It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

20% of new Obamacare Waivers are restaurants, nightclubs, fancy hotels in Pelosi’s District!

page: 12
38
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Drakmarine
 





I'd like to point out that the Constitution is meant to be a living document,


100% incorrect. Thus suggesting, conversation/debate with you would be a waste of time.

Facts:

* You made a statement, which I quoted you saying, and you deny the comment
* the Constitution is not a living document, and was not designed to " evolve "
* Your misunderstanding or simply, lack of reading comprehension suggests the classes you claim you took, fell on deaf ears.


Would be a waste of time to debate with you any further.

Good day~
edit on 18-5-2011 by Realms because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realms
reply to post by Drakmarine
 





I'd like to point out that the Constitution is meant to be a living document,


100% incorrect. Thus suggesting, conversation/debate with you would be a waste of time.

Facts:

* You made a statement, which I quoted you saying, and you deny the comment
* the Constitution is not a living document, and was not designed to " evolve "
* Your misunderstanding or simply, lack of reading comprehension suggests the classes you claim you took, fell on deaf ears.


Would be a waste of time to debate with you any further.

Good day~
edit on 18-5-2011 by Realms because: (no reason given)


The Constitution is interpreted...hence the SCOTUS. And since it is interpreted...it is perfectly fine to call it a "living document".

To believe otherwise is foolish.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Realms
 


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHa.....hahahahahahahahahahahhaa......teeheeteeheeteehee...phew I thought I was going to have an intelligent discussion with somebody who criticizes loose constructionism for constitutional interpretation. Obviously I will have to continue to wait.

Facts:
1. You horrendously misquoted me and I recanted nothing. Learn to read.
2. Constitution must be a living document. Anybody who thinks that the founding fathers meant for their work to never be changed/interpreted is a moron.
3.Your necessity to attack me personally rather than have a substantive conversation, suggests you have nothing worth while to say.

Thank you for proving my point.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by spyder550
reply to post by nenothtu
 


That means when you get sick I get to pay for it while you are enjoying a free ride. Begger.


You have NEVER paid for my illness, and you never will. I don't even know you, and for the life of me can't figure out how you get that


NO ONE else has paid for my health care since I was a very small child, around 6 or so, and then it was my parents, neither of which (I am quite sure) you are. I take care of myself, don't need you OR your money.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Ahabstar
 



Very much on point. You wouldn't need to quibble over waivers and who is getting what if you look at the fact that the whole reform was Unconstitutional in the first place.


The Unconstitutionality of it is your opinion. Since it is current law, it is right now "constitutional".

Until the SCOTUS rules otherwise, it will remain constitutional.


I'm curious though, if the SCOTUS rules that the health care bill is in fact constitutional...will you accept their ruling?
No I will not except the ruling of SCOTUS because they are just as corrupt as the other 2 branches of government.

The constitution is not interpreted unless it suits the politicians, the constitution is set in stone. Amendments are added to the constitution then it is SCOTUS to decide whether it is constitutional.

Why else would they give police the authority to violate our rights granted under the constitution. Don't tell me it's in the interest of safety and security. The government is the one who has created the problems that they are "fixing" just to suit themselves. There is no way that you can say anything that could make me think or feel the government cares one bit about the American person unless they are close to them. It has been this way for many many years.
edit on 18-5-2011 by IncognitoGhostman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by spyder550

Tell you what we'll quite using "Tea Bagger" if you quit using "Obamacare" Though to be fair you picked out Tea Bagger.


I was not aware that "Obamacare" was a perjorative with derisive sexual connotations. Be that as it may, can you quote me from anywhere in this thread that I've used that term? If not, then my point still stands.



as far as being sick and uninsured -- I am not poor life has been very rewarding to me. You have made a choice to be my burden, because poor/middle class hell even wealthy in this country can not afford to be self insured. Bragging about the fact pretty much says I'm a leech screw you.


Again with the claims that I'm somehow "leeching". Send me the bill for my health care you've paid. I'll be happy to reimburse you. Itemize it if you will, to make it easier. Thanks. At NO point in either my life or yours have I EVER "been a burden" to you, and I never will. Your blowing smoke out your 4th point of contact with spurious claims like that. When someone starts throwing smoke screens, it behooves one to ask just what it is they're trying to hide with that smoke.



But since you are my burden because you will be taken care of through expensive public services or the ever popular emergency room visit because they are free -- please quit pissing and moaning when I want a more equitable and less expensive way to take care of myself my family and the freeloaders who take pride in refusing to get insurance.


Can you tell me when THAT has EVER happened? You know, some sort of backup for your spurious claims that I have some how "burdened" you, taken advantage of ANY sort of public medical service, or EVER visited an emergency room for free care? EVER. No sir, you can't, because it's NEVER happened.

And it NEVER will.

I don't care how you take care of your own family, I really don't, and you ought to stop expecting me to subsidize whatever method you choose. Not gonna happen. I'm not about to throw MY money away on the Insurance Lotto just so YOU can live on the cheap. "Equitable"? In what sort of worldview is it "equitable" for me to be forced to subsidize you? How would that be any different from you subsidizing me, which you seem to have issues with and fears of? Rest those fears. I'll never ask you for a dime. Never have, never will.



Don't say I am just going to crawl under a bridge and die.


Sorry, I'm not about to allow you to pick my method or place of dying for me. I don't recall mentioning a "bridge", nor is it likely that any bridges will be involved. Fact is, I WILL die at some point, as will we all, and I prefer to accomplish that on my own terms, not yours. Death is inevitable, it comes for us all, and the place is if little consequence in the grand scheme of things.



This country is not totally right wing there are still people who have some compassion and they will take care of you imaginary gladiator ass.


No, they won't. Never have, never will. Right wing or left matters nary a whit, and is nothing more than another smoke screen to hide behind. I mentioned that I am "right wing", and I am, but it's neither a means to throw blame at the left nor a justification for heartlessness. It simply is, a political viewpoint that has no bearing at all on "compassion". As a matter of fact, I'd be happy to match what I do for my community out of my poverty against what you do for yours out of your wealth any day you feel froggy. Difference is, I do what I do out of choice, not out of coercion.



If this galls you get it (Gaul gall) and you want to go it alone there are countries that would love to have you -- well they actually could care less if you came or went -- you might try Somalia its nice or Afganistan we'll be out of there soon -perhaps Haiti its close.


Thanks for the tip, but I believe I'll stay here. America is not completely totalitarian yet, and so far I've done a grand job of going it alone right here - and here is where I'll stay, right up to the bitter end. As a point you may not be aware of, I've been to both Somalia and Afghanistan, although never Haiti, and things are not as "free" in those places as you seem to think. I don't believe it would be possible to "go it alone" in either one. The fact that you DO think so speaks volumes to your life experience, which goes a long way to explain your apparent infatuation with the current "Health Care" scheme.





edit on 2011/5/18 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

They are using the Commerece Clause to justify the Constitutionality of it...and so as of right now...it is Constitutional.


Commerce Clause? What a novel abuse of it! I believe this is the very first time that the Commerce Clause has been interpreted to mean that an individual can be FORCED to purchase a good or a service! How's that gonna work for you when they determine that you MUST buy a Cadillac, because the company starts failing and is "too big to fail"? Besides, in a rich country, everyone DESERVES one, right?




I'll ask you the same question I've asked others. Will you accept the SCOTUS ruling once they rule on the Constitutionality of the law?


I doubt it. Why would I need a Black Robe to "interpret" what anyone with an 8th grade education should be clearly able to comprehend already? The ONLY place this would be considered "legal" is in a totalitarian state. Welcome to your Brave New World!



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by spyder550
reply to post by nenothtu
 


That means when you get sick I get to pay for it while you are enjoying a free ride. Begger.


You have NEVER paid for my illness, and you never will. I don't even know you, and for the life of me can't figure out how you get that


NO ONE else has paid for my health care since I was a very small child, around 6 or so, and then it was my parents, neither of which (I am quite sure) you are. I take care of myself, don't need you OR your money.




Clearly, you don't fall into the liberal - womb to the tomb - mindset.

Strong, confident, independent and self - reliant? These character traits are so alien to
the neolib way of thinking.
-----------------------------------------
How can we have a HUGE and out-of-control government with people like this running around?



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



I doubt it. Why would I need a Black Robe to "interpret" what anyone with an 8th grade education should be clearly able to comprehend already? The ONLY place this would be considered "legal" is in a totalitarian state. Welcome to your Brave New World!


Well, the thing is that this is your OPINION...and others have different OPINIONS.

Hence, why we need the "black robes" to interpret which OPINION will be deemed the correct one to follow.


It must be nice though living life feeling like you have all the answers and that your opinion is the only one that matters.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by nenothtu
 






It must be nice though living life feeling like you have all the answers and that your opinion is the only one that matters.


Wow, Vomit called and wants to tell poop it stinks.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by nenothtu
 



I doubt it. Why would I need a Black Robe to "interpret" what anyone with an 8th grade education should be clearly able to comprehend already? The ONLY place this would be considered "legal" is in a totalitarian state. Welcome to your Brave New World!


Well, the thing is that this is your OPINION...and others have different OPINIONS.

Hence, why we need the "black robes" to interpret which OPINION will be deemed the correct one to follow.


It must be nice though living life feeling like you have all the answers and that your opinion is the only one that matters.


Nope, not a matter of "opinion", it's rather a matter if what is already written, in plain English, and already codified into law via the Constitution. Anyone who needs an "interpreter" is in the wrong country. The function of the SCOTUS is to measure NEW laws against what is already plainly written and codified into the law of the Land, in order to determine if they are constitutionally legal or not. It is NOT to "reinterpret" the Constitution in order to shoehorn those new laws in and MAKE them fit.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 

You are the epitome of the Elitist Liberal Totalitarian.
You know best.
What you know is truth.
Everyone else is stupid.
If they don't agree, apply Alinksy rules for attack.

The foundation of the Country was designed as such so that any citizen can read and interpret it. It is people like you that has twisted into this idea that the peons can't possibly understand it, so you must read and dictate from on high.
You offer little except your distorted view on how things should be, as decided by you. Instead of allowing people to govern and provide for themselves.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I gues I mis understood when you said you were sick poor and uninsured. A bout of pneumonia and a couple of days in an ICU and you are north of 100,000 -- if being able to weather a 100k -- is that easy then I wish I was poor too.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by spyder550
reply to post by nenothtu
 


That means when you get sick I get to pay for it while you are enjoying a free ride. Begger.


You have NEVER paid for my illness, and you never will. I don't even know you, and for the life of me can't figure out how you get that


NO ONE else has paid for my health care since I was a very small child, around 6 or so, and then it was my parents, neither of which (I am quite sure) you are. I take care of myself, don't need you OR your money.




Clearly, you don't fall into the liberal - womb to the tomb - mindset.


No, I really don't. Those who do have never moved very far from the womb. If they still need a "mommy" to take care of them, they should move back to her basement, and leave the rest of us alone, not substitute a government for a mommy, and try to force us all to play along.



Strong, confident, independent and self - reliant? These character traits are so alien to
the neolib way of thinking.


I'm not very strong any more, but I've replaced strength with determination, and have to tell you, determination will get you through things where strength fails. "Independent" and "self reliant" pretty much goes with the territory, and is a function of having grown up and moved away from the womb.



How can we have a HUGE and out-of-control government with people like this running around?


Determination. Don't let 'em steamroll ya. They can't do anything to you that you don't allow them to. As I've said repeatedly, just say NO!



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by spyder550
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I gues I mis understood when you said you were sick poor and uninsured. A bout of pneumonia and a couple of days in an ICU and you are north of 100,000 -- if being able to weather a 100k -- is that easy then I wish I was poor too.


Why would I go to an ICU? I had pneumonia, never saw a day in an ICU. Hasn't any one ever told you that folks DIE in hospitals? Can you name for me where most cases of pneumonia are CAUGHT to begin with? I really can't see going to a hospital to try to get RID of pneumonia!





edit on 2011/5/18 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by spyder550
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I gues I mis understood when you said you were sick poor and uninsured. A bout of pneumonia and a couple of days in an ICU and you are north of 100,000 -- if being able to weather a 100k -- is that easy then I wish I was poor too.


Why would I go to an ICU? I had pneumonia, never saw a day in an ICU. Hasn't any one ever told you that folks DIE in hospitals? Can you name for me where most cases of pneumonia are CAUGHT to begin with? I really can't see going to a hospital to try to get RID of pneumonia!





edit on 2011/5/18 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

Funny, because a family member just got diagnosed with pneumonia. Xray and some Antibiotics is all.
And, I really don't see how this would put me in the poor house.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

It must be nice though living life feeling like you have all the answers and that your opinion is the only one that matters.


When it comes to how I live MY life, MY opinion IS the only one that matters, just as you are allowed to determine your own course with YOUR life. Where we run into trouble is when the way you run your life requires you to encroach on mine. That's just not going to happen, neither in a "perfect" world, nor in any other.

If your support is dependent on ME, you've done something wrong.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Nope, not a matter of "opinion", it's rather a matter if what is already written, in plain English, and already codified into law via the Constitution. Anyone who needs an "interpreter" is in the wrong country. The function of the SCOTUS is to measure NEW laws against what is already plainly written and codified into the law of the Land, in order to determine if they are constitutionally legal or not. It is NOT to "reinterpret" the Constitution in order to shoehorn those new laws in and MAKE them fit.



The SCOTUS, does not judge new laws, they judge disputed decisions which have been appealed from lower courts
State and Federal alike. The Constitutionality of a decision is a matter of opinion of 9 people...

Tell me how a chartered entity, like a corporation is now afforded the rights and stature of an individual?

Clearly a legal creation is not an individual...

Would you argue that the constitution afforded, the legal protection of a ficticious entity and the consideration
of an individual, to the individual AND his/their creation?

This perversion was created in the courts. by perverted opinions of supreme court justices inching forth their
insane opinions... Nowhere in the constitution can one infer a fabricated legal entity, is in fact a human.
A shoehorned example of opinion reigning over the constitutional intent itself.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Drakmarine
 


Give my regards to the Fuhrer!



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


You argue from both sides of the fence.
The issue of Corporations is not part of this issue, yet you use it as a stepping stone.
The application of Case Law is as Progressive as it gets.
You seem to argue for Case Law and condemn it all at once.
Your statement that the SCOTUS only hears cases that have been sent up is a matter of semantics.
The Judicial branch is to determine if a law was broken and if a proposed law is constitutional.
Seems to me that it is working its way up the chain, and by all rights and definition will be deemed unlawful.
And no amount of twisting and turning or holding up the Commerce Claus in defense will make it constitutional.

edit on 18-5-2011 by macman because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
38
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join