| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Baaahb

Joined: 07 Jan 2005 Posts: 15750 Location: Ponderosa
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Republicans are not a conservative party any more. They are a reactionary party. Their opinions come and go as fast as you can change a diaper.
It's really hard to judge what the electorate will support, considering that a very substantial percentage have been led through soundbites and populism into supporting positions that are directly contrary to their economic self-interest, (which they generally indicate as the issue of primary concern to them.) _________________ Other vegetables have a hard time competing with potatoes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
VTnCO
Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 648 Location: Republic of Boulder
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't get how the individual mandate is so unconstitutional considering the other mandatory items we have. I can't opt out of paying into Social Security - which I could care less about in relation to a proper health care system. I don't get to select to not contribute to paying for the uninsured when I pay my health bills.
I actually think that if the SCOTUS overturns the individual mandate, it will seal Obama's re-election. Enough independents will see what it was doing/going to do and convince them the GOP is not looking out for them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mark
Joined: 06 Dec 2004 Posts: 2819
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jesus H Kreest. The inflammatory BS is just thick and deep, and without some intelligent thoughtful discussion of our differences, f(^' it, might as well bust out the guns and start shooting.
IMHO, the mandate will be struck down by virtue that it requires the public to buy a 'private' insurance product which is fundamentally different than funding for public schools/compulsory education, roads, etc.... Other provisions will stand. In the end, it will revert to a states rights issue. Within a decade, groups of states will block together and invest in regional single payer systems that reflect the values and the needs of their constituents. The PNW will have a very different system than the southeast. That's fine with me. I no longer believe that we have enough common values and shared cultural interests to maintain the current union. A constitutional amendment to allow the peaceful dissolution of the union? I'm all for it. In the meantime, I'd like one that says that no state can receive more federal money than they pay. In the end, the sad thing is, we're imploding by choice, not necessity. OK. All done. Small 'r'-ant's over. Flame away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Baaahb

Joined: 07 Jan 2005 Posts: 15750 Location: Ponderosa
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
in many areas one must buy city services, such as city water, city sewer, city garbage service...and some of these services are provide by private contractors.... _________________ Other vegetables have a hard time competing with potatoes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
slamdance
Joined: 03 Nov 2008 Posts: 834
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Baaahb wrote: | | in many areas one must buy city services, such as city water, city sewer, city garbage service...and some of these services are provide by private contractors.... |
Got 10th Amendment? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
NoOneInParticular
Joined: 09 Feb 2005 Posts: 3607 Location: VT
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the 10th amendment seems to swing in and out of fashion depending on the political makeup of the court. not that I hold myself out as an expert.
the media portrayed the more moderate Republican appointees as rather negative about the mandatory opt in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stevesliva
Joined: 11 Dec 2004 Posts: 10142 Location: SEA
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| slamdance wrote: | | Got 10th Amendment? |
Is that the basis of your argument that the court will strike Obamacare down? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
slamdance
Joined: 03 Nov 2008 Posts: 834
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stevesliva wrote: | | slamdance wrote: | | Got 10th Amendment? |
Is that the basis of your argument that the court will strike Obamacare down? |
Yes. No. Oh Slobberface, you've got me soooo confused!!
Is this the best schtick you can come up with?
I think it's hilarious that I bug you so much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stevesliva
Joined: 11 Dec 2004 Posts: 10142 Location: SEA
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Just the 10th amendment? Really? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
NoOneInParticular
Joined: 09 Feb 2005 Posts: 3607 Location: VT
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stevesliva wrote: | | Just the 10th amendment? Really? |
Isn't that what the debate is about? The mandatory participation and the increase in Medicaide - in other words - you go along with the increased participation that the feds mostly pay for, or you get nothing |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
slamdance
Joined: 03 Nov 2008 Posts: 834
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NoOneInParticular wrote: | | the 10th amendment seems to swing in and out of fashion depending on the political makeup of the court. not that I hold myself out as an expert. |
Perhaps but this isn't a "States' rights" issue. I was just making the rather mundane and completely uncontroversial observation that States (and their municipalities) can do things the federal government can not.
| NoOneInParticular wrote: | | the media portrayed the more moderate Republican appointees as rather negative about the mandatory opt in. |
Any jurist with a more conservative interpretation of the Constitution would see this as a rather unprecedented excercise of federal power under the Commerce Clause. Where that puts them in the end is still uncertain - at least to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
slamdance
Joined: 03 Nov 2008 Posts: 834
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stevesliva wrote: | | Just the 10th amendment? Really? |
You're so fucking stupid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
slamdance
Joined: 03 Nov 2008 Posts: 834
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NoOneInParticular wrote: | | Isn't that what the debate is about? |
No, it's not a 10th amendment issue at all. It has to do with Congress' power under the Commerce Clause (its power to regulate interstate commerce). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stevesliva
Joined: 11 Dec 2004 Posts: 10142 Location: SEA
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| slamdance wrote: | | Any jurist with a more conservative interpretation of the Constitution would see this as a rather unprecedented excercise of federal power under the Commerce Clause. |
WOW!!!! That's such an amazing bit of scholarship!! Please continue your uniquely brilliant insights. Pretty soon you'll be predicting justice Thomas won't ask any questions. Mind blowing! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
slamdance
Joined: 03 Nov 2008 Posts: 834
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steve - it's boring now. When you get no further replies - you'll know it's me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|