On October 05 2013 03:40 HappyCamper wrote: Alright I changed my views on Obamacare but i am still against it. Reasons why I am though, it is over 2500 pages long which is very suspicious. It goes against an amendment in our constitution. I do not know the number but it states that no law shall affect the people that does not affect those in power as well. If you have the amendment number that would be great.<---- Iwant to know the number
Obamacare has a good idea of insuring uninsured people but it is too fishy. Especially with the fact it goes against one of the amendments to the constitution which makes it unconstitutional. If Obamacare was 500 pages long and applied to those who are rich and in power than I do not believe I could be against it even though I would rather not have the taxes but that is a personal preference.
US laws are oftentimes very long, and they need to be written with a bunch of exceptions and considerations when they're as far-reaching as ACA. And I don't know why it's fishy. More importantly, I don't understand why the law that you're explaining would make ACA unconstitutional... There are plenty of laws which don't affect those in power. A bunch of social programs are not meant for rich people... There's no difference here.
It's not suspicious in a conspiratorial sense, but in the 'this is clearly a terrible bill, too complex to function over too large a country with too many people, and in a bill this large the amount of exceptions and all round corruption would make your head spin'. Its that kind of suspicious.
On October 05 2013 06:41 HellRoxYa wrote:
On October 05 2013 06:34 Millitron wrote:
On October 05 2013 04:49 Doublemint wrote:
On October 05 2013 03:49 GTPGlitch wrote:
On October 05 2013 03:40 HappyCamper wrote: Alright I changed my views on Obamacare but i am still against it. Reasons why I am though, it is over 2500 pages long which is very suspicious. It goes against an amendment in our constitution. I do not know the number but it states that no law shall affect the people that does not affect those in power as well. If you have the amendment number that would be great.<---- Iwant to know the number
Obamacare has a good idea of insuring uninsured people but it is too fishy. Especially with the fact it goes against one of the amendments to the constitution which makes it unconstitutional. If Obamacare was 500 pages long and applied to those who are rich and in power than I do not believe I could be against it even though I would rather not have the taxes but that is a personal preference.
.... It was ruled constitutional by the supreme court, who's job is almost literally to just read the constitution and say yes/no....
I'm pretty sure they know the constitution better than you (sorry~)
Let him argue his point! Apparently even longtime lurker Scalia found his way to the TL forums.
To be fair, the Supreme Court has changed its position on issues before, no reason it couldn't find the ACA unconstitutional some time in the future.
And to be frank, it has for the time being been ruled constitutional and should be viewed as such.
So if we were in the 1930's we should view segregation as constitutional? I have reason to defer to the Supreme court in what law will and will not be actualized, but thats about as far as it goes.
What sort of hypothetical is that? And yes, history tells us that was the case. End of story right there - and no reasonable argument from your side could be found...
History tells us that it was interpreted as constitutional but, those interpretations were later found to be erroneous. So what in the hell do you mean what kind of hypothetical is that? Its called a parralel. Laws found constitutional are not always found constitutional in the future; errors are made. We shouldnt view the current interpretation as the case if we dont actually agree that it is, just as advocates against segregation constantly fought in the courts, and considered jim crow laws illegitimate, so should we.
You attempt to make that comparison a parallel since, as an ACA critic, it's just very comfy and frankly convenient to be in the same boat as someone who fought for the end of segregation.
I can cite literally dozens of laws that were considered constitutional until they werent, in dozens of different countries. Please, stop trying.
Equally it's not especially helpful to make the argument that if it's ruled unconstitutional then it's unconstitutional but if it's ruled constitutional then it's still unconstitutional. Why bother having a supreme court if you're going to do that.
On October 05 2013 03:40 HappyCamper wrote: Alright I changed my views on Obamacare but i am still against it. Reasons why I am though, it is over 2500 pages long which is very suspicious. It goes against an amendment in our constitution. I do not know the number but it states that no law shall affect the people that does not affect those in power as well. If you have the amendment number that would be great.<---- Iwant to know the number
Obamacare has a good idea of insuring uninsured people but it is too fishy. Especially with the fact it goes against one of the amendments to the constitution which makes it unconstitutional. If Obamacare was 500 pages long and applied to those who are rich and in power than I do not believe I could be against it even though I would rather not have the taxes but that is a personal preference.
US laws are oftentimes very long, and they need to be written with a bunch of exceptions and considerations when they're as far-reaching as ACA. And I don't know why it's fishy. More importantly, I don't understand why the law that you're explaining would make ACA unconstitutional... There are plenty of laws which don't affect those in power. A bunch of social programs are not meant for rich people... There's no difference here.
It's not suspicious in a conspiratorial sense, but in the 'this is clearly a terrible bill, too complex to function over too large a country with too many people, and in a bill this large the amount of exceptions and all round corruption would make your head spin'. Its that kind of suspicious.
On October 05 2013 06:41 HellRoxYa wrote:
On October 05 2013 06:34 Millitron wrote:
On October 05 2013 04:49 Doublemint wrote:
On October 05 2013 03:49 GTPGlitch wrote: [quote]
.... It was ruled constitutional by the supreme court, who's job is almost literally to just read the constitution and say yes/no....
I'm pretty sure they know the constitution better than you (sorry~)
Let him argue his point! Apparently even longtime lurker Scalia found his way to the TL forums.
To be fair, the Supreme Court has changed its position on issues before, no reason it couldn't find the ACA unconstitutional some time in the future.
And to be frank, it has for the time being been ruled constitutional and should be viewed as such.
So if we were in the 1930's we should view segregation as constitutional? I have reason to defer to the Supreme court in what law will and will not be actualized, but thats about as far as it goes.
What sort of hypothetical is that? And yes, history tells us that was the case. End of story right there - and no reasonable argument from your side could be found...
History tells us that it was interpreted as constitutional but, those interpretations were later found to be erroneous. So what in the hell do you mean what kind of hypothetical is that? Its called a parralel. Laws found constitutional are not always found constitutional in the future; errors are made. We shouldnt view the current interpretation as the case if we dont actually agree that it is, just as advocates against segregation constantly fought in the courts, and considered jim crow laws illegitimate, so should we.
You attempt to make that comparison a parallel since, as an ACA critic, it's just very comfy and frankly convenient to be in the same boat as someone who fought for the end of segregation.
I can cite literally dozens of laws that were considered constitutional until they werent, in dozens of different countries. Please, stop trying.
Equally it's not especially helpful to make the argument that if it's ruled unconstitutional then it's unconstitutional but if it's ruled constitutional then it's still unconstitutional. Why bother having a supreme court if you're going to do that.
All your doing is discovering a well understood [and blatantly evident] fact that constitutions are ripe for ideological "reinterpretations" and general politics. Its an unfortunate state of affairs but the alternative is simply majority rule, and arbitrary/capricious law makers. We all can only say that what we believe to be the objectively accurate interpretation of a particular constitution is the objectively correct interpretation-- and then attempt to persuade others.
On October 05 2013 03:40 HappyCamper wrote: Alright I changed my views on Obamacare but i am still against it. Reasons why I am though, it is over 2500 pages long which is very suspicious. It goes against an amendment in our constitution. I do not know the number but it states that no law shall affect the people that does not affect those in power as well. If you have the amendment number that would be great.<---- Iwant to know the number
Obamacare has a good idea of insuring uninsured people but it is too fishy. Especially with the fact it goes against one of the amendments to the constitution which makes it unconstitutional. If Obamacare was 500 pages long and applied to those who are rich and in power than I do not believe I could be against it even though I would rather not have the taxes but that is a personal preference.
US laws are oftentimes very long, and they need to be written with a bunch of exceptions and considerations when they're as far-reaching as ACA. And I don't know why it's fishy. More importantly, I don't understand why the law that you're explaining would make ACA unconstitutional... There are plenty of laws which don't affect those in power. A bunch of social programs are not meant for rich people... There's no difference here.
It's not suspicious in a conspiratorial sense, but in the 'this is clearly a terrible bill, too complex to function over too large a country with too many people, and in a bill this large the amount of exceptions and all round corruption would make your head spin'. Its that kind of suspicious.
On October 05 2013 06:41 HellRoxYa wrote:
On October 05 2013 06:34 Millitron wrote:
On October 05 2013 04:49 Doublemint wrote:
On October 05 2013 03:49 GTPGlitch wrote:
On October 05 2013 03:40 HappyCamper wrote: Alright I changed my views on Obamacare but i am still against it. Reasons why I am though, it is over 2500 pages long which is very suspicious. It goes against an amendment in our constitution. I do not know the number but it states that no law shall affect the people that does not affect those in power as well. If you have the amendment number that would be great.<---- Iwant to know the number
Obamacare has a good idea of insuring uninsured people but it is too fishy. Especially with the fact it goes against one of the amendments to the constitution which makes it unconstitutional. If Obamacare was 500 pages long and applied to those who are rich and in power than I do not believe I could be against it even though I would rather not have the taxes but that is a personal preference.
.... It was ruled constitutional by the supreme court, who's job is almost literally to just read the constitution and say yes/no....
I'm pretty sure they know the constitution better than you (sorry~)
Let him argue his point! Apparently even longtime lurker Scalia found his way to the TL forums.
To be fair, the Supreme Court has changed its position on issues before, no reason it couldn't find the ACA unconstitutional some time in the future.
And to be frank, it has for the time being been ruled constitutional and should be viewed as such.
So if we were in the 1930's we should view segregation as constitutional? I have reason to defer to the Supreme court in what law will and will not be actualized, but thats about as far as it goes.
What sort of hypothetical is that? And yes, history tells us that was the case. End of story right there - and no reasonable argument from your side could be found...
History tells us that it was interpreted as constitutional but, those interpretations were later found to be erroneous. So what in the hell do you mean what kind of hypothetical is that? Its called a parralel. Laws found constitutional are not always found constitutional in the future; errors are made. We shouldnt view the current interpretation as the case if we dont actually agree that it is, just as advocates against segregation constantly fought in the courts, and considered jim crow laws illegitimate, so should we.
You attempt to make that comparison a parallel since, as an ACA critic, it's just very comfy and frankly convenient to be in the same boat as someone who fought for the end of segregation.
I can cite literally dozens of laws that were considered constitutional until they werent, in dozens of different countries. Please, stop trying.
Yes google is a great tool toi have. I am not the one arguing the ACA is unconstitutional - or will be in the foreseeable future . And the supreme court didn't either. Therefore this debate is moot and rather unsatisfying.
On October 05 2013 03:40 HappyCamper wrote: Alright I changed my views on Obamacare but i am still against it. Reasons why I am though, it is over 2500 pages long which is very suspicious. It goes against an amendment in our constitution. I do not know the number but it states that no law shall affect the people that does not affect those in power as well. If you have the amendment number that would be great.<---- Iwant to know the number
Obamacare has a good idea of insuring uninsured people but it is too fishy. Especially with the fact it goes against one of the amendments to the constitution which makes it unconstitutional. If Obamacare was 500 pages long and applied to those who are rich and in power than I do not believe I could be against it even though I would rather not have the taxes but that is a personal preference.
US laws are oftentimes very long, and they need to be written with a bunch of exceptions and considerations when they're as far-reaching as ACA. And I don't know why it's fishy. More importantly, I don't understand why the law that you're explaining would make ACA unconstitutional... There are plenty of laws which don't affect those in power. A bunch of social programs are not meant for rich people... There's no difference here.
It's not suspicious in a conspiratorial sense, but in the 'this is clearly a terrible bill, too complex to function over too large a country with too many people, and in a bill this large the amount of exceptions and all round corruption would make your head spin'. Its that kind of suspicious.
On October 05 2013 06:41 HellRoxYa wrote:
On October 05 2013 06:34 Millitron wrote:
On October 05 2013 04:49 Doublemint wrote:
On October 05 2013 03:49 GTPGlitch wrote:
On October 05 2013 03:40 HappyCamper wrote: Alright I changed my views on Obamacare but i am still against it. Reasons why I am though, it is over 2500 pages long which is very suspicious. It goes against an amendment in our constitution. I do not know the number but it states that no law shall affect the people that does not affect those in power as well. If you have the amendment number that would be great.<---- Iwant to know the number
Obamacare has a good idea of insuring uninsured people but it is too fishy. Especially with the fact it goes against one of the amendments to the constitution which makes it unconstitutional. If Obamacare was 500 pages long and applied to those who are rich and in power than I do not believe I could be against it even though I would rather not have the taxes but that is a personal preference.
.... It was ruled constitutional by the supreme court, who's job is almost literally to just read the constitution and say yes/no....
I'm pretty sure they know the constitution better than you (sorry~)
Let him argue his point! Apparently even longtime lurker Scalia found his way to the TL forums.
To be fair, the Supreme Court has changed its position on issues before, no reason it couldn't find the ACA unconstitutional some time in the future.
And to be frank, it has for the time being been ruled constitutional and should be viewed as such.
So if we were in the 1930's we should view segregation as constitutional? I have reason to defer to the Supreme court in what law will and will not be actualized, but thats about as far as it goes.
What sort of hypothetical is that? And yes, history tells us that was the case. End of story right there - and no reasonable argument from your side could be found...
History tells us that it was interpreted as constitutional but, those interpretations were later found to be erroneous. So what in the hell do you mean what kind of hypothetical is that? Its called a parralel. Laws found constitutional are not always found constitutional in the future; errors are made. We shouldnt view the current interpretation as the case if we dont actually agree that it is, just as advocates against segregation constantly fought in the courts, and considered jim crow laws illegitimate, so should we.
You attempt to make that comparison a parallel since, as an ACA critic, it's just very comfy and frankly convenient to be in the same boat as someone who fought for the end of segregation.
I can cite literally dozens of laws that were considered constitutional until they werent, in dozens of different countries. Please, stop trying.
Yes you are correct. the Supreme Court can chase its mind. However! until they do the government needs to act based on there decision. You cannot argue that something that is considered constitutional today should be considered illegal because the ruling might change in the future. In that case everything every decided is illegal because 100 years from now we might think differently.
At this moment in time the ACA is constitutional as per a decision from the Supreme Court and no "they can change there mind in 10 years" is going to change the fact that is it constitutional.
On October 05 2013 03:40 HappyCamper wrote: Alright I changed my views on Obamacare but i am still against it. Reasons why I am though, it is over 2500 pages long which is very suspicious. It goes against an amendment in our constitution. I do not know the number but it states that no law shall affect the people that does not affect those in power as well. If you have the amendment number that would be great.<---- Iwant to know the number
Obamacare has a good idea of insuring uninsured people but it is too fishy. Especially with the fact it goes against one of the amendments to the constitution which makes it unconstitutional. If Obamacare was 500 pages long and applied to those who are rich and in power than I do not believe I could be against it even though I would rather not have the taxes but that is a personal preference.
US laws are oftentimes very long, and they need to be written with a bunch of exceptions and considerations when they're as far-reaching as ACA. And I don't know why it's fishy. More importantly, I don't understand why the law that you're explaining would make ACA unconstitutional... There are plenty of laws which don't affect those in power. A bunch of social programs are not meant for rich people... There's no difference here.
It's not suspicious in a conspiratorial sense, but in the 'this is clearly a terrible bill, too complex to function over too large a country with too many people, and in a bill this large the amount of exceptions and all round corruption would make your head spin'. Its that kind of suspicious.
On October 05 2013 06:41 HellRoxYa wrote:
On October 05 2013 06:34 Millitron wrote:
On October 05 2013 04:49 Doublemint wrote:
On October 05 2013 03:49 GTPGlitch wrote: [quote]
.... It was ruled constitutional by the supreme court, who's job is almost literally to just read the constitution and say yes/no....
I'm pretty sure they know the constitution better than you (sorry~)
Let him argue his point! Apparently even longtime lurker Scalia found his way to the TL forums.
To be fair, the Supreme Court has changed its position on issues before, no reason it couldn't find the ACA unconstitutional some time in the future.
And to be frank, it has for the time being been ruled constitutional and should be viewed as such.
So if we were in the 1930's we should view segregation as constitutional? I have reason to defer to the Supreme court in what law will and will not be actualized, but thats about as far as it goes.
What sort of hypothetical is that? And yes, history tells us that was the case. End of story right there - and no reasonable argument from your side could be found...
History tells us that it was interpreted as constitutional but, those interpretations were later found to be erroneous. So what in the hell do you mean what kind of hypothetical is that? Its called a parralel. Laws found constitutional are not always found constitutional in the future; errors are made. We shouldnt view the current interpretation as the case if we dont actually agree that it is, just as advocates against segregation constantly fought in the courts, and considered jim crow laws illegitimate, so should we.
You attempt to make that comparison a parallel since, as an ACA critic, it's just very comfy and frankly convenient to be in the same boat as someone who fought for the end of segregation.
I can cite literally dozens of laws that were considered constitutional until they werent, in dozens of different countries. Please, stop trying.
Yes you are correct. the Supreme Court can chase its mind. However! until they do the government needs to act based on there decision. You cannot argue that something that is considered constitutional today should be considered illegal because the ruling might change in the future. In that case everything every decided is illegal because 100 years from now we might think differently.
At this moment in time the ACA is constitutional as per a decision from the Supreme Court and no "they can change there mind in 10 years" is going to change the fact that is it constitutional.
I never implied that the "Government" [rather amorphous concept especially in America, given the interrelation of different parts of gov] should ignore the law and treat it as unconstitutional. I said pointing out its constitutionality is hardly a case for individuals who disagree to simply defer to the supreme court and give up legal resistance, or even to consider the law a legitimate one. It was nothing more than a counterpoint to the inane comments that its "the law of the land" as if that was anything more than a basic observation.
On October 05 2013 03:40 HappyCamper wrote: Alright I changed my views on Obamacare but i am still against it. Reasons why I am though, it is over 2500 pages long which is very suspicious. It goes against an amendment in our constitution. I do not know the number but it states that no law shall affect the people that does not affect those in power as well. If you have the amendment number that would be great.<---- Iwant to know the number
Obamacare has a good idea of insuring uninsured people but it is too fishy. Especially with the fact it goes against one of the amendments to the constitution which makes it unconstitutional. If Obamacare was 500 pages long and applied to those who are rich and in power than I do not believe I could be against it even though I would rather not have the taxes but that is a personal preference.
US laws are oftentimes very long, and they need to be written with a bunch of exceptions and considerations when they're as far-reaching as ACA. And I don't know why it's fishy. More importantly, I don't understand why the law that you're explaining would make ACA unconstitutional... There are plenty of laws which don't affect those in power. A bunch of social programs are not meant for rich people... There's no difference here.
It's not suspicious in a conspiratorial sense, but in the 'this is clearly a terrible bill, too complex to function over too large a country with too many people, and in a bill this large the amount of exceptions and all round corruption would make your head spin'. Its that kind of suspicious.
On October 05 2013 06:41 HellRoxYa wrote:
On October 05 2013 06:34 Millitron wrote:
On October 05 2013 04:49 Doublemint wrote: [quote]
Let him argue his point! Apparently even longtime lurker Scalia found his way to the TL forums.
To be fair, the Supreme Court has changed its position on issues before, no reason it couldn't find the ACA unconstitutional some time in the future.
And to be frank, it has for the time being been ruled constitutional and should be viewed as such.
So if we were in the 1930's we should view segregation as constitutional? I have reason to defer to the Supreme court in what law will and will not be actualized, but thats about as far as it goes.
What sort of hypothetical is that? And yes, history tells us that was the case. End of story right there - and no reasonable argument from your side could be found...
History tells us that it was interpreted as constitutional but, those interpretations were later found to be erroneous. So what in the hell do you mean what kind of hypothetical is that? Its called a parralel. Laws found constitutional are not always found constitutional in the future; errors are made. We shouldnt view the current interpretation as the case if we dont actually agree that it is, just as advocates against segregation constantly fought in the courts, and considered jim crow laws illegitimate, so should we.
You attempt to make that comparison a parallel since, as an ACA critic, it's just very comfy and frankly convenient to be in the same boat as someone who fought for the end of segregation.
I can cite literally dozens of laws that were considered constitutional until they werent, in dozens of different countries. Please, stop trying.
Yes you are correct. the Supreme Court can chase its mind. However! until they do the government needs to act based on there decision. You cannot argue that something that is considered constitutional today should be considered illegal because the ruling might change in the future. In that case everything every decided is illegal because 100 years from now we might think differently.
At this moment in time the ACA is constitutional as per a decision from the Supreme Court and no "they can change there mind in 10 years" is going to change the fact that is it constitutional.
I never implied that the "Government" [rather amorphous concept especially in America, given the interrelation of different parts of gov] should ignore the law and treat it as unconstitutional. I said pointing out its constitutionality is hardly a case for individuals who disagree to simply defer to the supreme court and give up legal resistance, or even to consider the law a legitimate one. It was nothing more than a counterpoint to the inane comments that its "the law of the land" as if that was anything more than a basic observation.
I know how do these liberals like this guy get off saying such a ridiculous thing like "law of the land"
If Republicans want to reduce the cost of government, they don't have to do this brinkmanship at the federal level, and I don't understand why they are doing it.
All they have to do is get every red state to opt out of all of Medicaid. It's that simple, it could be done today. This will immediately reduce the size of government by 6.5%.
On October 05 2013 03:40 HappyCamper wrote: Alright I changed my views on Obamacare but i am still against it. Reasons why I am though, it is over 2500 pages long which is very suspicious. It goes against an amendment in our constitution. I do not know the number but it states that no law shall affect the people that does not affect those in power as well. If you have the amendment number that would be great.<---- Iwant to know the number
Obamacare has a good idea of insuring uninsured people but it is too fishy. Especially with the fact it goes against one of the amendments to the constitution which makes it unconstitutional. If Obamacare was 500 pages long and applied to those who are rich and in power than I do not believe I could be against it even though I would rather not have the taxes but that is a personal preference.
US laws are oftentimes very long, and they need to be written with a bunch of exceptions and considerations when they're as far-reaching as ACA. And I don't know why it's fishy. More importantly, I don't understand why the law that you're explaining would make ACA unconstitutional... There are plenty of laws which don't affect those in power. A bunch of social programs are not meant for rich people... There's no difference here.
It's not suspicious in a conspiratorial sense, but in the 'this is clearly a terrible bill, too complex to function over too large a country with too many people, and in a bill this large the amount of exceptions and all round corruption would make your head spin'. Its that kind of suspicious.
On October 05 2013 06:41 HellRoxYa wrote:
On October 05 2013 06:34 Millitron wrote: [quote] To be fair, the Supreme Court has changed its position on issues before, no reason it couldn't find the ACA unconstitutional some time in the future.
And to be frank, it has for the time being been ruled constitutional and should be viewed as such.
So if we were in the 1930's we should view segregation as constitutional? I have reason to defer to the Supreme court in what law will and will not be actualized, but thats about as far as it goes.
What sort of hypothetical is that? And yes, history tells us that was the case. End of story right there - and no reasonable argument from your side could be found...
History tells us that it was interpreted as constitutional but, those interpretations were later found to be erroneous. So what in the hell do you mean what kind of hypothetical is that? Its called a parralel. Laws found constitutional are not always found constitutional in the future; errors are made. We shouldnt view the current interpretation as the case if we dont actually agree that it is, just as advocates against segregation constantly fought in the courts, and considered jim crow laws illegitimate, so should we.
You attempt to make that comparison a parallel since, as an ACA critic, it's just very comfy and frankly convenient to be in the same boat as someone who fought for the end of segregation.
I can cite literally dozens of laws that were considered constitutional until they werent, in dozens of different countries. Please, stop trying.
Yes you are correct. the Supreme Court can chase its mind. However! until they do the government needs to act based on there decision. You cannot argue that something that is considered constitutional today should be considered illegal because the ruling might change in the future. In that case everything every decided is illegal because 100 years from now we might think differently.
At this moment in time the ACA is constitutional as per a decision from the Supreme Court and no "they can change there mind in 10 years" is going to change the fact that is it constitutional.
I never implied that the "Government" [rather amorphous concept especially in America, given the interrelation of different parts of gov] should ignore the law and treat it as unconstitutional. I said pointing out its constitutionality is hardly a case for individuals who disagree to simply defer to the supreme court and give up legal resistance, or even to consider the law a legitimate one. It was nothing more than a counterpoint to the inane comments that its "the law of the land" as if that was anything more than a basic observation.
I know how do these liberals like this guy get off saying such a ridiculous thing like "law of the land"
If you imagine you've made some kind of point by finding a single, incredibly squishy "conservative" who mimics the idiotic remarks of liberals, your mistaken.
On October 05 2013 03:57 Djzapz wrote: [quote] US laws are oftentimes very long, and they need to be written with a bunch of exceptions and considerations when they're as far-reaching as ACA. And I don't know why it's fishy. More importantly, I don't understand why the law that you're explaining would make ACA unconstitutional... There are plenty of laws which don't affect those in power. A bunch of social programs are not meant for rich people... There's no difference here.
It's not suspicious in a conspiratorial sense, but in the 'this is clearly a terrible bill, too complex to function over too large a country with too many people, and in a bill this large the amount of exceptions and all round corruption would make your head spin'. Its that kind of suspicious.
On October 05 2013 06:41 HellRoxYa wrote: [quote]
And to be frank, it has for the time being been ruled constitutional and should be viewed as such.
So if we were in the 1930's we should view segregation as constitutional? I have reason to defer to the Supreme court in what law will and will not be actualized, but thats about as far as it goes.
What sort of hypothetical is that? And yes, history tells us that was the case. End of story right there - and no reasonable argument from your side could be found...
History tells us that it was interpreted as constitutional but, those interpretations were later found to be erroneous. So what in the hell do you mean what kind of hypothetical is that? Its called a parralel. Laws found constitutional are not always found constitutional in the future; errors are made. We shouldnt view the current interpretation as the case if we dont actually agree that it is, just as advocates against segregation constantly fought in the courts, and considered jim crow laws illegitimate, so should we.
You attempt to make that comparison a parallel since, as an ACA critic, it's just very comfy and frankly convenient to be in the same boat as someone who fought for the end of segregation.
I can cite literally dozens of laws that were considered constitutional until they werent, in dozens of different countries. Please, stop trying.
Yes you are correct. the Supreme Court can chase its mind. However! until they do the government needs to act based on there decision. You cannot argue that something that is considered constitutional today should be considered illegal because the ruling might change in the future. In that case everything every decided is illegal because 100 years from now we might think differently.
At this moment in time the ACA is constitutional as per a decision from the Supreme Court and no "they can change there mind in 10 years" is going to change the fact that is it constitutional.
I never implied that the "Government" [rather amorphous concept especially in America, given the interrelation of different parts of gov] should ignore the law and treat it as unconstitutional. I said pointing out its constitutionality is hardly a case for individuals who disagree to simply defer to the supreme court and give up legal resistance, or even to consider the law a legitimate one. It was nothing more than a counterpoint to the inane comments that its "the law of the land" as if that was anything more than a basic observation.
I know how do these liberals like this guy get off saying such a ridiculous thing like "law of the land"
If you imagine you've made some kind of point by finding a single, incredibly squishy "conservative" who mimics the idiotic remarks of liberals, your mistaken.
Oh dear God, please. And FYI I'm only allowing myself to do this because you decided to make a big deal out of some bullshit detail about language.
And what do you mean when you say Boehner is squishy? Do you not know who he is?
On October 05 2013 06:45 Dazed_Spy wrote: [quote] It's not suspicious in a conspiratorial sense, but in the 'this is clearly a terrible bill, too complex to function over too large a country with too many people, and in a bill this large the amount of exceptions and all round corruption would make your head spin'. Its that kind of suspicious.[quote] So if we were in the 1930's we should view segregation as constitutional? I have reason to defer to the Supreme court in what law will and will not be actualized, but thats about as far as it goes.
What sort of hypothetical is that? And yes, history tells us that was the case. End of story right there - and no reasonable argument from your side could be found...
History tells us that it was interpreted as constitutional but, those interpretations were later found to be erroneous. So what in the hell do you mean what kind of hypothetical is that? Its called a parralel. Laws found constitutional are not always found constitutional in the future; errors are made. We shouldnt view the current interpretation as the case if we dont actually agree that it is, just as advocates against segregation constantly fought in the courts, and considered jim crow laws illegitimate, so should we.
You attempt to make that comparison a parallel since, as an ACA critic, it's just very comfy and frankly convenient to be in the same boat as someone who fought for the end of segregation.
I can cite literally dozens of laws that were considered constitutional until they werent, in dozens of different countries. Please, stop trying.
Yes you are correct. the Supreme Court can chase its mind. However! until they do the government needs to act based on there decision. You cannot argue that something that is considered constitutional today should be considered illegal because the ruling might change in the future. In that case everything every decided is illegal because 100 years from now we might think differently.
At this moment in time the ACA is constitutional as per a decision from the Supreme Court and no "they can change there mind in 10 years" is going to change the fact that is it constitutional.
I never implied that the "Government" [rather amorphous concept especially in America, given the interrelation of different parts of gov] should ignore the law and treat it as unconstitutional. I said pointing out its constitutionality is hardly a case for individuals who disagree to simply defer to the supreme court and give up legal resistance, or even to consider the law a legitimate one. It was nothing more than a counterpoint to the inane comments that its "the law of the land" as if that was anything more than a basic observation.
I know how do these liberals like this guy get off saying such a ridiculous thing like "law of the land"
If you imagine you've made some kind of point by finding a single, incredibly squishy "conservative" who mimics the idiotic remarks of liberals, your mistaken.
Oh dear God, please. And FYI I'm only allowing myself to do this because you decided to make a big deal out of some bullshit detail about language.
On October 05 2013 06:55 Doublemint wrote: [quote]
What sort of hypothetical is that? And yes, history tells us that was the case. End of story right there - and no reasonable argument from your side could be found...
History tells us that it was interpreted as constitutional but, those interpretations were later found to be erroneous. So what in the hell do you mean what kind of hypothetical is that? Its called a parralel. Laws found constitutional are not always found constitutional in the future; errors are made. We shouldnt view the current interpretation as the case if we dont actually agree that it is, just as advocates against segregation constantly fought in the courts, and considered jim crow laws illegitimate, so should we.
You attempt to make that comparison a parallel since, as an ACA critic, it's just very comfy and frankly convenient to be in the same boat as someone who fought for the end of segregation.
I can cite literally dozens of laws that were considered constitutional until they werent, in dozens of different countries. Please, stop trying.
Yes you are correct. the Supreme Court can chase its mind. However! until they do the government needs to act based on there decision. You cannot argue that something that is considered constitutional today should be considered illegal because the ruling might change in the future. In that case everything every decided is illegal because 100 years from now we might think differently.
At this moment in time the ACA is constitutional as per a decision from the Supreme Court and no "they can change there mind in 10 years" is going to change the fact that is it constitutional.
I never implied that the "Government" [rather amorphous concept especially in America, given the interrelation of different parts of gov] should ignore the law and treat it as unconstitutional. I said pointing out its constitutionality is hardly a case for individuals who disagree to simply defer to the supreme court and give up legal resistance, or even to consider the law a legitimate one. It was nothing more than a counterpoint to the inane comments that its "the law of the land" as if that was anything more than a basic observation.
I know how do these liberals like this guy get off saying such a ridiculous thing like "law of the land"
If you imagine you've made some kind of point by finding a single, incredibly squishy "conservative" who mimics the idiotic remarks of liberals, your mistaken.
Oh dear God, please. And FYI I'm only allowing myself to do this because you decided to make a big deal out of some bullshit detail about language.
That never happened.
Hrm, not sure what you mean by "It was nothing more than a counterpoint to the inane comments that its "the law of the land" as if that was anything more than a basic observation."
On October 05 2013 03:57 Djzapz wrote: [quote] US laws are oftentimes very long, and they need to be written with a bunch of exceptions and considerations when they're as far-reaching as ACA. And I don't know why it's fishy. More importantly, I don't understand why the law that you're explaining would make ACA unconstitutional... There are plenty of laws which don't affect those in power. A bunch of social programs are not meant for rich people... There's no difference here.
It's not suspicious in a conspiratorial sense, but in the 'this is clearly a terrible bill, too complex to function over too large a country with too many people, and in a bill this large the amount of exceptions and all round corruption would make your head spin'. Its that kind of suspicious.
On October 05 2013 06:41 HellRoxYa wrote: [quote]
And to be frank, it has for the time being been ruled constitutional and should be viewed as such.
So if we were in the 1930's we should view segregation as constitutional? I have reason to defer to the Supreme court in what law will and will not be actualized, but thats about as far as it goes.
What sort of hypothetical is that? And yes, history tells us that was the case. End of story right there - and no reasonable argument from your side could be found...
History tells us that it was interpreted as constitutional but, those interpretations were later found to be erroneous. So what in the hell do you mean what kind of hypothetical is that? Its called a parralel. Laws found constitutional are not always found constitutional in the future; errors are made. We shouldnt view the current interpretation as the case if we dont actually agree that it is, just as advocates against segregation constantly fought in the courts, and considered jim crow laws illegitimate, so should we.
You attempt to make that comparison a parallel since, as an ACA critic, it's just very comfy and frankly convenient to be in the same boat as someone who fought for the end of segregation.
I can cite literally dozens of laws that were considered constitutional until they werent, in dozens of different countries. Please, stop trying.
Yes you are correct. the Supreme Court can chase its mind. However! until they do the government needs to act based on there decision. You cannot argue that something that is considered constitutional today should be considered illegal because the ruling might change in the future. In that case everything every decided is illegal because 100 years from now we might think differently.
At this moment in time the ACA is constitutional as per a decision from the Supreme Court and no "they can change there mind in 10 years" is going to change the fact that is it constitutional.
I never implied that the "Government" [rather amorphous concept especially in America, given the interrelation of different parts of gov] should ignore the law and treat it as unconstitutional. I said pointing out its constitutionality is hardly a case for individuals who disagree to simply defer to the supreme court and give up legal resistance, or even to consider the law a legitimate one. It was nothing more than a counterpoint to the inane comments that its "the law of the land" as if that was anything more than a basic observation.
I know how do these liberals like this guy get off saying such a ridiculous thing like "law of the land"
If you imagine you've made some kind of point by finding a single, incredibly squishy "conservative" who mimics the idiotic remarks of liberals, your mistaken.
Lol he is the only thing standing between Obama and a clean CR. All he would have to do is allow a vote like he should and we get clean CR and can move on to a real discussion.
On October 05 2013 06:45 Dazed_Spy wrote: [quote] It's not suspicious in a conspiratorial sense, but in the 'this is clearly a terrible bill, too complex to function over too large a country with too many people, and in a bill this large the amount of exceptions and all round corruption would make your head spin'. Its that kind of suspicious.[quote] So if we were in the 1930's we should view segregation as constitutional? I have reason to defer to the Supreme court in what law will and will not be actualized, but thats about as far as it goes.
What sort of hypothetical is that? And yes, history tells us that was the case. End of story right there - and no reasonable argument from your side could be found...
History tells us that it was interpreted as constitutional but, those interpretations were later found to be erroneous. So what in the hell do you mean what kind of hypothetical is that? Its called a parralel. Laws found constitutional are not always found constitutional in the future; errors are made. We shouldnt view the current interpretation as the case if we dont actually agree that it is, just as advocates against segregation constantly fought in the courts, and considered jim crow laws illegitimate, so should we.
You attempt to make that comparison a parallel since, as an ACA critic, it's just very comfy and frankly convenient to be in the same boat as someone who fought for the end of segregation.
I can cite literally dozens of laws that were considered constitutional until they werent, in dozens of different countries. Please, stop trying.
Yes you are correct. the Supreme Court can chase its mind. However! until they do the government needs to act based on there decision. You cannot argue that something that is considered constitutional today should be considered illegal because the ruling might change in the future. In that case everything every decided is illegal because 100 years from now we might think differently.
At this moment in time the ACA is constitutional as per a decision from the Supreme Court and no "they can change there mind in 10 years" is going to change the fact that is it constitutional.
I never implied that the "Government" [rather amorphous concept especially in America, given the interrelation of different parts of gov] should ignore the law and treat it as unconstitutional. I said pointing out its constitutionality is hardly a case for individuals who disagree to simply defer to the supreme court and give up legal resistance, or even to consider the law a legitimate one. It was nothing more than a counterpoint to the inane comments that its "the law of the land" as if that was anything more than a basic observation.
I know how do these liberals like this guy get off saying such a ridiculous thing like "law of the land"
If you imagine you've made some kind of point by finding a single, incredibly squishy "conservative" who mimics the idiotic remarks of liberals, your mistaken.
Lol he is the only thing standing between Obama and a clean CR. All he would have to do is allow a vote like he should and we get clean CR and can move on to a real discussion.
And he would lose his speakership the next day. Fear of losing power doesnt make you a conservative, just a douchebag.
On October 05 2013 06:55 Doublemint wrote: [quote]
What sort of hypothetical is that? And yes, history tells us that was the case. End of story right there - and no reasonable argument from your side could be found...
History tells us that it was interpreted as constitutional but, those interpretations were later found to be erroneous. So what in the hell do you mean what kind of hypothetical is that? Its called a parralel. Laws found constitutional are not always found constitutional in the future; errors are made. We shouldnt view the current interpretation as the case if we dont actually agree that it is, just as advocates against segregation constantly fought in the courts, and considered jim crow laws illegitimate, so should we.
You attempt to make that comparison a parallel since, as an ACA critic, it's just very comfy and frankly convenient to be in the same boat as someone who fought for the end of segregation.
I can cite literally dozens of laws that were considered constitutional until they werent, in dozens of different countries. Please, stop trying.
Yes you are correct. the Supreme Court can chase its mind. However! until they do the government needs to act based on there decision. You cannot argue that something that is considered constitutional today should be considered illegal because the ruling might change in the future. In that case everything every decided is illegal because 100 years from now we might think differently.
At this moment in time the ACA is constitutional as per a decision from the Supreme Court and no "they can change there mind in 10 years" is going to change the fact that is it constitutional.
I never implied that the "Government" [rather amorphous concept especially in America, given the interrelation of different parts of gov] should ignore the law and treat it as unconstitutional. I said pointing out its constitutionality is hardly a case for individuals who disagree to simply defer to the supreme court and give up legal resistance, or even to consider the law a legitimate one. It was nothing more than a counterpoint to the inane comments that its "the law of the land" as if that was anything more than a basic observation.
I know how do these liberals like this guy get off saying such a ridiculous thing like "law of the land"
If you imagine you've made some kind of point by finding a single, incredibly squishy "conservative" who mimics the idiotic remarks of liberals, your mistaken.
Lol he is the only thing standing between Obama and a clean CR. All he would have to do is allow a vote like he should and we get clean CR and can move on to a real discussion.
And he would lose his speakership the next day. Fear of losing power doesnt make you a conservative, just a douchebag.
The so called clean CR isn't even clean from the conservative standpoint. It spends money at a rate higher than would be legally allowed as per the sequester which the far right would oppose pretty heavily.
I guess the "clean CR" would just get more moderate Republicans to vote on it if it went to the House floor giving it a decent chance to pass. Still if Boehner allowed that to happen with the far right still in such vehement opposition, there's no telling what sort of repercussions that would have among the Republican party, or with public opinion. Even if the Republicans cave and somehow vote on the Senates stuff without any amendments to Obamacare, the public outrage from the far right would be no small matter.
It's too bad in 6 years in office now how little Obama has catered to the far right. They feel ignored and honestly this is probably the only way they feel they can get their voice heard. The far right isn't stupid, they know how risky and bad this shutdown could make them look, but there's legit reasons as to why they are standing up against this so hardcore. People are writing/calling them with serious opposition to this legislation. Nobody seems to care about getting to the root cause of the issues, instead the Democrats are just standing there saying the Republicans are embarking on an ideological crusade instead of engaging in serious discussions to resolve the issue. This is really only entrenching the tea party deeper to be honest. Republicans have been in session at the House late each night this week, with weekend sessions planned, they're offering bills to the Senate and asking to speak/negotiate with Democrats. The Senate strikes down everything because for some reason Obamacare is off the table in terms of negotiations. It's as if the Democrats wanted to shutdown the government to pile the pressure on the Republicans so they can get their agenda passed with no bi-partisan agreements.
I don't get how people aren't really angry with that. Or how the mainstream media doesn't seem to want to even talk about that. The only refreshing articles I'm reading about any of this are coming out of the Wall Street Journal or like publications who care about the big picture and not politics.
On October 05 2013 11:21 LuckyFool wrote: It's too bad in 6 years in office now how little Obama has catered to the far right. They feel ignored and honestly this is probably the only way they feel they can get their voice heard.
On October 05 2013 11:21 LuckyFool wrote: It's too bad in 6 years in office now how little Obama has catered to the far right. They feel ignored and honestly this is probably the only way they feel they can get their voice heard.
On October 05 2013 11:21 LuckyFool wrote: The so called clean CR isn't even clean from the conservative standpoint. It spends money at a rate higher than would be legally allowed as per the sequester which the far right would oppose pretty heavily.
I guess the "clean CR" would just get more moderate Republicans to vote on it if it went to the House floor giving it a decent chance to pass. Still if Boehner allowed that to happen with the far right still in such vehement opposition, there's no telling what sort of repercussions that would have among the Republican party, or with public opinion. Even if the Republicans cave and somehow vote on the Senates stuff without any amendments to Obamacare, the public outrage from the far right would be no small matter.
It's too bad in 6 years in office now how little Obama has catered to the far right. They feel ignored and honestly this is probably the only way they feel they can get their voice heard. The far right isn't stupid, they know how risky and bad this shutdown could make them look, but there's legit reasons as to why they are standing up against this so hardcore. People are writing/calling them with serious opposition to this legislation. Nobody seems to care about getting to the root cause of the issues, instead the Democrats are just standing there saying the Republicans are embarking on an ideological crusade instead of engaging in serious discussions to resolve the issue. This is really only entrenching the tea party deeper to be honest. Republicans have been in session at the House late each night this week, with weekend sessions planned, they're offering bills to the Senate and asking to speak/negotiate with Democrats. The Senate strikes down everything because for some reason Obamacare is off the table in terms of negotiations. It's as if the Democrats wanted to shutdown the government to pile the pressure on the Republicans so they can get their agenda passed with no bi-partisan agreements.
I don't get how people aren't really angry with that. Or how the mainstream media doesn't seem to want to even talk about that. The only refreshing articles I'm reading about any of this are coming out of the Wall Street Journal or like publications who care about the big picture and not politics.
If you think for a moment that most moderates or left wing people give even one fuck how the extreme right wing feels about issues, you're off your rocker. Right wing extremists are so fucking insane that taking a moment to think about how they feel can cause your mind to spin so much you wind up on the floor from dizziness.
This country doesn't even really have a left wing: our left wing is considered moderate compared to most other first world countries, and our right wingers are extremists. Our extreme right wing wouldn't even be given the time of day in most other nations, let alone have anyone voting them into office.
And there is not a single legitimate reason for them to stand up to this hardcore. Their personal demographics might not like the bill, but it has passed every stage of muster and even the supreme court challenges. It's time for them to accept that until such a time as they are in an actual position to repeal it. You can't just hold the government hostage every time someone in the other party does something you don't like. If we wind up defaulting on the debt because of this kind of garbage, it's going to be a catastrophe.
And I guarantee you that most of the people opposing Obamacare don't even understand the legislation at all and have no real reason to oppose it. I think I remember an experiment a while ago where someone went on the street and asked people whether they preferred Obamacare or the Affordable Healthcare Act, and almost everyone said the ACA while having no idea at all that they are the same damn thing.
And regardless of what the democrats would or would not be willing to discuss, they can't back down here and the senate can't back down because you can't negotiate with hostage takers. They can't validate this tactic, because it'll become the tactic of choice of everyone if they do. You don't negotiate over whether you fulfill your obligations or not. Don't pull this shit saying it's the democrats refusing to play ball so it's their fault. Further, the reasons the tea party is opposed to the ACA are insane. Let's not forget that this was originally a republican bill and a republican idea. The Tea Party are just a bunch of anarchists opposed to any government at all.
On October 05 2013 11:21 LuckyFool wrote: It's too bad in 6 years in office now how little Obama has catered to the far right. They feel ignored and honestly this is probably the only way they feel they can get their voice heard.
EPT
