39 farvacola wrote:On June 29 2012 03:35 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 03:30 MaYuu wrote:On June 29 2012 03:21 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 03:19 MaYuu wrote:
It's so hard to be happy for the people in the US that now can get healthcare when you read reactions. You are so proud of your country and yet still doesn't care if your people are sick and dying because of no universal health care.
Grow up. It's fucking 21th centuray. So because it's the 21st century I have to allow my government to tell me I have to buy a product? That makes no sense. Americans know our healthcare system is broken, we know costs are out of control. I personally just don't think having the federal government make healthcare insurance manditory is the proper solution. You can affect costs without infringing on personal liberty. To me it's kind of absurd to see it as a product, it's more like a service everyone should be eligable to. Even if you don't wanna pay for it right now, there will be some time when you'll be happy you did, and you'll be greatfull that everyone paid all this time so you and everyone else could get good care. Don't you agree that health care should be about helping people first hand, and getting a profit second hand? But the law doesn't preclude insurance companies from making a profit. It doesn't stop big healthcare companies from making a profit. All that changed is that the Federal government is now mandating that I carry insurance or I will be fined. This isn't a nationalization, it's coersion. Whether it's a product or service, I'm still being forced into buying it. Whether I will or will not be greatful in the future is irrelevant to my ability to make a decision in the present. This is a clear violation of my freedom to choose. While it doesn't preclude profit-making per se, the act itself...... Prevents insurance companies from denying customers for pre-existing conditions. Allows young adults to stay on their parent's insurance until age 26. Limits age-rating, or charging premiums several times higher for older customers. Eliminates lifetime insurance caps and restricts annual limits. Restricts how much insurance companies can spend on non-medical costs (overhead). Mandates that everyone acquire health insurance by 2014 or face a tax, offering subsidies or Medicaid for those who can't afford it. In other words, any wiggle room insurance companies previously had in terms of squeezing out dollar signs has been reduced significantly. Which will just raise insurance premiums for everyone across the board and insurance companies will keep making money. On June 29 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:On June 29 2012 03:35 TheToast wrote:
But the law doesn't preclude insurance companies from making a profit. It doesn't stop big healthcare companies from making a profit. All that changed is that the Federal government is now mandating that I carry insurance or I will be fined. This isn't a nationalization, it's coersion.
Whether it's a product or service, I'm still being forced into buying it. Whether I will or will not be greatful in the future is irrelevant to my ability to make a decision in the present. This is a clear violation of my freedom to choose.
I don't get this objection. Aren't you also forced to pay for streetlights? Highways? Social security? Aren't those taxes also a clear violation of your freedom to choose? It seems to me like a convenient excuse to object to programs you personally don't want to see implemented. There's a clear difference between saying one needs to pay a small percentage of their income to the state to run basic government services and mandating that one has to buy a specific product. The other issue is I still don't think it's constitutional. Bypassing the commerce clause by calling the individual mandate a "tax" is bizzare if not outright stupid. What needs to happen to convince you then? Isn't the Supreme Court the "supreme" Court in your country which is based ( one might say very intelligently so) on checks and balances? Man up and don't be a sore loser... Personal responsibility all the way, even if one is on the losing side of a legal argument - no? So, because the Supreme Court decided one way I can't disagree with it? I would point out there were four justices in disagreement with the majority ruling. So their opinion just doesn't count? If four highly intelligent, highly educated legal minds are arguing against the ruling, there is at obviously a legitimate argument to be made against the law. I would say you're being a sore winner with the attitude that all dissenting opinions are now invalid. That's rediculous. The law may have been ruled constitutional by a plurality of justices, but I reserve my right to agree with Justice Kennedy and the other opposing Justices. If you don't like it, well that's too bad.
But the SCOTUS ruling struck down a STATE law.
|
On June 29 2012 04:08 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:55 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:
Secondly, I wasn't calling you or any of the people on this forum braindead. I was calling parts of the american electorate braindead, specifically those that reject all government intervention while at the same time profiting from it most of their lives, yet failing to reckognize that fact. These people read 'tax increase' and go beserk, without even realizing what it means for their own personal circumstances. Conservatives vote for what is good for the Country, not for our 'own personal circumstances'. That's how Liberals vote. It's why Republicans are always portrayed by Democrats as saying no to everything. People who want free stuff from the government vote for tax and spend Democrats because it's in the interest of 'their own personal circumstances' because the taxes are paid by others, but the spending is coming to them. Yeah. Voting tax increases because they help your own personal circumstances. Right. More like voting for others to pay for you to get stuff is more like it. It's not even just about ACA, it's why people vote Democrat in this country. What a load of BS this is. Like there aren't millions of Republicans that don't vote on single issues, like gay marriage, or abortion, or gun control etc. Some people vote for the good of a country, some people vote for themselves. It's a bi-partisan characteristic that's inevitable in a democracy. I can guarantee, all the billionaires that are financing the Romney campaign right now could give two shits about their country, and their primary motivation is getting a massive tax break they might be able to hoard to themselves.
Yeah, that totally makes sense. They give millions to politicians so they don't have to pay higher taxes. Of course, the amounts they give to these politicians exceeds the additional amount they would pay in taxes. Makes total sense.
|
On June 29 2012 04:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 04:09 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 03:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I have a really honest but curious question to ask to Republican TL'ers here: You are pissed at Roberts today but not yesterday on his stance on Citnzens United which is the poster boy of big government telling a State what it can and cannot do. Hypocrisy no? I'm not so much pissed at Roberts, but I do disagree with him. I thought the ruling was a bit bizzare, it was obviously a question of how to interpret the commerce clause. To side step that by declairing the individual mandate a tax is ignoring the entire issue. And wasn't Citizens United about limiting political contributions to candidates from non-profit organizations and corporations? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. On June 29 2012 03:54 Doublemint wrote:On June 29 2012 03:47 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 03:39 farvacola wrote:On June 29 2012 03:35 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 03:30 MaYuu wrote:On June 29 2012 03:21 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 03:19 MaYuu wrote:
It's so hard to be happy for the people in the US that now can get healthcare when you read reactions. You are so proud of your country and yet still doesn't care if your people are sick and dying because of no universal health care.
Grow up. It's fucking 21th centuray. So because it's the 21st century I have to allow my government to tell me I have to buy a product? That makes no sense. Americans know our healthcare system is broken, we know costs are out of control. I personally just don't think having the federal government make healthcare insurance manditory is the proper solution. You can affect costs without infringing on personal liberty. To me it's kind of absurd to see it as a product, it's more like a service everyone should be eligable to. Even if you don't wanna pay for it right now, there will be some time when you'll be happy you did, and you'll be greatfull that everyone paid all this time so you and everyone else could get good care. Don't you agree that health care should be about helping people first hand, and getting a profit second hand? But the law doesn't preclude insurance companies from making a profit. It doesn't stop big healthcare companies from making a profit. All that changed is that the Federal government is now mandating that I carry insurance or I will be fined. This isn't a nationalization, it's coersion. Whether it's a product or service, I'm still being forced into buying it. Whether I will or will not be greatful in the future is irrelevant to my ability to make a decision in the present. This is a clear violation of my freedom to choose. While it doesn't preclude profit-making per se, the act itself...... Prevents insurance companies from denying customers for pre-existing conditions. Allows young adults to stay on their parent's insurance until age 26. Limits age-rating, or charging premiums several times higher for older customers. Eliminates lifetime insurance caps and restricts annual limits. Restricts how much insurance companies can spend on non-medical costs (overhead). Mandates that everyone acquire health insurance by 2014 or face a tax, offering subsidies or Medicaid for those who can't afford it. In other words, any wiggle room insurance companies previously had in terms of squeezing out dollar signs has been reduced significantly. Which will just raise insurance premiums for everyone across the board and insurance companies will keep making money. On June 29 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:On June 29 2012 03:35 TheToast wrote:
But the law doesn't preclude insurance companies from making a profit. It doesn't stop big healthcare companies from making a profit. All that changed is that the Federal government is now mandating that I carry insurance or I will be fined. This isn't a nationalization, it's coersion.
Whether it's a product or service, I'm still being forced into buying it. Whether I will or will not be greatful in the future is irrelevant to my ability to make a decision in the present. This is a clear violation of my freedom to choose.
I don't get this objection. Aren't you also forced to pay for streetlights? Highways? Social security? Aren't those taxes also a clear violation of your freedom to choose? It seems to me like a convenient excuse to object to programs you personally don't want to see implemented. There's a clear difference between saying one needs to pay a small percentage of their income to the state to run basic government services and mandating that one has to buy a specific product. The other issue is I still don't think it's constitutional. Bypassing the commerce clause by calling the individual mandate a "tax" is bizzare if not outright stupid. What needs to happen to convince you then? Isn't the Supreme Court the "supreme" Court in your country which is based ( one might say very intelligently so) on checks and balances? Man up and don't be a sore loser... Personal responsibility all the way, even if one is on the losing side of a legal argument - no? So, because the Supreme Court decided one way I can't disagree with it? I would point out there were four justices in disagreement with the majority ruling. So their opinion just doesn't count? If four highly intelligent, highly educated legal minds are arguing against the ruling, there is at obviously a legitimate argument to be made against the law. I would say you're being a sore winner with the attitude that all dissenting opinions are now invalid. That's rediculous. The law may have been ruled constitutional by a plurality of justices, but I reserve my right to agree with Justice Kennedy and the other opposing Justices. If you don't like it, well that's too bad. But the SCOTUS ruling struck down a STATE law.
What in the world are you talking about? Citizen's United struck down parts McCain-Feingold, which is a federal law.
|
On June 29 2012 04:12 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 04:08 Defacer wrote:On June 29 2012 03:55 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:
Secondly, I wasn't calling you or any of the people on this forum braindead. I was calling parts of the american electorate braindead, specifically those that reject all government intervention while at the same time profiting from it most of their lives, yet failing to reckognize that fact. These people read 'tax increase' and go beserk, without even realizing what it means for their own personal circumstances. Conservatives vote for what is good for the Country, not for our 'own personal circumstances'. That's how Liberals vote. It's why Republicans are always portrayed by Democrats as saying no to everything. People who want free stuff from the government vote for tax and spend Democrats because it's in the interest of 'their own personal circumstances' because the taxes are paid by others, but the spending is coming to them. Yeah. Voting tax increases because they help your own personal circumstances. Right. More like voting for others to pay for you to get stuff is more like it. It's not even just about ACA, it's why people vote Democrat in this country. What a load of BS this is. Like there aren't millions of Republicans that don't vote on single issues, like gay marriage, or abortion, or gun control etc. Some people vote for the good of a country, some people vote for themselves. It's a bi-partisan characteristic that's inevitable in a democracy. I can guarantee, all the billionaires that are financing the Romney campaign right now could give two shits about their country, and their primary motivation is getting a massive tax break they might be able to hoard to themselves. Yeah, that totally makes sense. They give millions to politicians so they don't have to pay higher taxes. Of course, the amounts they give to these politicians exceeds the additional amount they would pay in taxes. Makes total sense.
They can ask for other rewards from the politician, you know.
|
On June 29 2012 04:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 04:09 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 03:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I have a really honest but curious question to ask to Republican TL'ers here: You are pissed at Roberts today but not yesterday on his stance on Citnzens United which is the poster boy of big government telling a State what it can and cannot do. Hypocrisy no? I'm not so much pissed at Roberts, but I do disagree with him. I thought the ruling was a bit bizzare, it was obviously a question of how to interpret the commerce clause. To side step that by declairing the individual mandate a tax is ignoring the entire issue. And wasn't Citizens United about limiting political contributions to candidates from non-profit organizations and corporations? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. On June 29 2012 03:54 Doublemint wrote:On June 29 2012 03:47 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 03:39 farvacola wrote:On June 29 2012 03:35 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 03:30 MaYuu wrote:On June 29 2012 03:21 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 03:19 MaYuu wrote:
It's so hard to be happy for the people in the US that now can get healthcare when you read reactions. You are so proud of your country and yet still doesn't care if your people are sick and dying because of no universal health care.
Grow up. It's fucking 21th centuray. So because it's the 21st century I have to allow my government to tell me I have to buy a product? That makes no sense. Americans know our healthcare system is broken, we know costs are out of control. I personally just don't think having the federal government make healthcare insurance manditory is the proper solution. You can affect costs without infringing on personal liberty. To me it's kind of absurd to see it as a product, it's more like a service everyone should be eligable to. Even if you don't wanna pay for it right now, there will be some time when you'll be happy you did, and you'll be greatfull that everyone paid all this time so you and everyone else could get good care. Don't you agree that health care should be about helping people first hand, and getting a profit second hand? But the law doesn't preclude insurance companies from making a profit. It doesn't stop big healthcare companies from making a profit. All that changed is that the Federal government is now mandating that I carry insurance or I will be fined. This isn't a nationalization, it's coersion. Whether it's a product or service, I'm still being forced into buying it. Whether I will or will not be greatful in the future is irrelevant to my ability to make a decision in the present. This is a clear violation of my freedom to choose. While it doesn't preclude profit-making per se, the act itself...... Prevents insurance companies from denying customers for pre-existing conditions. Allows young adults to stay on their parent's insurance until age 26. Limits age-rating, or charging premiums several times higher for older customers. Eliminates lifetime insurance caps and restricts annual limits. Restricts how much insurance companies can spend on non-medical costs (overhead). Mandates that everyone acquire health insurance by 2014 or face a tax, offering subsidies or Medicaid for those who can't afford it. In other words, any wiggle room insurance companies previously had in terms of squeezing out dollar signs has been reduced significantly. Which will just raise insurance premiums for everyone across the board and insurance companies will keep making money. On June 29 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:On June 29 2012 03:35 TheToast wrote:
But the law doesn't preclude insurance companies from making a profit. It doesn't stop big healthcare companies from making a profit. All that changed is that the Federal government is now mandating that I carry insurance or I will be fined. This isn't a nationalization, it's coersion.
Whether it's a product or service, I'm still being forced into buying it. Whether I will or will not be greatful in the future is irrelevant to my ability to make a decision in the present. This is a clear violation of my freedom to choose.
I don't get this objection. Aren't you also forced to pay for streetlights? Highways? Social security? Aren't those taxes also a clear violation of your freedom to choose? It seems to me like a convenient excuse to object to programs you personally don't want to see implemented. There's a clear difference between saying one needs to pay a small percentage of their income to the state to run basic government services and mandating that one has to buy a specific product. The other issue is I still don't think it's constitutional. Bypassing the commerce clause by calling the individual mandate a "tax" is bizzare if not outright stupid. What needs to happen to convince you then? Isn't the Supreme Court the "supreme" Court in your country which is based ( one might say very intelligently so) on checks and balances? Man up and don't be a sore loser... Personal responsibility all the way, even if one is on the losing side of a legal argument - no? So, because the Supreme Court decided one way I can't disagree with it? I would point out there were four justices in disagreement with the majority ruling. So their opinion just doesn't count? If four highly intelligent, highly educated legal minds are arguing against the ruling, there is at obviously a legitimate argument to be made against the law. I would say you're being a sore winner with the attitude that all dissenting opinions are now invalid. That's rediculous. The law may have been ruled constitutional by a plurality of justices, but I reserve my right to agree with Justice Kennedy and the other opposing Justices. If you don't like it, well that's too bad. But the SCOTUS ruling struck down a STATE law.
So? That happens all the time.
Why does that make him a hypocrit?
|
On June 29 2012 04:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:55 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:
Secondly, I wasn't calling you or any of the people on this forum braindead. I was calling parts of the american electorate braindead, specifically those that reject all government intervention while at the same time profiting from it most of their lives, yet failing to reckognize that fact. These people read 'tax increase' and go beserk, without even realizing what it means for their own personal circumstances. Conservatives vote for what is good for the Country, not for our 'own personal circumstances'. That's how Liberals vote. It's why Republicans are always portrayed by Democrats as saying no to everything. People who want free stuff from the government vote for tax and spend Democrats because it's in the interest of 'their own personal circumstances' because the taxes are paid by others, but the spending is coming to them. Yeah. Voting tax increases because they help your own personal circumstances. Right. More like voting for others to pay for you to get stuff is more like it. It's not even just about ACA, it's why people vote Democrat in this country. That's a gross exaggeration. Many wealthy Republicans vote for lower taxes for their own personal benefits. Many wealthy Democrats vote for higher taxes for the good of the country. Surely you can put together a better argument than "all Democrats are free-riders."
yeah, that is a terrible argument. I would argue though that increase in taxation does not help the country and many of the things that the federal government does now hurts the country. There is one thing that should be pointed out though, There is a difference between a state government and a federal government. The Fed should take a census, provide a national army, represent the states internationally and print money; That's it. The states can and should do whatever they want, if you don't like what is happening in cali, move to kansas, if you don't like what is happening in AZ, move to some other state. That is the beauty of a Federal republic, small federal government and most of control in the states, that way you can choose which state to live in and by proxy, what you want to represent.
|
On June 29 2012 04:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 04:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On June 29 2012 04:09 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 03:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I have a really honest but curious question to ask to Republican TL'ers here: You are pissed at Roberts today but not yesterday on his stance on Citnzens United which is the poster boy of big government telling a State what it can and cannot do. Hypocrisy no? I'm not so much pissed at Roberts, but I do disagree with him. I thought the ruling was a bit bizzare, it was obviously a question of how to interpret the commerce clause. To side step that by declairing the individual mandate a tax is ignoring the entire issue. And wasn't Citizens United about limiting political contributions to candidates from non-profit organizations and corporations? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. On June 29 2012 03:54 Doublemint wrote:On June 29 2012 03:47 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 03:39 farvacola wrote:On June 29 2012 03:35 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 03:30 MaYuu wrote:On June 29 2012 03:21 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 03:19 MaYuu wrote:
It's so hard to be happy for the people in the US that now can get healthcare when you read reactions. You are so proud of your country and yet still doesn't care if your people are sick and dying because of no universal health care.
Grow up. It's fucking 21th centuray. So because it's the 21st century I have to allow my government to tell me I have to buy a product? That makes no sense. Americans know our healthcare system is broken, we know costs are out of control. I personally just don't think having the federal government make healthcare insurance manditory is the proper solution. You can affect costs without infringing on personal liberty. To me it's kind of absurd to see it as a product, it's more like a service everyone should be eligable to. Even if you don't wanna pay for it right now, there will be some time when you'll be happy you did, and you'll be greatfull that everyone paid all this time so you and everyone else could get good care. Don't you agree that health care should be about helping people first hand, and getting a profit second hand? But the law doesn't preclude insurance companies from making a profit. It doesn't stop big healthcare companies from making a profit. All that changed is that the Federal government is now mandating that I carry insurance or I will be fined. This isn't a nationalization, it's coersion. Whether it's a product or service, I'm still being forced into buying it. Whether I will or will not be greatful in the future is irrelevant to my ability to make a decision in the present. This is a clear violation of my freedom to choose. While it doesn't preclude profit-making per se, the act itself...... Prevents insurance companies from denying customers for pre-existing conditions. Allows young adults to stay on their parent's insurance until age 26. Limits age-rating, or charging premiums several times higher for older customers. Eliminates lifetime insurance caps and restricts annual limits. Restricts how much insurance companies can spend on non-medical costs (overhead). Mandates that everyone acquire health insurance by 2014 or face a tax, offering subsidies or Medicaid for those who can't afford it. In other words, any wiggle room insurance companies previously had in terms of squeezing out dollar signs has been reduced significantly. Which will just raise insurance premiums for everyone across the board and insurance companies will keep making money. On June 29 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:On June 29 2012 03:35 TheToast wrote:
But the law doesn't preclude insurance companies from making a profit. It doesn't stop big healthcare companies from making a profit. All that changed is that the Federal government is now mandating that I carry insurance or I will be fined. This isn't a nationalization, it's coersion.
Whether it's a product or service, I'm still being forced into buying it. Whether I will or will not be greatful in the future is irrelevant to my ability to make a decision in the present. This is a clear violation of my freedom to choose.
I don't get this objection. Aren't you also forced to pay for streetlights? Highways? Social security? Aren't those taxes also a clear violation of your freedom to choose? It seems to me like a convenient excuse to object to programs you personally don't want to see implemented. There's a clear difference between saying one needs to pay a small percentage of their income to the state to run basic government services and mandating that one has to buy a specific product. The other issue is I still don't think it's constitutional. Bypassing the commerce clause by calling the individual mandate a "tax" is bizzare if not outright stupid. What needs to happen to convince you then? Isn't the Supreme Court the "supreme" Court in your country which is based ( one might say very intelligently so) on checks and balances? Man up and don't be a sore loser... Personal responsibility all the way, even if one is on the losing side of a legal argument - no? So, because the Supreme Court decided one way I can't disagree with it? I would point out there were four justices in disagreement with the majority ruling. So their opinion just doesn't count? If four highly intelligent, highly educated legal minds are arguing against the ruling, there is at obviously a legitimate argument to be made against the law. I would say you're being a sore winner with the attitude that all dissenting opinions are now invalid. That's rediculous. The law may have been ruled constitutional by a plurality of justices, but I reserve my right to agree with Justice Kennedy and the other opposing Justices. If you don't like it, well that's too bad. But the SCOTUS ruling struck down a STATE law. What in the world are you talking about? Citizen's United struck down parts McCain-Feingold, which is a federal law.
I'm talking about the ruling yesterday:
The Supreme Court has struck down a Montana ban on corporate political money, ruling 5 to 4 that the controversial 2010 Citizens United ruling applies to state and local elections.
The court broke in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock along the same lines as in the original Citizens United case, when the court ruled that corporate money is speech and thus corporations can spend unlimited amounts on elections.
“The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law,” the majority wrote. “There can be no serious doubt that it does.”
No arguments were heard; it was a summary reversal.
|
On June 29 2012 04:08 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 04:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 29 2012 03:55 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:
Secondly, I wasn't calling you or any of the people on this forum braindead. I was calling parts of the american electorate braindead, specifically those that reject all government intervention while at the same time profiting from it most of their lives, yet failing to reckognize that fact. These people read 'tax increase' and go beserk, without even realizing what it means for their own personal circumstances. Conservatives vote for what is good for the Country, not for our 'own personal circumstances'. That's how Liberals vote. It's why Republicans are always portrayed by Democrats as saying no to everything. People who want free stuff from the government vote for tax and spend Democrats because it's in the interest of 'their own personal circumstances' because the taxes are paid by others, but the spending is coming to them. Yeah. Voting tax increases because they help your own personal circumstances. Right. More like voting for others to pay for you to get stuff is more like it. It's not even just about ACA, it's why people vote Democrat in this country. That's a gross exaggeration. Many wealthy Republicans vote for lower taxes for their own personal benefits. Many wealthy Democrats vote for higher taxes for the good of the country. Surely you can put together a better argument than "all Democrats are free-riders." Nah, Democrats vote for higher taxes to force others to pay more. Nothing is stopping wealthy Democrats from paying additional amounts of money. However, they don't. In fact, Republicans, at least by example of public tax returns of politicians, are much more charitable than Democrats. Joe Biden and Al Gore gave barely anything to charity, while George Bush and Mitt Romney have given substantially. Voting for tax increases is nothing more than voting to force OTHERS to pay more. Conservatives have shown to be very willing to pay more themselves, since they give to church, charities, etc, but they realize it's bad for the country to impose higher taxes.
Asking for a tax hike on yourself and others is a very reasonable public policy debate in a democracy. Asking people to 'donate' more to the government is not as no one does this - not democrats and not republicans. Do Republicans take every deduction they are entitled to, even deductions for charitable donations? Of course they do.
|
On June 29 2012 04:10 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 04:08 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 04:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 29 2012 03:55 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:
Secondly, I wasn't calling you or any of the people on this forum braindead. I was calling parts of the american electorate braindead, specifically those that reject all government intervention while at the same time profiting from it most of their lives, yet failing to reckognize that fact. These people read 'tax increase' and go beserk, without even realizing what it means for their own personal circumstances. Conservatives vote for what is good for the Country, not for our 'own personal circumstances'. That's how Liberals vote. It's why Republicans are always portrayed by Democrats as saying no to everything. People who want free stuff from the government vote for tax and spend Democrats because it's in the interest of 'their own personal circumstances' because the taxes are paid by others, but the spending is coming to them. Yeah. Voting tax increases because they help your own personal circumstances. Right. More like voting for others to pay for you to get stuff is more like it. It's not even just about ACA, it's why people vote Democrat in this country. That's a gross exaggeration. Many wealthy Republicans vote for lower taxes for their own personal benefits. Many wealthy Democrats vote for higher taxes for the good of the country. Surely you can put together a better argument than "all Democrats are free-riders." Nah, Democrats vote for higher taxes to force others to pay more. Nothing is stopping wealthy Democrats from paying additional amounts of money. However, they don't. In fact, Republicans, at least by example of public tax returns of politicians, are much more charitable than Democrats. Joe Biden and Al Gore gave barely anything to charity, while George Bush and Mitt Romney have given substantially. Voting for tax increases is nothing more than voting to force OTHERS to pay more. Conservatives have shown to be very willing to pay more themselves, since they give to church, charities, etc, but they realize it's bad for the country to impose higher taxes. you are highly misinformed, too much fox news maybe?
Well, let's see. I see Liberals bitching about having to pay so much for college and their student loans not being forgiven. What is this ? Oh, they want something and they want someone else to pay for it. They will certainly vote Democrat because Republicans are cold-hearted and don't think they should go to college.
I see Liberals protesting various Union issues across the country. They want higher wages, more benefits, less hours, whatever. They want something and they want someone else to pay for it. They will also vote Democrat because Republicans are evil, Scott Walker supporters, and hate the 'American Worker'.
I see Liberals groups of all kinds wanting something from the government. They want something and they want someone else to pay for it. They all vote Democrat because Republican are the 'Party of No'.
These are the groups I see and the politicians who stand in support of their wants, are the Democrats. These people vote for Democrats, and in turn, Democrats give them things and raise taxes to pay for it. Who pays these taxes ? A minority of the population.
A majority forcing the minority to pay for a bunch of things for the majority is not a wise country. It's certainly not the basis upon which this country was founded. Does the word 'Limited' mean anything anymore ?
edit:
To contrast, the Conservative mantra can pretty much be summed up as: "Government, leave me the fuck alone."
|
On June 29 2012 04:08 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 03:55 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:
Secondly, I wasn't calling you or any of the people on this forum braindead. I was calling parts of the american electorate braindead, specifically those that reject all government intervention while at the same time profiting from it most of their lives, yet failing to reckognize that fact. These people read 'tax increase' and go beserk, without even realizing what it means for their own personal circumstances. Conservatives vote for what is good for the Country, not for our 'own personal circumstances'. That's how Liberals vote. It's why Republicans are always portrayed by Democrats as saying no to everything. People who want free stuff from the government vote for tax and spend Democrats because it's in the interest of 'their own personal circumstances' because the taxes are paid by others, but the spending is coming to them. Yeah. Voting tax increases because they help your own personal circumstances. Right. More like voting for others to pay for you to get stuff is more like it. It's not even just about ACA, it's why people vote Democrat in this country. What a load of BS this is. Like there aren't millions of Republicans that don't vote on single issues, like gay marriage, or abortion, or gun control etc. Some people vote for the good of a country, some people vote for themselves. It's a bi-partisan characteristic that's inevitable in a democracy. I can guarantee, all the billionaires that are financing the Romney campaign right now could give two shits about their country, and their primary motivation is getting a massive tax break they might be able to hoard to themselves.
It's interesting that you look at the "Billionares" that are financing romney when Obama is the #1 benefactor of Wall street donations in history. The Obama campaign was looking to raise over a billion for this election (not going to happen anymore) but you won't hear that comparison in the news.
|
On June 29 2012 04:17 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 04:12 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 04:08 Defacer wrote:On June 29 2012 03:55 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:
Secondly, I wasn't calling you or any of the people on this forum braindead. I was calling parts of the american electorate braindead, specifically those that reject all government intervention while at the same time profiting from it most of their lives, yet failing to reckognize that fact. These people read 'tax increase' and go beserk, without even realizing what it means for their own personal circumstances. Conservatives vote for what is good for the Country, not for our 'own personal circumstances'. That's how Liberals vote. It's why Republicans are always portrayed by Democrats as saying no to everything. People who want free stuff from the government vote for tax and spend Democrats because it's in the interest of 'their own personal circumstances' because the taxes are paid by others, but the spending is coming to them. Yeah. Voting tax increases because they help your own personal circumstances. Right. More like voting for others to pay for you to get stuff is more like it. It's not even just about ACA, it's why people vote Democrat in this country. What a load of BS this is. Like there aren't millions of Republicans that don't vote on single issues, like gay marriage, or abortion, or gun control etc. Some people vote for the good of a country, some people vote for themselves. It's a bi-partisan characteristic that's inevitable in a democracy. I can guarantee, all the billionaires that are financing the Romney campaign right now could give two shits about their country, and their primary motivation is getting a massive tax break they might be able to hoard to themselves. Yeah, that totally makes sense. They give millions to politicians so they don't have to pay higher taxes. Of course, the amounts they give to these politicians exceeds the additional amount they would pay in taxes. Makes total sense. They can ask for other rewards from the politician, you know.
Yes, I know this very well. Which is one BIG reason why I want a limited Federal Government. If we reduce the ability of the Federal Government to spend, we limit corruption of our political process. Higher taxes means politicians are more powerful and more able to give more money to their buddies.
|
On June 29 2012 04:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 04:16 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2012 04:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On June 29 2012 04:09 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 03:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I have a really honest but curious question to ask to Republican TL'ers here: You are pissed at Roberts today but not yesterday on his stance on Citnzens United which is the poster boy of big government telling a State what it can and cannot do. Hypocrisy no? I'm not so much pissed at Roberts, but I do disagree with him. I thought the ruling was a bit bizzare, it was obviously a question of how to interpret the commerce clause. To side step that by declairing the individual mandate a tax is ignoring the entire issue. And wasn't Citizens United about limiting political contributions to candidates from non-profit organizations and corporations? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. On June 29 2012 03:54 Doublemint wrote:On June 29 2012 03:47 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 03:39 farvacola wrote:On June 29 2012 03:35 TheToast wrote:On June 29 2012 03:30 MaYuu wrote:On June 29 2012 03:21 TheToast wrote:
[quote]
So because it's the 21st century I have to allow my government to tell me I have to buy a product? That makes no sense.
Americans know our healthcare system is broken, we know costs are out of control. I personally just don't think having the federal government make healthcare insurance manditory is the proper solution. You can affect costs without infringing on personal liberty. To me it's kind of absurd to see it as a product, it's more like a service everyone should be eligable to. Even if you don't wanna pay for it right now, there will be some time when you'll be happy you did, and you'll be greatfull that everyone paid all this time so you and everyone else could get good care. Don't you agree that health care should be about helping people first hand, and getting a profit second hand? But the law doesn't preclude insurance companies from making a profit. It doesn't stop big healthcare companies from making a profit. All that changed is that the Federal government is now mandating that I carry insurance or I will be fined. This isn't a nationalization, it's coersion. Whether it's a product or service, I'm still being forced into buying it. Whether I will or will not be greatful in the future is irrelevant to my ability to make a decision in the present. This is a clear violation of my freedom to choose. While it doesn't preclude profit-making per se, the act itself...... Prevents insurance companies from denying customers for pre-existing conditions. Allows young adults to stay on their parent's insurance until age 26. Limits age-rating, or charging premiums several times higher for older customers. Eliminates lifetime insurance caps and restricts annual limits. Restricts how much insurance companies can spend on non-medical costs (overhead). Mandates that everyone acquire health insurance by 2014 or face a tax, offering subsidies or Medicaid for those who can't afford it. In other words, any wiggle room insurance companies previously had in terms of squeezing out dollar signs has been reduced significantly. Which will just raise insurance premiums for everyone across the board and insurance companies will keep making money. On June 29 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:On June 29 2012 03:35 TheToast wrote:
But the law doesn't preclude insurance companies from making a profit. It doesn't stop big healthcare companies from making a profit. All that changed is that the Federal government is now mandating that I carry insurance or I will be fined. This isn't a nationalization, it's coersion.
Whether it's a product or service, I'm still being forced into buying it. Whether I will or will not be greatful in the future is irrelevant to my ability to make a decision in the present. This is a clear violation of my freedom to choose.
I don't get this objection. Aren't you also forced to pay for streetlights? Highways? Social security? Aren't those taxes also a clear violation of your freedom to choose? It seems to me like a convenient excuse to object to programs you personally don't want to see implemented. There's a clear difference between saying one needs to pay a small percentage of their income to the state to run basic government services and mandating that one has to buy a specific product. The other issue is I still don't think it's constitutional. Bypassing the commerce clause by calling the individual mandate a "tax" is bizzare if not outright stupid. What needs to happen to convince you then? Isn't the Supreme Court the "supreme" Court in your country which is based ( one might say very intelligently so) on checks and balances? Man up and don't be a sore loser... Personal responsibility all the way, even if one is on the losing side of a legal argument - no? So, because the Supreme Court decided one way I can't disagree with it? I would point out there were four justices in disagreement with the majority ruling. So their opinion just doesn't count? If four highly intelligent, highly educated legal minds are arguing against the ruling, there is at obviously a legitimate argument to be made against the law. I would say you're being a sore winner with the attitude that all dissenting opinions are now invalid. That's rediculous. The law may have been ruled constitutional by a plurality of justices, but I reserve my right to agree with Justice Kennedy and the other opposing Justices. If you don't like it, well that's too bad. But the SCOTUS ruling struck down a STATE law. What in the world are you talking about? Citizen's United struck down parts McCain-Feingold, which is a federal law. I'm talking about the ruling yesterday: Show nested quote +
The Supreme Court has struck down a Montana ban on corporate political money, ruling 5 to 4 that the controversial 2010 Citizens United ruling applies to state and local elections.
The court broke in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock along the same lines as in the original Citizens United case, when the court ruled that corporate money is speech and thus corporations can spend unlimited amounts on elections.
“The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law,” the majority wrote. “There can be no serious doubt that it does.”
No arguments were heard; it was a summary reversal.
Oh, ok. That case was a logical extension of Citizen's United and a very easy decision for the Court. States can no more violate the bill of rights than the federal government can. If a state passes a law that violates these rights, then it should be struck down. I don't see where the hypocrisy comes into play. Republicans haven't adopted a per se "the feds should never interfere with the affairs of the states" position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
