Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
network
network
All contents © Noisy Creek, Inc.
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
It is simple: When a judge does something a conservative likes, they are upholding American decency and our way of life. When a judge does something a conservative does not like, they are being activists and destroying America.
Nothing zen about it, just rank hypocrisy.
Now watch out for those space pirates on your six.
Yes, AFA or Obamacare polls poorly overall, although quite a bit of that seems to be in the way the reporting groups those who find it did not go far enough with those who are otherwise against it, but how would a discussion not flush out all the quite popular provisions?
I know you read unregistered comments, GDfR, as you have rebutted a few of the more poorly constructed arguments contained in some, but you do seem to skip over anything that presents a reasonable challenge, so I'll merely ask you to expand and clarify your implication.
For fucks sake, not even our resident house faggot can get it right. It's the ACA (Affordable Care Act)!!!
If you're going to do your master's bidding at least get the acronym right dumbass.
why? there's no "that's too intrusive!" limit written into the commerce clause. And the moment you imply one, you turn the court into legislators. just like when they said "that interferes with natural rights to make a contract to work for one penny a day!"
the activity/inactivity distinction is also fairly semantic. you are active in the national economy -- buying goods, working, using welfare, going to a federally funded K-12 program, partially federally funded. You are active in self insuring, or "choosing" to smoke, or go skiing, resulting in a lung cancer, or broken arm; then you're "active" in going to the ER and passing on your bills to the rest of us. Yes, you didn't choose to be born, but so what. you're in a national market, congress can regulate it, that means it can regulate you, and no, there's nothing in the constitution saying they can regulate your activity only and not your person whatever that means. besides, gummints make us buy stuff all the time, from sewer hookups to food for our kids to auto insurance to the simple law we have to wear clothes. we live in a society. the national markets like health insurance have to be regulated by the feds or else we're at the mercy of predator insurers. who unscrupulously are only too happy to pad our bills and premiums with the ER costs of the uninsured. I didn't choose the activity of paying for those costs, did I? why can't I get protection from that activity causing me harm, through the PPACA act?
Gay Dude: I understand what your role is here. I get it. You come on here to maybe spread a little misinformation hoping that you can peel maybe one or two confused voters away from Obama. I understand that, and I see why people do it. Makes perfect sense. I am one of the few that actually believes that no one is paying you to do this.
But man...you are just terrible at it. You repeatedly make claims that are easily and quickly shown to be lies, and you can't even get the basic facts right. You are being counter productive to your goal. You need to open a new account under a new name and try again. Because you really suck at this.
Oh, joy.
Some of the family kin are rabid Limbaugh fans. Others, though, while still resolutely conservative, are beginning to show a loss of faith in their party.
The ones that are too poor and underemployed to have health insurance, while at the same time raising families of small children and possessing all of the expected rural toys (snowmobiles, atv's, guns) baffle me. I sort of can't wait to hear what they think about the ACA ruling.
I expect it will be pretty depressing.
P.s. Gay Dude for Rmoney: What Mr. Gorath said. If anyone was scoring Slog for 'Most wrong answers ever' you would be in the top three, battling it out between two of our more famously stupid members to be number one at losing on Slog. Go, team.
@7: You're right. The next few months of debate could very well sway more folks to the keeping the ACA. This will be a 'from the gut' vote, I feel, as its rather daunting to digest the political, financial, and other ramifications.
@18: Theodore are I were both extrapolating, so it's a little hard to be specific. Sorry.
To be fair, those are state and local governments forcing you to buy those things. The feds aren't going to get involved if you starve your children or walk around naked. Conservatives are hostile to federal government control, not state control. Of course, the actual reason they hate federal control is because of things like the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, not because they give a shit about liberty.
So you can probably say goodbye to the Clean Air Act and federal funding for mass transit.
The ramifications of this decision haven't even started to appear.
Love the title of the post -- definitely laugh out loud worthy.
yes, obviously those are state and local. but the point is this: once "a" government is given power to legislate in a subject area, if the grant of power has no written limitation saying "however, if a court of nine folks says suddenly you can't regulate it too intrusively or too burdensomely" then in fact the gummint CAN make you buy clothes for your kids (state power over families and such) or the feds can make you buy insurance. There is simply no written limitation to federal power that the conservjustices are making up. the notion that STATES can make us buy insurance, because they're allowed to regulate our persons or something like that, but feds can't, when the entire health care and insurance market is full of behemoths screwing us nationally, is just silly. the obvious intent of the framers was this:
if it's interstate commerce, the feds can fucking regulate it. and no there's nothing in the constitution saying the regulation must be light handed. so yes, the feds can make you eat your broccoli. of course they wouldn't, it wouldn't pass. but if we got invaded by aliens smarter than us and someoen invented superbrainy broccoli which we all needed to compete economically, why wouldn't the feds be able to require it? this whole idea that the government is "limited" is NOT TRUE in the areas of express grants of power to the feds. they can take your factory if it's polluting, they can make you commit suicide as a draftee in ww1, they regulate you at work every hour of every day with minimum wage and osha, they prevent you from investing a single dollar in a bank that's not regulated, they regulate the hell out of everything, that's waht gummint is for and thank god for that because otherwise you and me got no protection from the huge rapacious predators known as "insurers." It's not a zone of liberty with a free market, it's a jungle with the little mammals, us, getting eaten up by the t. rexes, the insurers. the whole conservative view is made up, that's all I am saying. obviously big federal national markets like, oh the entire health care market so intertwined with commerce that 2/3 of personal BANKRUPTCIES are caused by medical bills is obviously properly regulated by the feds. fuck it, just tie call it bankruptcy reduction act if that helps. medical bankruptices raise our costs for mortgages, loans, car loans, credit, and create unemployment is that enough impact on commerce for you?