|
|
On August 27 2012 08:42 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 08:29 SayGen wrote:On August 27 2012 07:09 darthfoley wrote:On August 26 2012 00:32 SayGen wrote:
I refuse to vote for Obama cause he lied, like the 2 presidnets before him.
Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
Bush: "Iraq has WOMD"
Obama: "I will not raise taxes"
I can't vote for Romney cause he sort of lied to about what exactly he knew about Bain Capitol.
He did alot of dodging.
And Obama just screwed me with a 250-500$ tax increase every year-- the largest tax increase ever.
Obamacare- The first time in American history the goverment can force you to buy a product.
Scary times.
Shame one of them will win.
America, the country i've served 5+ years of military duty is on a massive decline.
Wish we had Hermain Cain. Herman Cain? lol So much for this thread being closly moderated, when people can troll your posts and not add anything to the conversation. *Golf clap* Hermain Cain would of been a great leader. 1) He isn't a real politican. 2) He had great ideas. 999, lower taxes for EVERYONE, less government red tape, Working with the EPA to get them to help business find alternative solutions to help him them into complicance and protect our water and air. 3) He has expereince being a 'Leader'. 4) Unlike Obama,Romney,Clinton,Bush He never said a falsehood. (refering to his political works, obv everyone has lied at some point) Are you fucking nuts? Herman Cain would have had less experience or knowledge of policy than Palin. He was a joke candidate, like Trump. The only reason he was in the primary was to market himself and get a bump in speaking fees. Sheesh. Even Herman Cain knew he wasn't qualified to be president.
Well what experience do you need to be president. Obama proved you don't need much.
The standards for the presidency have been on decline- just like the rest of my country.
Probably not a good idea to point out the lack of experience of one Candidate when the current seated president isn't any better (argueably worse as he never held a real job).
|
On August 27 2012 08:43 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 08:34 SayGen wrote:On August 27 2012 03:12 Gahlo wrote:On August 26 2012 00:32 SayGen wrote:
I refuse to vote for Obama cause he lied, like the 2 presidnets before him.
Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
Bush: "Iraq has WOMD"
Obama: "I will not raise taxes"
I can't vote for Romney cause he sort of lied to about what exactly he knew about Bain Capitol.
He did alot of dodging.
And Obama just screwed me with a 250-500$ tax increase every year-- the largest tax increase ever.
Obamacare- The first time in American history the goverment can force you to buy a product.
Scary times.
Shame one of them will win.
America, the country i've served 5+ years of military duty is on a massive decline.
Wish we had Hermain Cain. I don't know about you, but I'm forced to buy car insurance. The only way that Obamacare forces you to pay more is if you don't have health insurance and are buying it now, or are making a conscious choice not to. Only the second is a tax, and I honestly fail to empathize on it. I think, with politicians especially, we need to remember what a lie is. A lie is when you say something that is untrue, and you know it or when you say something and have absolutely no intention of backing it up. 1) No one MAKES you buy a car. 2) If you breathe you have to have Health Insurance. 3) Health Insurance in America start rising THE DAY AFTER HE PASSED OBAMACARE when he said it would lower it for everyone. I do not vote for liars. I'm just sick of being lied to by politicans. Obama lied, period. I guarantee you Cain would start lying and backtracking the moment he realizes the shit he's in after getting elected.
I can't see the future, based on the last 4 presidents I'd say your stastically right. But none of us are Allseeing.
|
On August 27 2012 08:57 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 08:42 Defacer wrote:On August 27 2012 08:29 SayGen wrote:On August 27 2012 07:09 darthfoley wrote:On August 26 2012 00:32 SayGen wrote:
I refuse to vote for Obama cause he lied, like the 2 presidnets before him.
Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
Bush: "Iraq has WOMD"
Obama: "I will not raise taxes"
I can't vote for Romney cause he sort of lied to about what exactly he knew about Bain Capitol.
He did alot of dodging.
And Obama just screwed me with a 250-500$ tax increase every year-- the largest tax increase ever.
Obamacare- The first time in American history the goverment can force you to buy a product.
Scary times.
Shame one of them will win.
America, the country i've served 5+ years of military duty is on a massive decline.
Wish we had Hermain Cain. Herman Cain? lol So much for this thread being closly moderated, when people can troll your posts and not add anything to the conversation. *Golf clap* Hermain Cain would of been a great leader. 1) He isn't a real politican. 2) He had great ideas. 999, lower taxes for EVERYONE, less government red tape, Working with the EPA to get them to help business find alternative solutions to help him them into complicance and protect our water and air. 3) He has expereince being a 'Leader'. 4) Unlike Obama,Romney,Clinton,Bush He never said a falsehood. (refering to his political works, obv everyone has lied at some point) Are you fucking nuts? Herman Cain would have had less experience or knowledge of policy than Palin. He was a joke candidate, like Trump. The only reason he was in the primary was to market himself and get a bump in speaking fees. Sheesh. Even Herman Cain knew he wasn't qualified to be president.
Well what experience do you need to be president. Obama proved you don't need much.The standards for the presidency have been on decline- just like the rest of my country. Probably not a good idea to point out the lack of experience of one Candidate when the current seated president isn't any better (argueably worse as he never held a real job).
Hah! Yeah, I think that democrats have basically forfeited the right to object to anyone's qualifications for president by nominating Obama.
With regards to Obama specifically, his inexperience shows most in his absolute failure to spearhead any kind of compromised legislation with republicans.
|
On August 27 2012 08:58 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 08:43 Adila wrote:On August 27 2012 08:34 SayGen wrote:On August 27 2012 03:12 Gahlo wrote:On August 26 2012 00:32 SayGen wrote:
I refuse to vote for Obama cause he lied, like the 2 presidnets before him.
Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
Bush: "Iraq has WOMD"
Obama: "I will not raise taxes"
I can't vote for Romney cause he sort of lied to about what exactly he knew about Bain Capitol.
He did alot of dodging.
And Obama just screwed me with a 250-500$ tax increase every year-- the largest tax increase ever.
Obamacare- The first time in American history the goverment can force you to buy a product.
Scary times.
Shame one of them will win.
America, the country i've served 5+ years of military duty is on a massive decline.
Wish we had Hermain Cain. I don't know about you, but I'm forced to buy car insurance. The only way that Obamacare forces you to pay more is if you don't have health insurance and are buying it now, or are making a conscious choice not to. Only the second is a tax, and I honestly fail to empathize on it. I think, with politicians especially, we need to remember what a lie is. A lie is when you say something that is untrue, and you know it or when you say something and have absolutely no intention of backing it up. 1) No one MAKES you buy a car. 2) If you breathe you have to have Health Insurance. 3) Health Insurance in America start rising THE DAY AFTER HE PASSED OBAMACARE when he said it would lower it for everyone. I do not vote for liars. I'm just sick of being lied to by politicans. Obama lied, period. I guarantee you Cain would start lying and backtracking the moment he realizes the shit he's in after getting elected. I can't see the future, based on the last 4 presidents I'd say your stastically right. But none of us are Allseeing.
It's not about the person, it's how politics works. Also there's a big difference between premeditated lies and promises not kept. None of us is allseeing and no president is omnipresent, a lot of things will happen that are out of their control. I'm not saying the first don't happens but some of the things that people hold against presidents (from all sides) are pretty ridiculous.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On August 27 2012 08:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 07:54 Souma wrote:On August 27 2012 07:25 xDaunt wrote:
All of you are missing the critical difference between what the states can make you do and what the Feds can make you do. Unless behavior falls within the enumerated powers of Congress (which are limited), the Feds cannot unconditionally force you to do or not do something. In contrast, the states do have this power.
Now, a number of you are talking about the Feds using the tax power to force individual action. This is not the same because the individual has a choice to pay the tax instead of doing what the Feds want. Moreover, the Feds cannot make the tax do high as to effectively not give thr individual a choice. If you reread the Obamacare Supreme Court decision, you'll see that this point is expressly made. Do you REALLY want to quote the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare? If so, let's see: By a vote of 5–4, The Court upheld the individual mandate component of the ACA as a valid exercise of Congress' power to "lay and collect taxes" (Art. I, §8, cl. 1).[30] Roberts, writing for the Court, explained:[31]
The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness. On August 27 2012 07:28 xDaunt wrote:
Christ, don't they teach kids anything about the Constituion anymore? There are some critical gaps in knowledge here. This is all very basic stuff. I apologize for five Supreme Court justices failing Constitutional Law. Citing the rest of the opinion helps. Show nested quote +Congress’s ability to use its taxing power to influence conduct is not without limits. A few of our cases policed these limits aggressively, invalidating punitive exactions obviously designed to regulate behavior otherwise regarded at the time as beyond federal authority. See, e.g., United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1 (1936); Drexel Furniture, 259 U. S. 20. More often and more recently we have declined to closely examine the regulatory motive or effect of revenue-raising measures. See Kahriger, 345 U. S., at 27–31 (collecting cases). We have nonetheless maintained that “ ‘there comes a time in the extension of the penalizing features of the so-called tax when it loses its character as such and becomes a mere penalty with the characteristics of regulation and punishment.’” Kurth Ranch, 511 U. S., at 779 (quoting Drexel Furniture, supra, at 38).
We have already explained that the shared responsibility payment’s practical characteristics pass muster as a tax under our narrowest interpretations of the taxing power. Supra, at 35–36. Because the tax at hand is within even those strict limits, we need not here decide the precise point at which an exaction becomes so punitive that the taxing power does not authorize it. It remains true, however, that the “ ‘power to tax is not the power to destroy while this Court sits.’ ” Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Texas Co., 336 U. S. 342, 364 (1949) (quoting Panhandle Oil Co. v. Mississippi ex rel. Knox, 277 U. S. 218, 223 (1928) (Holmes, J., dissenting)).
Okay, so I still don't understand how this at all makes Obamacare unconstitutional. If I'm not mistaken that has been your stance since this debate started, and you're quoting things that aren't backing your stance.
In full disclosure, you're arguing with a lawyer. I know what I am talking about. You don't.
Oh man, I really cannot believe you went there. Your already terrible arguments are becoming even more childish. If only it was you up there arguing before the Supreme Court - maybe you could have convinced them that Obamacare was unconstitutional.
|
On August 27 2012 09:05 gruff wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 08:58 SayGen wrote:On August 27 2012 08:43 Adila wrote:On August 27 2012 08:34 SayGen wrote:On August 27 2012 03:12 Gahlo wrote:On August 26 2012 00:32 SayGen wrote:
I refuse to vote for Obama cause he lied, like the 2 presidnets before him.
Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
Bush: "Iraq has WOMD"
Obama: "I will not raise taxes"
I can't vote for Romney cause he sort of lied to about what exactly he knew about Bain Capitol.
He did alot of dodging.
And Obama just screwed me with a 250-500$ tax increase every year-- the largest tax increase ever.
Obamacare- The first time in American history the goverment can force you to buy a product.
Scary times.
Shame one of them will win.
America, the country i've served 5+ years of military duty is on a massive decline.
Wish we had Hermain Cain. I don't know about you, but I'm forced to buy car insurance. The only way that Obamacare forces you to pay more is if you don't have health insurance and are buying it now, or are making a conscious choice not to. Only the second is a tax, and I honestly fail to empathize on it. I think, with politicians especially, we need to remember what a lie is. A lie is when you say something that is untrue, and you know it or when you say something and have absolutely no intention of backing it up. 1) No one MAKES you buy a car. 2) If you breathe you have to have Health Insurance. 3) Health Insurance in America start rising THE DAY AFTER HE PASSED OBAMACARE when he said it would lower it for everyone. I do not vote for liars. I'm just sick of being lied to by politicans. Obama lied, period. I guarantee you Cain would start lying and backtracking the moment he realizes the shit he's in after getting elected. I can't see the future, based on the last 4 presidents I'd say your stastically right. But none of us are Allseeing. It's not about the person, it's how politics works. Also there's a big difference between premeditated lies and promises not kept. None of us is allseeing and no president is omnipresent, a lot of things will happen that are out of their control. I'm not saying the first don't happens but some of the things that people hold against presidents (from all sides) are pretty ridiculous.
Don't make claims you can't follow through on.
All he had to say to keep him out of trouble is:
1) I will not Raise your taxes directly via income taxes.
2) I believe by adding more consumers into the healthcare system that prices should fall.
All he had to say, and I wouldn't be able to call him a liar.
But that's not what he claimed.
He lied 2 times. Period.
When are Americans gonna hold their politicans accountable for what comes out of their mouths. REGUARDLESS of side, Rep lie too, and I refuse to vote for them when they do.
|
On August 27 2012 09:09 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 08:26 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2012 07:54 Souma wrote:On August 27 2012 07:25 xDaunt wrote:
All of you are missing the critical difference between what the states can make you do and what the Feds can make you do. Unless behavior falls within the enumerated powers of Congress (which are limited), the Feds cannot unconditionally force you to do or not do something. In contrast, the states do have this power.
Now, a number of you are talking about the Feds using the tax power to force individual action. This is not the same because the individual has a choice to pay the tax instead of doing what the Feds want. Moreover, the Feds cannot make the tax do high as to effectively not give thr individual a choice. If you reread the Obamacare Supreme Court decision, you'll see that this point is expressly made. Do you REALLY want to quote the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare? If so, let's see: By a vote of 5–4, The Court upheld the individual mandate component of the ACA as a valid exercise of Congress' power to "lay and collect taxes" (Art. I, §8, cl. 1).[30] Roberts, writing for the Court, explained:[31]
The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness. On August 27 2012 07:28 xDaunt wrote:
Christ, don't they teach kids anything about the Constituion anymore? There are some critical gaps in knowledge here. This is all very basic stuff. I apologize for five Supreme Court justices failing Constitutional Law. Citing the rest of the opinion helps. Congress’s ability to use its taxing power to influence conduct is not without limits. A few of our cases policed these limits aggressively, invalidating punitive exactions obviously designed to regulate behavior otherwise regarded at the time as beyond federal authority. See, e.g., United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1 (1936); Drexel Furniture, 259 U. S. 20. More often and more recently we have declined to closely examine the regulatory motive or effect of revenue-raising measures. See Kahriger, 345 U. S., at 27–31 (collecting cases). We have nonetheless maintained that “ ‘there comes a time in the extension of the penalizing features of the so-called tax when it loses its character as such and becomes a mere penalty with the characteristics of regulation and punishment.’” Kurth Ranch, 511 U. S., at 779 (quoting Drexel Furniture, supra, at 38).
We have already explained that the shared responsibility payment’s practical characteristics pass muster as a tax under our narrowest interpretations of the taxing power. Supra, at 35–36. Because the tax at hand is within even those strict limits, we need not here decide the precise point at which an exaction becomes so punitive that the taxing power does not authorize it. It remains true, however, that the “ ‘power to tax is not the power to destroy while this Court sits.’ ” Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Texas Co., 336 U. S. 342, 364 (1949) (quoting Panhandle Oil Co. v. Mississippi ex rel. Knox, 277 U. S. 218, 223 (1928) (Holmes, J., dissenting)). Okay, so I still don't understand how this at all makes Obamacare unconstitutional. If I'm not mistaken that has been your stance since this debate started, and you're quoting things that aren't backing your stance.
Well, it just so happens that you are mistaken. Go re-read the previous two pages. I merely said that I have a problem with the federal government coercing people into buying things whereas I don't have that problem with the states. I then explained that states clearly have the power to do so whereas the federal government is on shakier ground.
Show nested quote +In full disclosure, you're arguing with a lawyer. I know what I am talking about. You don't. Oh man, I really cannot believe you went there. Your already terrible arguments are becoming even more childish. If only it was you up there arguing before the Supreme Court - maybe you could have convinced them that Obamacare was unconstitutional.
My "arguments" only seem terrible to you because you really don't understand the issues or what I am talking about. My last post was the cue for you to take the time to educate yourself. Perhaps I wasn't explicit enough.
User was warned for this post
|
On August 27 2012 09:11 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 09:05 gruff wrote:On August 27 2012 08:58 SayGen wrote:On August 27 2012 08:43 Adila wrote:On August 27 2012 08:34 SayGen wrote:On August 27 2012 03:12 Gahlo wrote:On August 26 2012 00:32 SayGen wrote:
I refuse to vote for Obama cause he lied, like the 2 presidnets before him.
Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
Bush: "Iraq has WOMD"
Obama: "I will not raise taxes"
I can't vote for Romney cause he sort of lied to about what exactly he knew about Bain Capitol.
He did alot of dodging.
And Obama just screwed me with a 250-500$ tax increase every year-- the largest tax increase ever.
Obamacare- The first time in American history the goverment can force you to buy a product.
Scary times.
Shame one of them will win.
America, the country i've served 5+ years of military duty is on a massive decline.
Wish we had Hermain Cain. I don't know about you, but I'm forced to buy car insurance. The only way that Obamacare forces you to pay more is if you don't have health insurance and are buying it now, or are making a conscious choice not to. Only the second is a tax, and I honestly fail to empathize on it. I think, with politicians especially, we need to remember what a lie is. A lie is when you say something that is untrue, and you know it or when you say something and have absolutely no intention of backing it up. 1) No one MAKES you buy a car. 2) If you breathe you have to have Health Insurance. 3) Health Insurance in America start rising THE DAY AFTER HE PASSED OBAMACARE when he said it would lower it for everyone. I do not vote for liars. I'm just sick of being lied to by politicans. Obama lied, period. I guarantee you Cain would start lying and backtracking the moment he realizes the shit he's in after getting elected. I can't see the future, based on the last 4 presidents I'd say your stastically right. But none of us are Allseeing. It's not about the person, it's how politics works. Also there's a big difference between premeditated lies and promises not kept. None of us is allseeing and no president is omnipresent, a lot of things will happen that are out of their control. I'm not saying the first don't happens but some of the things that people hold against presidents (from all sides) are pretty ridiculous. Don't make claims you can't follow through on. All he had to say to keep him out of trouble is: 1) I will not Raise your taxes directly via income taxes. 2) I believe by adding more consumers into the healthcare system that prices should fall. All he had to say, and I wouldn't be able to call him a liar. But that's not what he claimed. He lied 2 times. Period. When are Americans gonna hold their politicans accountable for what comes out of their mouths. REGUARDLESS of side, Rep lie too, and I refuse to vote for them when they do.
If you refuse to vote for any politician who has told lies or half-truths, then sorry, but there are no candidates in the entire USA that you can vote for.
|
Something that I found funny and not at all relevant:
"I don't know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We've had an earthquake; we've had a hurricane. He said, 'Are you going to start listening to me here?'"
Michelle Bachmann, about a year and a half ago, talking about an earthquake on the East Coast.
Yet...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-25/romney-turns-to-conventions-amid-campaign-distractions.html
Edit: On topic, I think that any candidate ought to qualify for election and respect so long as they have a feasible, or tangible plan that takes into account current events, and their character is not corrupt(never committed a felony that would call into question their judgement of the law, etc.). Herman Cain was terribad because of his knowledge, or lack of it, of current events and the abysmal failure to explain 9-9-9, not his scandals.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On August 27 2012 09:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 09:09 Souma wrote:On August 27 2012 08:26 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2012 07:54 Souma wrote:On August 27 2012 07:25 xDaunt wrote:
All of you are missing the critical difference between what the states can make you do and what the Feds can make you do. Unless behavior falls within the enumerated powers of Congress (which are limited), the Feds cannot unconditionally force you to do or not do something. In contrast, the states do have this power.
Now, a number of you are talking about the Feds using the tax power to force individual action. This is not the same because the individual has a choice to pay the tax instead of doing what the Feds want. Moreover, the Feds cannot make the tax do high as to effectively not give thr individual a choice. If you reread the Obamacare Supreme Court decision, you'll see that this point is expressly made. Do you REALLY want to quote the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare? If so, let's see: By a vote of 5–4, The Court upheld the individual mandate component of the ACA as a valid exercise of Congress' power to "lay and collect taxes" (Art. I, §8, cl. 1).[30] Roberts, writing for the Court, explained:[31]
The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness. On August 27 2012 07:28 xDaunt wrote:
Christ, don't they teach kids anything about the Constituion anymore? There are some critical gaps in knowledge here. This is all very basic stuff. I apologize for five Supreme Court justices failing Constitutional Law. Citing the rest of the opinion helps. Congress’s ability to use its taxing power to influence conduct is not without limits. A few of our cases policed these limits aggressively, invalidating punitive exactions obviously designed to regulate behavior otherwise regarded at the time as beyond federal authority. See, e.g., United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1 (1936); Drexel Furniture, 259 U. S. 20. More often and more recently we have declined to closely examine the regulatory motive or effect of revenue-raising measures. See Kahriger, 345 U. S., at 27–31 (collecting cases). We have nonetheless maintained that “ ‘there comes a time in the extension of the penalizing features of the so-called tax when it loses its character as such and becomes a mere penalty with the characteristics of regulation and punishment.’” Kurth Ranch, 511 U. S., at 779 (quoting Drexel Furniture, supra, at 38).
We have already explained that the shared responsibility payment’s practical characteristics pass muster as a tax under our narrowest interpretations of the taxing power. Supra, at 35–36. Because the tax at hand is within even those strict limits, we need not here decide the precise point at which an exaction becomes so punitive that the taxing power does not authorize it. It remains true, however, that the “ ‘power to tax is not the power to destroy while this Court sits.’ ” Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Texas Co., 336 U. S. 342, 364 (1949) (quoting Panhandle Oil Co. v. Mississippi ex rel. Knox, 277 U. S. 218, 223 (1928) (Holmes, J., dissenting)). Okay, so I still don't understand how this at all makes Obamacare unconstitutional. If I'm not mistaken that has been your stance since this debate started, and you're quoting things that aren't backing your stance. Well, it just so happens that you are mistaken. Go re-read the last page. I merely said that I have a problem with the federal government coercing people into buying things whereas I don't have that problem with the states. I then explained that states clearly have the power to do so whereas the federal government is on shakier ground. Show nested quote +In full disclosure, you're arguing with a lawyer. I know what I am talking about. You don't. Oh man, I really cannot believe you went there. Your already terrible arguments are becoming even more childish. If only it was you up there arguing before the Supreme Court - maybe you could have convinced them that Obamacare was unconstitutional. My "arguments" only seem terrible to you because you really don't understand the issues or what I am talking about. My last post was the cue for you to take the time to educate yourself. Perhaps I wasn't explicit enough.
Let me get this straight. People are arguing about Obamacare and its constitutionality, you jump into the debate and try to argue about something else while tying two and two together (in this case, the federal government should not be able to force people to buy things as outlined in the constitution on states' rights = Obamacare is unconstitutional). And now you're taking a step back and saying, "Yeah, you misunderstand my argument." Gee, I wonder why. Not that I see how that changes the debate: the federal government is still allowed to penalize people for not buying health insurance if they pass it off as a tax.
The only person here who needs to be educated is the one claiming anyone without health insurance is a moron. You should be banned and ridiculed for that comment alone.
|
On August 27 2012 09:35 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 09:17 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2012 09:09 Souma wrote:On August 27 2012 08:26 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2012 07:54 Souma wrote:On August 27 2012 07:25 xDaunt wrote:
All of you are missing the critical difference between what the states can make you do and what the Feds can make you do. Unless behavior falls within the enumerated powers of Congress (which are limited), the Feds cannot unconditionally force you to do or not do something. In contrast, the states do have this power.
Now, a number of you are talking about the Feds using the tax power to force individual action. This is not the same because the individual has a choice to pay the tax instead of doing what the Feds want. Moreover, the Feds cannot make the tax do high as to effectively not give thr individual a choice. If you reread the Obamacare Supreme Court decision, you'll see that this point is expressly made. Do you REALLY want to quote the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare? If so, let's see: By a vote of 5–4, The Court upheld the individual mandate component of the ACA as a valid exercise of Congress' power to "lay and collect taxes" (Art. I, §8, cl. 1).[30] Roberts, writing for the Court, explained:[31]
The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness. On August 27 2012 07:28 xDaunt wrote:
Christ, don't they teach kids anything about the Constituion anymore? There are some critical gaps in knowledge here. This is all very basic stuff. I apologize for five Supreme Court justices failing Constitutional Law. Citing the rest of the opinion helps. Congress’s ability to use its taxing power to influence conduct is not without limits. A few of our cases policed these limits aggressively, invalidating punitive exactions obviously designed to regulate behavior otherwise regarded at the time as beyond federal authority. See, e.g., United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1 (1936); Drexel Furniture, 259 U. S. 20. More often and more recently we have declined to closely examine the regulatory motive or effect of revenue-raising measures. See Kahriger, 345 U. S., at 27–31 (collecting cases). We have nonetheless maintained that “ ‘there comes a time in the extension of the penalizing features of the so-called tax when it loses its character as such and becomes a mere penalty with the characteristics of regulation and punishment.’” Kurth Ranch, 511 U. S., at 779 (quoting Drexel Furniture, supra, at 38).
We have already explained that the shared responsibility payment’s practical characteristics pass muster as a tax under our narrowest interpretations of the taxing power. Supra, at 35–36. Because the tax at hand is within even those strict limits, we need not here decide the precise point at which an exaction becomes so punitive that the taxing power does not authorize it. It remains true, however, that the “ ‘power to tax is not the power to destroy while this Court sits.’ ” Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Texas Co., 336 U. S. 342, 364 (1949) (quoting Panhandle Oil Co. v. Mississippi ex rel. Knox, 277 U. S. 218, 223 (1928) (Holmes, J., dissenting)). Okay, so I still don't understand how this at all makes Obamacare unconstitutional. If I'm not mistaken that has been your stance since this debate started, and you're quoting things that aren't backing your stance. Well, it just so happens that you are mistaken. Go re-read the last page. I merely said that I have a problem with the federal government coercing people into buying things whereas I don't have that problem with the states. I then explained that states clearly have the power to do so whereas the federal government is on shakier ground. In full disclosure, you're arguing with a lawyer. I know what I am talking about. You don't. Oh man, I really cannot believe you went there. Your already terrible arguments are becoming even more childish. If only it was you up there arguing before the Supreme Court - maybe you could have convinced them that Obamacare was unconstitutional. My "arguments" only seem terrible to you because you really don't understand the issues or what I am talking about. My last post was the cue for you to take the time to educate yourself. Perhaps I wasn't explicit enough. Let me get this straight. People are arguing about Obamacare and its constitutionality, you jump into the debate and try to argue about something else while tying two and two together (in this case, the federal government should not be able to force people to buy things as outlined in the constitution on states' rights = Obamacare is unconstitutional). And now you're taking a step back and saying, "Yeah, you misunderstand my argument." Gee, I wonder why. Not that I see how that changes the debate: th e federal government is still allowed to penalize people for not buying health insurance if they pass it off as a tax.
I was explicitly asked to explain what police powers are and what the difference is between what the feds and the states can do. So that's what I did. There was nothing argumentative about it. I just told it like it is. Then you decided to jump in without any provocation and argue that my recitation of the law is wrong. In so doing, you misrepresented a Supreme Court decision that you don't understand. Thereafter, you have insisted upon arguing the point with me even though there's nothing to argue. In fact, it's clear from the bolded sentence above that you still don't get it. Worst of all, you're actually trying to flame me while doing all of this.
The only person here who needs to be educated is the one claiming anyone without health insurance is a moron. You should be banned and ridiculed for that comment alone.
As Jdub pointed out, I made that comment in the context of whether people should be compelled to buy health insurance. Obviously, you can't buy something if you don't have the money to afford it.
|
On August 27 2012 09:17 JDub wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 09:11 SayGen wrote:On August 27 2012 09:05 gruff wrote:On August 27 2012 08:58 SayGen wrote:On August 27 2012 08:43 Adila wrote:On August 27 2012 08:34 SayGen wrote:On August 27 2012 03:12 Gahlo wrote:On August 26 2012 00:32 SayGen wrote:
I refuse to vote for Obama cause he lied, like the 2 presidnets before him.
Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
Bush: "Iraq has WOMD"
Obama: "I will not raise taxes"
I can't vote for Romney cause he sort of lied to about what exactly he knew about Bain Capitol.
He did alot of dodging.
And Obama just screwed me with a 250-500$ tax increase every year-- the largest tax increase ever.
Obamacare- The first time in American history the goverment can force you to buy a product.
Scary times.
Shame one of them will win.
America, the country i've served 5+ years of military duty is on a massive decline.
Wish we had Hermain Cain. I don't know about you, but I'm forced to buy car insurance. The only way that Obamacare forces you to pay more is if you don't have health insurance and are buying it now, or are making a conscious choice not to. Only the second is a tax, and I honestly fail to empathize on it. I think, with politicians especially, we need to remember what a lie is. A lie is when you say something that is untrue, and you know it or when you say something and have absolutely no intention of backing it up. 1) No one MAKES you buy a car. 2) If you breathe you have to have Health Insurance. 3) Health Insurance in America start rising THE DAY AFTER HE PASSED OBAMACARE when he said it would lower it for everyone. I do not vote for liars. I'm just sick of being lied to by politicans. Obama lied, period. I guarantee you Cain would start lying and backtracking the moment he realizes the shit he's in after getting elected. I can't see the future, based on the last 4 presidents I'd say your stastically right. But none of us are Allseeing. It's not about the person, it's how politics works. Also there's a big difference between premeditated lies and promises not kept. None of us is allseeing and no president is omnipresent, a lot of things will happen that are out of their control. I'm not saying the first don't happens but some of the things that people hold against presidents (from all sides) are pretty ridiculous. Don't make claims you can't follow through on. All he had to say to keep him out of trouble is: 1) I will not Raise your taxes directly via income taxes. 2) I believe by adding more consumers into the healthcare system that prices should fall. All he had to say, and I wouldn't be able to call him a liar. But that's not what he claimed. He lied 2 times. Period. When are Americans gonna hold their politicans accountable for what comes out of their mouths. REGUARDLESS of side, Rep lie too, and I refuse to vote for them when they do. If you refuse to vote for any politician who has told lies or half-truths, then sorry, but there are no candidates in the entire USA that you can vote for.
Hence why I advocate not voting for either. a no vote, is still a vote. Or if you want to be funny- Write in Ron Paul- lol.
Also had Hermain won the nomination we could of voted for him- hence why I referenced him earlier.
We need to make a change in American politics where it isn't ok to lie. Sad to say that an Honest politician is an oxymoron.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On August 27 2012 09:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 09:35 Souma wrote:On August 27 2012 09:17 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2012 09:09 Souma wrote:On August 27 2012 08:26 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2012 07:54 Souma wrote:On August 27 2012 07:25 xDaunt wrote:
All of you are missing the critical difference between what the states can make you do and what the Feds can make you do. Unless behavior falls within the enumerated powers of Congress (which are limited), the Feds cannot unconditionally force you to do or not do something. In contrast, the states do have this power.
Now, a number of you are talking about the Feds using the tax power to force individual action. This is not the same because the individual has a choice to pay the tax instead of doing what the Feds want. Moreover, the Feds cannot make the tax do high as to effectively not give thr individual a choice. If you reread the Obamacare Supreme Court decision, you'll see that this point is expressly made. Do you REALLY want to quote the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare? If so, let's see: By a vote of 5–4, The Court upheld the individual mandate component of the ACA as a valid exercise of Congress' power to "lay and collect taxes" (Art. I, §8, cl. 1).[30] Roberts, writing for the Court, explained:[31]
The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness. On August 27 2012 07:28 xDaunt wrote:
Christ, don't they teach kids anything about the Constituion anymore? There are some critical gaps in knowledge here. This is all very basic stuff. I apologize for five Supreme Court justices failing Constitutional Law. Citing the rest of the opinion helps. Congress’s ability to use its taxing power to influence conduct is not without limits. A few of our cases policed these limits aggressively, invalidating punitive exactions obviously designed to regulate behavior otherwise regarded at the time as beyond federal authority. See, e.g., United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1 (1936); Drexel Furniture, 259 U. S. 20. More often and more recently we have declined to closely examine the regulatory motive or effect of revenue-raising measures. See Kahriger, 345 U. S., at 27–31 (collecting cases). We have nonetheless maintained that “ ‘there comes a time in the extension of the penalizing features of the so-called tax when it loses its character as such and becomes a mere penalty with the characteristics of regulation and punishment.’” Kurth Ranch, 511 U. S., at 779 (quoting Drexel Furniture, supra, at 38).
We have already explained that the shared responsibility payment’s practical characteristics pass muster as a tax under our narrowest interpretations of the taxing power. Supra, at 35–36. Because the tax at hand is within even those strict limits, we need not here decide the precise point at which an exaction becomes so punitive that the taxing power does not authorize it. It remains true, however, that the “ ‘power to tax is not the power to destroy while this Court sits.’ ” Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Texas Co., 336 U. S. 342, 364 (1949) (quoting Panhandle Oil Co. v. Mississippi ex rel. Knox, 277 U. S. 218, 223 (1928) (Holmes, J., dissenting)). Okay, so I still don't understand how this at all makes Obamacare unconstitutional. If I'm not mistaken that has been your stance since this debate started, and you're quoting things that aren't backing your stance. Well, it just so happens that you are mistaken. Go re-read the last page. I merely said that I have a problem with the federal government coercing people into buying things whereas I don't have that problem with the states. I then explained that states clearly have the power to do so whereas the federal government is on shakier ground. In full disclosure, you're arguing with a lawyer. I know what I am talking about. You don't. Oh man, I really cannot believe you went there. Your already terrible arguments are becoming even more childish. If only it was you up there arguing before the Supreme Court - maybe you could have convinced them that Obamacare was unconstitutional. My "arguments" only seem terrible to you because you really don't understand the issues or what I am talking about. My last post was the cue for you to take the time to educate yourself. Perhaps I wasn't explicit enough. Let me get this straight. People are arguing about Obamacare and its constitutionality, you jump into the debate and try to argue about something else while tying two and two together (in this case, the federal government should not be able to force people to buy things as outlined in the constitution on states' rights = Obamacare is unconstitutional). And now you're taking a step back and saying, "Yeah, you misunderstand my argument." Gee, I wonder why. Not that I see how that changes the debate: th e federal government is still allowed to penalize people for not buying health insurance if they pass it off as a tax. I was explicitly asked to explain what police powers are and what the difference is between what the feds and the states can do. So that's what I did. There was nothing argumentative about it. I just told it like it is. Then you decided to jump in without any provocation and argue that my recitation of the law is wrong. In so doing, you misrepresented a Supreme Court decision that you don't understand. Thereafter, you have insisted upon arguing the point with me even though there's nothing to argue. In fact, it's clear from the bolded sentence above that you still don't get it. Worst of all, you're actually trying to flame me while doing all of this.
I am going to stop right here, because one: if everything is a misunderstanding then there's no point in dragging this on, and two: I am not going to play the blame game on who's being inflammatory and who isn't.
Show nested quote +
The only person here who needs to be educated is the one claiming anyone without health insurance is a moron. You should be banned and ridiculed for that comment alone.
As Jdub pointed out, I made that comment in the context of whether people should be compelled to buy health insurance. Obviously, you can't buy something if you don't have the money to afford it.
When you make a blanket inflammatory post you might want to elaborate. I'm sure a lawyer as smart as yourself should be aware of how to phrase things.
|
On August 27 2012 09:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 08:57 SayGen wrote:On August 27 2012 08:42 Defacer wrote:On August 27 2012 08:29 SayGen wrote:On August 27 2012 07:09 darthfoley wrote:On August 26 2012 00:32 SayGen wrote:
I refuse to vote for Obama cause he lied, like the 2 presidnets before him.
Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
Bush: "Iraq has WOMD"
Obama: "I will not raise taxes"
I can't vote for Romney cause he sort of lied to about what exactly he knew about Bain Capitol.
He did alot of dodging.
And Obama just screwed me with a 250-500$ tax increase every year-- the largest tax increase ever.
Obamacare- The first time in American history the goverment can force you to buy a product.
Scary times.
Shame one of them will win.
America, the country i've served 5+ years of military duty is on a massive decline.
Wish we had Hermain Cain. Herman Cain? lol So much for this thread being closly moderated, when people can troll your posts and not add anything to the conversation. *Golf clap* Hermain Cain would of been a great leader. 1) He isn't a real politican. 2) He had great ideas. 999, lower taxes for EVERYONE, less government red tape, Working with the EPA to get them to help business find alternative solutions to help him them into complicance and protect our water and air. 3) He has expereince being a 'Leader'. 4) Unlike Obama,Romney,Clinton,Bush He never said a falsehood. (refering to his political works, obv everyone has lied at some point) Are you fucking nuts? Herman Cain would have had less experience or knowledge of policy than Palin. He was a joke candidate, like Trump. The only reason he was in the primary was to market himself and get a bump in speaking fees. Sheesh. Even Herman Cain knew he wasn't qualified to be president.
Well what experience do you need to be president. Obama proved you don't need much.The standards for the presidency have been on decline- just like the rest of my country. Probably not a good idea to point out the lack of experience of one Candidate when the current seated president isn't any better (argueably worse as he never held a real job). Hah! Yeah, I think that democrats have basically forfeited the right to object to anyone's qualifications for president by nominating Obama. With regards to Obama specifically, his inexperience shows most in his absolute failure to spearhead any kind of compromised legislation with republicans.
Views are too polarizing from both parties, there is no compromise from EITHER side, only hatred
|
On August 27 2012 10:00 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 09:02 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2012 08:57 SayGen wrote:On August 27 2012 08:42 Defacer wrote:On August 27 2012 08:29 SayGen wrote:On August 27 2012 07:09 darthfoley wrote:On August 26 2012 00:32 SayGen wrote:
I refuse to vote for Obama cause he lied, like the 2 presidnets before him.
Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
Bush: "Iraq has WOMD"
Obama: "I will not raise taxes"
I can't vote for Romney cause he sort of lied to about what exactly he knew about Bain Capitol.
He did alot of dodging.
And Obama just screwed me with a 250-500$ tax increase every year-- the largest tax increase ever.
Obamacare- The first time in American history the goverment can force you to buy a product.
Scary times.
Shame one of them will win.
America, the country i've served 5+ years of military duty is on a massive decline.
Wish we had Hermain Cain. Herman Cain? lol So much for this thread being closly moderated, when people can troll your posts and not add anything to the conversation. *Golf clap* Hermain Cain would of been a great leader. 1) He isn't a real politican. 2) He had great ideas. 999, lower taxes for EVERYONE, less government red tape, Working with the EPA to get them to help business find alternative solutions to help him them into complicance and protect our water and air. 3) He has expereince being a 'Leader'. 4) Unlike Obama,Romney,Clinton,Bush He never said a falsehood. (refering to his political works, obv everyone has lied at some point) Are you fucking nuts? Herman Cain would have had less experience or knowledge of policy than Palin. He was a joke candidate, like Trump. The only reason he was in the primary was to market himself and get a bump in speaking fees. Sheesh. Even Herman Cain knew he wasn't qualified to be president.
Well what experience do you need to be president. Obama proved you don't need much.The standards for the presidency have been on decline- just like the rest of my country. Probably not a good idea to point out the lack of experience of one Candidate when the current seated president isn't any better (argueably worse as he never held a real job). Hah! Yeah, I think that democrats have basically forfeited the right to object to anyone's qualifications for president by nominating Obama. With regards to Obama specifically, his inexperience shows most in his absolute failure to spearhead any kind of compromised legislation with republicans. Views are too polarizing from both parties, there is no compromise from EITHER side, only hatred
Republicans and Democrats have alot in common- we only take about what makes us unique/different.
All humans are 99.999% alike, we fight and kill over .001%.
|
On August 27 2012 08:57 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 08:42 Defacer wrote:On August 27 2012 08:29 SayGen wrote:On August 27 2012 07:09 darthfoley wrote:On August 26 2012 00:32 SayGen wrote:
I refuse to vote for Obama cause he lied, like the 2 presidnets before him.
Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
Bush: "Iraq has WOMD"
Obama: "I will not raise taxes"
I can't vote for Romney cause he sort of lied to about what exactly he knew about Bain Capitol.
He did alot of dodging.
And Obama just screwed me with a 250-500$ tax increase every year-- the largest tax increase ever.
Obamacare- The first time in American history the goverment can force you to buy a product.
Scary times.
Shame one of them will win.
America, the country i've served 5+ years of military duty is on a massive decline.
Wish we had Hermain Cain. Herman Cain? lol So much for this thread being closly moderated, when people can troll your posts and not add anything to the conversation. *Golf clap* Hermain Cain would of been a great leader. 1) He isn't a real politican. 2) He had great ideas. 999, lower taxes for EVERYONE, less government red tape, Working with the EPA to get them to help business find alternative solutions to help him them into complicance and protect our water and air. 3) He has expereince being a 'Leader'. 4) Unlike Obama,Romney,Clinton,Bush He never said a falsehood. (refering to his political works, obv everyone has lied at some point) Are you fucking nuts? Herman Cain would have had less experience or knowledge of policy than Palin. He was a joke candidate, like Trump. The only reason he was in the primary was to market himself and get a bump in speaking fees. Sheesh. Even Herman Cain knew he wasn't qualified to be president. Well what experience do you need to be president. Obama proved you don't need much. The standards for the presidency have been on decline- just like the rest of my country. Probably not a good idea to point out the lack of experience of one Candidate when the current seated president isn't any better (argueably worse as he never held a real job).
SayGen, please -- elaborate on this alternate reality you live in.
|
On August 27 2012 10:05 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 10:00 biology]major wrote:On August 27 2012 09:02 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2012 08:57 SayGen wrote:On August 27 2012 08:42 Defacer wrote:On August 27 2012 08:29 SayGen wrote:On August 27 2012 07:09 darthfoley wrote:On August 26 2012 00:32 SayGen wrote:
I refuse to vote for Obama cause he lied, like the 2 presidnets before him.
Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
Bush: "Iraq has WOMD"
Obama: "I will not raise taxes"
I can't vote for Romney cause he sort of lied to about what exactly he knew about Bain Capitol.
He did alot of dodging.
And Obama just screwed me with a 250-500$ tax increase every year-- the largest tax increase ever.
Obamacare- The first time in American history the goverment can force you to buy a product.
Scary times.
Shame one of them will win.
America, the country i've served 5+ years of military duty is on a massive decline.
Wish we had Hermain Cain. Herman Cain? lol So much for this thread being closly moderated, when people can troll your posts and not add anything to the conversation. *Golf clap* Hermain Cain would of been a great leader. 1) He isn't a real politican. 2) He had great ideas. 999, lower taxes for EVERYONE, less government red tape, Working with the EPA to get them to help business find alternative solutions to help him them into complicance and protect our water and air. 3) He has expereince being a 'Leader'. 4) Unlike Obama,Romney,Clinton,Bush He never said a falsehood. (refering to his political works, obv everyone has lied at some point) Are you fucking nuts? Herman Cain would have had less experience or knowledge of policy than Palin. He was a joke candidate, like Trump. The only reason he was in the primary was to market himself and get a bump in speaking fees. Sheesh. Even Herman Cain knew he wasn't qualified to be president.
Well what experience do you need to be president. Obama proved you don't need much.The standards for the presidency have been on decline- just like the rest of my country. Probably not a good idea to point out the lack of experience of one Candidate when the current seated president isn't any better (argueably worse as he never held a real job). Hah! Yeah, I think that democrats have basically forfeited the right to object to anyone's qualifications for president by nominating Obama. With regards to Obama specifically, his inexperience shows most in his absolute failure to spearhead any kind of compromised legislation with republicans. Views are too polarizing from both parties, there is no compromise from EITHER side, only hatred Republicans and Democrats have alot in common- we only take about what makes us unique/different. All humans are 99.999% alike, we fight and kill over .001%.
No, that's not it. Apart from the obvious fact that we are more diverse than that, we generally fight over things like power and wealth. Both in politics and on the battlefield.
Edit: And to expand on that a bit, because I'm sure you wouldn't understand otherwise given your rethoric; Republicans and Democrats have widely different interests and views on how wealth and power should be generated and distributed, both by the state and otherwise. I don't believe they're big enough to be irreconcilable, but you're running a two-party system so it is what it is.
|
On August 27 2012 09:11 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 09:05 gruff wrote:On August 27 2012 08:58 SayGen wrote:On August 27 2012 08:43 Adila wrote:On August 27 2012 08:34 SayGen wrote:On August 27 2012 03:12 Gahlo wrote:On August 26 2012 00:32 SayGen wrote:
I refuse to vote for Obama cause he lied, like the 2 presidnets before him.
Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
Bush: "Iraq has WOMD"
Obama: "I will not raise taxes"
I can't vote for Romney cause he sort of lied to about what exactly he knew about Bain Capitol.
He did alot of dodging.
And Obama just screwed me with a 250-500$ tax increase every year-- the largest tax increase ever.
Obamacare- The first time in American history the goverment can force you to buy a product.
Scary times.
Shame one of them will win.
America, the country i've served 5+ years of military duty is on a massive decline.
Wish we had Hermain Cain. I don't know about you, but I'm forced to buy car insurance. The only way that Obamacare forces you to pay more is if you don't have health insurance and are buying it now, or are making a conscious choice not to. Only the second is a tax, and I honestly fail to empathize on it. I think, with politicians especially, we need to remember what a lie is. A lie is when you say something that is untrue, and you know it or when you say something and have absolutely no intention of backing it up. 1) No one MAKES you buy a car. 2) If you breathe you have to have Health Insurance. 3) Health Insurance in America start rising THE DAY AFTER HE PASSED OBAMACARE when he said it would lower it for everyone. I do not vote for liars. I'm just sick of being lied to by politicans. Obama lied, period. I guarantee you Cain would start lying and backtracking the moment he realizes the shit he's in after getting elected. I can't see the future, based on the last 4 presidents I'd say your stastically right. But none of us are Allseeing. It's not about the person, it's how politics works. Also there's a big difference between premeditated lies and promises not kept. None of us is allseeing and no president is omnipresent, a lot of things will happen that are out of their control. I'm not saying the first don't happens but some of the things that people hold against presidents (from all sides) are pretty ridiculous. Don't make claims you can't follow through on. All he had to say to keep him out of trouble is: 1) I will not Raise your taxes directly via income taxes. 2) I believe by adding more consumers into the healthcare system that prices should fall. All he had to say, and I wouldn't be able to call him a liar. But that's not what he claimed. He lied 2 times. Period. When are Americans gonna hold their politicans accountable for what comes out of their mouths. REGUARDLESS of side, Rep lie too, and I refuse to vote for them when they do.
you must NEVER vote..... name one person who has never lied to get elected
|
The smartest thing that Obama did this term was "lie" about closing Guantanamo Bay.
|
United States43317 Posts
On August 27 2012 10:41 xDaunt wrote:
The smartest thing that Obama did this term was "lie" about closing Guantanamo Bay.
What confuses me is that in today's world it was thought prudent to openly run an extra-judicial detention and interrogation site for foreign nationals in the open.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
