Healthcare Ruling: Individual Mandate Ruled CONSTITUTIONAL, entire law upheld.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by habitforming

Social Security proves all of your points wrong.

And how is Social Security doing these days?

Set for insolvency I believe.
More Govt run amok with false hopes and lies.

You believe wrong. SS is doing just fine, despite the Republican efforts to both loot and dismantle it. Amazing how it holds up and is quite popular.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by habitforming

 

sure is ... ever been to a base state-side ??
to think we aren't protected is just plain foolishness.

Can you even read? I did not say the US is not protected. FAIL.

raising an army and utilizing it are two very different things.

Yep those are two different words and everything. Very good.

militias are raised in the State in which they reside.
they are raised and supported by the citizens of that state.

militias? You mean the middle aged men that still buy SOF magazine or what? What militias?

the army was Constitutionally created/crafted and financially supported by the citizens (although the method has been warped and abused).

did you think they were the same thing?

I do not even know what you are talking about. Try reading my post and responding again. Getting what I wrote wrong right off the bat seemed to totally screw up whatever your point was.

Originally posted by macman
I don't need to go back and re-read. I know what you are getting at.
Yes, other Presidents have made bad choices.

Yeah you do need to go back an re-read because "other presidents have made bad choices" is NOT EVEN CLOSE TO WHAT I WAS GETTING AT.
You can keep posting nonsense I will ignore because it is not a response to anything other than your imagination or you can actually go back and re-read what you posted and what I responded with or you can even just admit you are lost.

This was so far off it was funny.

reply to post by habitforming

You believe wrong. SS is doing just fine, despite the Republican efforts to both loot and dismantle it. Amazing how it holds up and is quite popular.

That's alarming !!

How are they doing this "dismantling" ?

Is it legislation proposals ?

Please cite and quote some verifiable examples.

TIA.

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by nenothtu
My bad. I keep forgetting that they don't teach civics in school any more, and kids these days don't know what "governing" is any longer.

"Governing" is keeping Knothead A from infringing Knothead B's rights, and providing a remedy when they are unsuccessful at that. As an example, they're there to keep you all from murdering one another, and failing that, meting out punishment to the murdering party. They're there to either prevent or remedy assaults, thefts, and the like, things that one person does which infringe on another.

They are NOT there to facilitate the theft. They are NOT there to prop up private businesses artificially when that business will fail under poor management. They are NOT there to operate charities. They are NOT there to be your mommy, wipe you nose, bandage your knee, or hug you when you fall.

Does not really sound like you know what you think it means either. All of that is pretty narrow and extremely opinionated. How about defense of the country? Are they there for that?

Already covered, here:

They're there to either prevent or remedy assaults, thefts, and the like, things that one person does which infringe on another.

Next.

Originally posted by macman
Well, that is another topic all on it's own.

But, the Govt operating as such is how it was created and designed. Not to provide every want and whim for the citizen.
Oh, and we do pay for medicine. You just want it paid for everyone, with the Govt controlling it.

No, it is quite on topic with people ranting and raving about being robbed without being able to back that up.
Yes, I know we pay for medicine. We also pay for bombs. I would rather spend less on bombs and more on medicine. Am I going to have to over-explain everything to you?

What is wrong with having it paid for for everyone? Look at the tax dollars wasted on crap that only benefits a few people. Why is that better?
What exactly do you think I want the government in control of?

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by nenothtu
My bad. I keep forgetting that they don't teach civics in school any more, and kids these days don't know what "governing" is any longer.

"Governing" is keeping Knothead A from infringing Knothead B's rights, and providing a remedy when they are unsuccessful at that. As an example, they're there to keep you all from murdering one another, and failing that, meting out punishment to the murdering party. They're there to either prevent or remedy assaults, thefts, and the like, things that one person does which infringe on another.

They are NOT there to facilitate the theft. They are NOT there to prop up private businesses artificially when that business will fail under poor management. They are NOT there to operate charities. They are NOT there to be your mommy, wipe you nose, bandage your knee, or hug you when you fall.

Does not really sound like you know what you think it means either. All of that is pretty narrow and extremely opinionated. How about defense of the country? Are they there for that?

Already covered, here:

They're there to either prevent or remedy assaults, thefts, and the like, things that one person does which infringe on another.

Next.

Not really.
If my neighbor steals my rake, that is covered under defense of the country? Or are you saying the Federal government controls local police in defense of the country?

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by habitforming

 

You believe wrong. SS is doing just fine, despite the Republican efforts to both loot and dismantle it. Amazing how it holds up and is quite popular.

That's alarming !!

How are they doing this "dismantling" ?

Is it legislation proposals ?

Please cite and quote some verifiable examples.

TIA.

So you do not remember the Republican effort to privatize SS during the Bush presidency?
He ran on it, didn't he?

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by nenothtu
So the answer is to steal MORE?

More?
How do you do math?
You wanna pay for war and no medicine.
I wanna pay for medicine and no war.
x+w-m=y
x+m-w=y

With a pencil, usually.

The PPACA doesn't take any money from war, it places another tax, which tax provides exactly nothing to the citizen. So if you keep the taxes paying for war, and pay for war, then ADD another tax to pay for nothing, it's STILL "more", as in "more taxes", irrespective of the fact that it provides nothing in return. It does nothing to diminish war spending, or redirect that money into providing health care. It just adds another tax. You know, MORE tax.

No money has been stolen from me to fund a war, but it seems they have plans to steal from me to NOT provide any health care, too. Good luck with that theft - I'll be waiting for the enforcers.

What exactly does that mean?

Fixed your quote tags, so folks can figure out what's mine and what's yours.

For the comprehension impaired, it means that what I give is not "stolen". I am not going to give a penalty tax that returns exactly nothing.

You do not pay taxes or you pick and choose what each and every penny goes to?

I invite you to audit me and find out.

"We both" and "only I..." WHAT? Lose your train of thought there?

Why so many blank spaces at the ends of your posts? Are you trying to make them longer?

Is there some sort of relevant thought hidden in that sidetracking gibberish?

No, I did not lose my train of thought. I wrote exactly what I meant and the first part of this response right here pretty much solidifies it for me.

Then you think in meaningless gibberish. It will be difficult to hold a rational conversation with that, but I'll try.

You have two sets of standards in your America. One for you and one for me.

No. I have one standard. I will take care of myself in the best way I see fit, and allow you to do the same - but I expect reciprocity, that you will leave me alone to take care of myself as I am willing to do for you.

Originally posted by habitforming

Not really.
If my neighbor steals my rake, that is covered under defense of the country? Or are you saying the Federal government controls local police in defense of the country?

Read carefully, grasshopper, for comprehension this time.

Defense is defense. Whether from an external threat or your thieving neighbor, it is still "defense". If you can't handle your neighbor, then by all means call a cop. If you can't handle getting blown to smithereens by an external force, then by all means call out the army. Either circumstance is an "assault, theft, or infringement" - it's only a matter of scale, and so has it's proper defense mechanism at that scale.

You did not make a distinction between local defense and national defense in your initial comment, you specified national defense. Now you want to drag in the thieving neighbor you can't handle on your own as a national issue? Are you unable to make the mental distinction between local government and national government?

Let me put you back on track - this Obamneycare is a national issue. It's not your neighbor stealing your helpless rake.

Watch out about that changing horses in mid stream - it can get you all wet.

Originally posted by nenothtu
Read carefully, grasshopper, for comprehension this time.

Try to be clear this time.

Defense is defense. Whether from an external threat or your thieving neighbor, it is still "defense". If you can't handle your neighbor, then by all means call a cop. If you can't handle getting blown to smithereens by an external force, then by all means call out the army. Either circumstance is an "assault, theft, or infringement" - it's only a matter of scale, and so has it's proper defense mechanism at that scale.

So then defense against a plague would be perfectly legitimate, right?

You did not make a distinction between local defense and national defense in your initial comment, you specified national defense. Now you want to drag in the thieving neighbor you can't handle on your own as a national issue? Are you unable to make the mental distinction between local government and national government?

I can but I am not so sure you can. As you wrote

Already covered, here:

They're there to either prevent or remedy assaults, thefts, and the like, things that one person does which infringe on another.

Next.

Everything you described there is something that happens primarily at the local level. So....?

Let me put you back on track - this Obamneycare is a national issue. It's not your neighbor stealing your helpless rake.

You are off track. I never asked one question about anything called Obamneycare. You brought up what the federal government does and does not do and defense is one of them

Watch out about that changing horses in mid stream - it can get you all wet.

edit on 2012/7/13 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

Drink and post often?

Originally posted by nenothtu
With a pencil, usually.

The PPACA doesn't take any money from war, it places another tax, which tax provides exactly nothing to the citizen.

No wonder each of your posts has a "comprehension impaired" type slam in it somewhere. You cannot really read well.
Where did I ever say that the ACA took money from war?

I am not sure why you feel it does nothing for the citizen, that is not true. In fact I cited some of those things. the NPE, 80% rule, 26 year child health insurance, and it gives me a better chance of not catching something when I go out in public because you know...there should be fewer not sick people touching things I touch.

So if you keep the taxes paying for war, and pay for war, then ADD another tax to pay for nothing, it's STILL "more", as in "more taxes", irrespective of the fact that it provides nothing in return. It does nothing to diminish war spending, or redirect that money into providing health care. It just adds another tax. You know, MORE tax.

I do not think you understood what you just replied to. I know that x+y= more than x when y is a positive value. What are you arguing?

Fixed your quote tags, so folks can figure out what's mine and what's yours.

You really are a gentleman aren't you. Here I was claiming I was perfect too.

For the comprehension impaired, it means that what I give is not "stolen". I am not going to give a penalty tax that returns exactly nothing.

Slow down speedy, I believe I get to that next.

You do not pay taxes or you pick and choose what each and every penny goes to?

I invite you to audit me and find out.

How would that tell me where all of your tax dollars go?

Is there some sort of relevant thought hidden in that sidetracking gibberish?

Yes but not for comprehension-ally deficient I guess.

Then you think in meaningless gibberish. It will be difficult to hold a rational conversation with that, but I'll try.

Oh you can skip the parts at the bottom if they are too tough for you unless I go on to explain it but you cannot wait.

You have two sets of standards in your America. One for you and one for me.

Oh hey look! Yet again if you just stopped and read all the way to the end you got your answer again. I have to ask why a smart guy like you reads a paragraph and then interrupts twice to ask questions that are answered at the end?

No. I have one standard. I will take care of myself in the best way I see fit, and allow you to do the same - but I expect reciprocity, that you will leave me alone to take care of myself as I am willing to do for you.

Sorry but I live in society.The founding fathers understood what that meant

Originally posted by habitforming

Social Security proves all of your points wrong.

Oh...this will be good.

Please tell me how point by point. I am slow.

As for your remarks on defense it is fairly clear you have no basic understanding of the concept. We do not protect ourselves from American bases why would we let our enemies get that close before we acted.

We project our defense outside our boarders so we don't have to fight wars in our own back yard. Why have a war in our streets when we can have it elsewhere...?

We participate in regional conflicts across the globe to reinforce our relationships with our allies and to train our cadre of regular military members in the art and science of war so that if we ever should need to defend our actual borders we will have enough people who know how to form the base of the huge army that we will have to raise to do so. One cannot learn to prosecute war in a classroom or at a map table.

Those so trained will in turn train their replacements and new recruits who will fill the ranks.

Or are you one who believes that a citizen army will be enough...when the musket was the most complicated piece of military equipment and every farmer had one it might have been.

However, an AH64 is not a system anyone can just fire up and use. Even our basic infantry equipment requires some extensive training to use competently. The days of the citizen soldier taking up arms to protect his nation are long gone. A well trained and practiced standing army is required to be any deterrent at all. Equipment asside there are tactics and doctrine that all take time to learn. You can't recruit a Colonel and expect him ot know how employ a brigade in combat. That was neat for the Civil War when being a Colonel meant you were the one who could read wirte and disburse the pay then get everone motivated enough to line up to fight.

Things are a little more complicated now...

The only way to keep an Army ready is to always have a little conflict going on to which we can rotate our troops – just a fact. Not a convenient one but a fact none the less.

Originally posted by habitforming

Try to be clear this time.

Your lack of comprehension in basic English is not my problem,

So then defense against a plague would be perfectly legitimate, right?

Possibly. have you got a particular plague in mind, and have you an army in mind to combat it? I presume, since we are discussing your distaste of military expenditures at the moment, you must be referring to some sort of biological warfare.

I can but I am not so sure you can. As you wrote

Already covered, here:

They're there to either prevent or remedy assaults, thefts, and the like, things that one person does which infringe on another.

Next.

Everything you described there is something that happens primarily at the local level. So....?

I guess your not familiar with the concept of warfare. Just to give you a hint, it's not generally conducted at the local level, yet still requires a defense against the assault.

You are off track. I never asked one question about anything called Obamneycare. You brought up what the federal government does and does not do and defense is one of them

Why are you even here (in a "health care bill" thread) if you have no intention of discussing the "health care" travesty, then? I was speaking of government in general. YOU are the one who wanted to specify "federal", and then apply "local" to it.

post 1 - you claiming that government can't handle everything

Post 2 - me agreeing that some things are not in the government purview

Post 3 - you confused about what governing is

Post 4 - you deciding what I do and don't mind, and bringing national defense into it

Post 5 - me, explaining what government is for

Post 6 - you, telling me I don't know what I'm talking about, offering no explanation of your own, and again bringing national defense into it

Post 7 - me, explaining how national defense fits into the overall government picture

Post 8 - you, trying to switch horses to local government now

Post 9 - me, straightening out the distinctions, and trying to get back on track

Post 10 - you, blithely continuing to go off the rails

Are we straight yet? There were some other posts in there where you tried to carry it even further off topic and AWAY from the indefensible PPACA, but those listed are the pertinent ones to this current discussion.

Drink and post often?

Never. If you're attempting an insult, you'll have to do better than that.

91 Pages later...despite some peoples efforts...Obamacare still Constitutional...Still the law of the land.


I think people need to just get used to accepting this fact.

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by nenothtu

No wonder each of your posts has a "comprehension impaired" type slam in it somewhere. You cannot really read well.

One of us can't - that's pretty certain

Where did I ever say that the ACA took money from war?

Here, and here. In the former post, you present it as a choice - you'd rather it go to "health care" that have it go to war. that is the choice you yourself present in that post.It does not take military expenditures and apply them to "health care", nor does it apply much of anything at all to "health care". You seem to be confusing a windfall for insurance companies with actual health care. "Health insurance" is NOT "health care".

In the latter post, you flat out say:

More?
How do you do math?
You wanna pay for war and no medicine.
I wanna pay for medicine and no war.

I am not sure why you feel it does nothing for the citizen, that is not true. In fact I cited some of those things. the NPE, 80% rule, 26 year child health insurance,

None of those apply to me at all, since I am not a consumer in the insurance lottery. I don't care what you do, but you won't be forcing me to participate.

and it gives me a better chance of not catching something when I go out in public because you know...there should be fewer not sick people touching things I touch.

How does that work? Which section of the PPACA (NOT the "ACA") makes illness illegal? What part of it provides actual health CARE to avoid illness?

So if you keep the taxes paying for war, and pay for war, then ADD another tax to pay for nothing, it's STILL "more", as in "more taxes", irrespective of the fact that it provides nothing in return. It does nothing to diminish war spending, or redirect that money into providing health care. It just adds another tax. You know, MORE tax.

I do not think you understood what you just replied to. I know that x+y= more than x when y is a positive value. What are you arguing?

That an added tax is an added tax, not a redirection of existing taxes. You didn't REALLY have trouble figuring that out, did you? It's pretty clear,

I said:

So the answer is to steal MORE?

To which you replied:

More?
How do you do math?

Straight now? Or are you still confused?

You do not pay taxes or you pick and choose what each and every penny goes to?

I invite you to audit me and find out.

How would that tell me where all of your tax dollars go?

Who collects YOUR taxes? Any I may pay would go to government - federal, state, and local. Now that we know where mine go, perhaps you need to find out where yours go. If they levy a new tax for a specific purpose, I'll assume they intend to use it for that purpose, and pay or not accordingly. Since this new tax has NO stated purpose other than penalizing the poor for not engaging in commerce with private entities, I'm not going to pay it. Is that simple enough?

Is there some sort of relevant thought hidden in that sidetracking gibberish?

Yes but not for comprehension-ally deficient I guess.

I just wanted to bump that to note that YOU couldn't explain it, either.

Then you think in meaningless gibberish. It will be difficult to hold a rational conversation with that, but I'll try.

Oh you can skip the parts at the bottom if they are too tough for you unless I go on to explain it but you cannot wait.

You have two sets of standards in your America. One for you and one for me.

Oh hey look! Yet again if you just stopped and read all the way to the end you got your answer again. I have to ask why a smart guy like you reads a paragraph and then interrupts twice to ask questions that are answered at the end?

Yeah... technique leaves something to desire when you "answer" in the next post after the question was asked, then try to jam it into the original response as if you'd answered it there.

No. I have one standard. I will take care of myself in the best way I see fit, and allow you to do the same - but I expect reciprocity, that you will leave me alone to take care of myself as I am willing to do for you.

Sorry but I live in society.The founding fathers understood what that meant

What does that have to do with taking care of yourself? You think that's mommy government's responsibility so you don't have to? I live in a SOCIETY, not a nursery.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
91 Pages later...despite some peoples efforts...Obamacare still Constitutional...Still the law of the land.


I think people need to just get used to accepting this fact.

You are correct.
We may have to get used to it, but not necessarily accept it. Jim Crow laws were accepted for a long time, good thing some people decided not to accept it.
We may not have to get used to it for that long though. We shall see.
I don't have a problem with legislation that tries to address the problems with healthcare in the US, but I don't like the way that this law does it, in more than one way.

reply to post by butcherguy


It's hilarious you are trying to compare this to Jim Crow laws.


Do you talk like this in the real world??? I don't imagine you would...you would sound highly irrational.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by butcherguy

 

It's hilarious you are trying to compare this to Jim Crow laws.

Do you talk like this in the real world??? I don't imagine you would...you would sound highly irrational.

I don't know that's all relative I guess - IMO if you were to say the things you say around where I live I can't imagine the reaction. I am sure highly irrational would come up at least a few time sprinkled with Communist, Marxist and Liberal. Around here we want the least government possible not wealth redistribution.

Anyway, I can't believe you don't see the parallel.

Jim Crowe laws were unjust, unfair, illegal and wrong - just like the affordable care act.

They were; however, at the time considered legal in the eyes of the law until the people made it an issue.

Very similar really.

I do see how it suits your agenda to feign outrage and the inability to draw the parallel.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by butcherguy

 

It's hilarious you are trying to compare this to Jim Crow laws.

Do you talk like this in the real world??? I don't imagine you would...you would sound highly irrational.

My point is that if one accepts something that they believe to be unfair, they must continue to live with it. If they don't accept it and do something about it, things change. Is that so difficult to understand?
Some people believed that Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional, even though the Supreme Court, up to a point in time, did not. I concur with their thinking (that they were unconstitutional, to be clear)
Even though the Supreme Court has ruled that the ACA is constitutional, some citizens do not agree with that ruling. As I said before, the Dred Scott decision was the law of the land at one time. It isn't any more, thank goodness.

Would you care to point out what is so irrational about this idea?