A Burgundy and Gold Obsession
'Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.' - Groucho Marx

Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Disagree Disagree:  0
Post of the Year Post of the Year:  0
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 77
  1. #1
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    03-25-12
    Location
    My location
    Posts
    297
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Baylor

    Default The Supreme Court the supreme branch

    You can disagree with their opinion, but IMHO the Supreme Court displayed a strict following of the Constitution and that is what they are charged to do. They should never get caught up in partisan politics. Bravo to them.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  2. #2

    Join Date
    07-22-09
    Posts
    7,588
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    opinions vary!

    they stated ACA wasn't a tax so the injunction clause did not obtain...and then stated ACA was a tax in order sustain the legislation in the face of Un-Constitutional use of the commerce clause.

    the intellectual legerdemains is comical. the only good thing coming out of this is that SCOTUS established what most already knew: the administration and those who voted for the legislation were lying all along.
    Last edited by fansince62; 07-02-12 at 07:27 AM.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  3. #3
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    04-01-11
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    4,738
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Blog Entries
    3
    Army

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RG3 Fan View Post
    the Supreme Court displayed a strict following of the Constitution
    They most certainly did not. They reworked the law to make an illegal law legal, as stated by Chief Justice Roberts. They violated their Constitutional powers, since only the Legislative Branch can write laws.

    Their job is to judge the Constitutionality of a law as it is written, not find a way to make it Constitutional if it's not.
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    It's ok, I don't like you either.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    07-22-09
    Posts
    7,588
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Extreme View Post
    They most certainly did not. They reworked the law to make an illegal law legal, as stated by Chief Justice Roberts. They violated their Constitutional powers, since only the Legislative Branch can write laws.

    Their job is to judge the Constitutionality of a law as it is written, not find a way to make it Constitutional if it's not.
    a much better way of putting it!

    at some point...one may be forced to agree with the Left - law...well.....it don't mean what it did in other times.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  5. #5

    Join Date
    07-15-09
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    13,516
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Florida Atlantic

    Default

    Agree, RG3Fan. Conservatives want to make this into some huge scandal, but in the end, Roberts followed his beliefs and chose judicial restraint over judicial activism. Its ironic, seeing as how judicial activists are the scourge of justice system, according to the right.

    If your problem is with calling the mandate a 'tax,' then the fault lies with the administration for lying about it. It is what it is, and the Supreme Court judged it based on what it is. I still can't believe one of the more conservative justices to ever sit on the bench is being questioned here...just goes to show how strong partisan politics have become this day and age.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  6. #6

    Join Date
    09-20-11
    Posts
    8,920
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    George Mason

    Default

    It also shows how quickly they'll throw one of their own under the bus as soon as they 'step out of line'.

    I always wondered why people in the republican party are such puppets for the party... i guess it's because as soon as you do anything that doesn't fit lock-step with their plan, the entire party attacks you for days on end through every media outlet they control.

    It's a good thing the Justices don't have to worry about being fired, or trying to run for reelection. They can do what they think is right and not be punished for it.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  7. #7

    Join Date
    07-22-09
    Posts
    7,588
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    yea...it's just partisan politics! who cares that this power grab was filled with duplicity from day 1 and NEVER supported by the people.

    listen carefully...again...the argument was intellectually vapid. it took with one hand what it gave with the other. millions will set about working ways to destroy this horrible piece of legislation. it's gonna take time...but it will be consigned to the ash heap of history and we will have to start over.....that many trillions more behind the proverbial budget power curve. in the mean time...we will have you to thank for fewer doctors and increased unemployment?
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  8. #8

    Join Date
    07-15-09
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    13,516
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Florida Atlantic

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tshile View Post
    It's a good thing the Justices don't have to worry about being fired, or trying to run for reelection. They can do what they think is right and not be punished for it.
    Which is exactly why they can't be fired or have to run for reelection. Well, technically they can be impeached, but it would take a lot more than stepping over the party line to be impeached...one would hope.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  9. #9

    Join Date
    09-20-11
    Posts
    8,920
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    George Mason

    Default

    it was supported by the people.

    and this election will show whether it is still supported by the people.

    i'm prepared to say that the people decided they did not want ACA if Obama does not win in November.

    But I'm genuinely curious, fansince62, are you prepared to admit the american people do want it if Obama wins?

    I bet you wont.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  10. #10

    Join Date
    07-15-09
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    13,516
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Florida Atlantic

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tshile View Post
    it was supported by the people.

    and this election will show whether it is still supported by the people.

    i'm prepared to say that the people decided they did not want ACA if Obama does not win in November.
    Yep...if this administration is shown the door in November, it will be safe to say the American people don't want Obamacare.

    But I'm genuinely curious, fansince62, are you prepared to admit the american people do want it if Obama wins?

    I bet you wont.
    Dollars to donuts says no.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  11. #11

    Join Date
    07-22-09
    Posts
    7,588
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tshile View Post
    It also shows how quickly they'll throw one of their own under the bus as soon as they 'step out of line'.

    I always wondered why people in the republican party are such puppets for the party... i guess it's because as soon as you do anything that doesn't fit lock-step with their plan, the entire party attacks you for days on end through every media outlet they control.

    It's a good thing the Justices don't have to worry about being fired, or trying to run for reelection. They can do what they think is right and not be punished for it.

    "one of their own?...is that your schoolyard mentality? I get it that you don't care to argue the details. I wouldn't want to either when the outcomes are so stark. this is about principle, freedom and integrity...none of which you or Obama apparently care about.

    but have at it......pebble tossing is a sport of sorts...I guess.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  12. #12

    Join Date
    09-20-11
    Posts
    8,920
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    George Mason

    Default

    And there it is.

    I hate freedom.

    Thank you for fitting the cookie cutter mold that is today's typical republican, fansince62.

    I disagree with you on it, therefore I must hate your freedom.

    Good job.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  13. #13

    Join Date
    07-22-09
    Posts
    7,588
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    this legislation will be destroyed...no matter how long it takes. the Prez's mis-management of the economy will see to that. the only issue is how bad and long-term the damage will be.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  14. #14

    Join Date
    09-20-11
    Posts
    8,920
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    George Mason

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fansince62 View Post
    this legislation will be destroyed...no matter how long it takes. the Prez's mis-management of the economy will see to that. the only issue is how bad and long-term the damage will be.
    Dodge doge deflect.

    Thats the only way you can do it. You wont directly answer the question. Hilarious considering how often you claim to want to discuss the details.

    So, both Lanky and I are right, if Obama wins you will not in any way admit that it's a reflection of America's support for/against ACA.


    Do you even realize how intellectually dishonest you are when you discuss politics?
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  15. #15

    Join Date
    07-22-09
    Posts
    7,588
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tshile View Post
    And there it is.

    I hate freedom.

    Thank you for fitting the cookie cutter mold that is today's typical republican, fansince62.

    I disagree with you on it, therefore I must hate your freedom.

    And you wonder why no one around here takes you seriously.
    geez...can't you get away from your own bigoted cliches? it's not one or two individuals...why it's the millions who call themselves Republicans!

    you don't take me seriously...big whup. you guys need to find new talking points - many of us have been hearing the same puerile stuff from you forever. you are irrelevant to what has to be done.

    my freedom? ummmm....everyone is impacted. some are lambs and don't understand, some are cynical and don't care, some are entirely comfortable with using government - unpersuasive cowards that they are - to do the dirty work. it will fail....the 60-39 strictly ideological vote and the manner in which the legislation was rammed through Congress all but guaranteed failure.

    and there it is: not one credible counter-argument on how this legislation was engineered, how SCOTUS rewrote the legislation, how SCOTUS contradicted itself, the big lie about taxes, the big lie about costs..........cuz we love us some fairness! at any cost!!!
    Last edited by fansince62; 07-02-12 at 10:01 AM.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  16. #16

    Join Date
    09-20-11
    Posts
    8,920
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    George Mason

    Default

    My own bigoted cliches?

    you're the one telling the rest of us how we hate your freedom...

    You should work on keeping the conversation straight...

    edit: and i took away the seriously part. i realized i'm likely incorrect on that, ax and extreme probably do take you seriously (although they'd have to answer that themselves) and there are probably more. that was an unfair comment.
    Last edited by tshile; 07-02-12 at 10:00 AM.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  17. #17

    Join Date
    07-22-09
    Posts
    7,588
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    not my freedom....you can handle abstractions...correct? you think I'm the only one stewed about this? guess again.

    this is a simple government play to control our lives and to redistribute wealth. you don't care about the mechanics because you believe in the "fairness" of it all. well...more power to you. just don't obfuscate the matter while simultaneously refusing to address the details. if you like being told what to do - again...more power to you. if you have contempt for your fellow citizens and believe government is needed to force "just" outcomes - more power to you. if you are comfortable being lied to - more power to you. again...you are irrelevant to how millions of others who haven't been bought off view the matter.......this is a long-term battle...that has just begun.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  18. #18

    Join Date
    09-20-11
    Posts
    8,920
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    George Mason

    Default

    You're freedom, everyone's freedom. You think I hate freedom in general, which is just pathetic.

    Your arguing style is a complete and pathetic joke. Look what you've turned the conversation into.

    Now, not only do I hate freedom, but I apparently the only reason I have any support for the bill is due to 'fairness'? I'm curious where you got that one from, since I don't recall ever saying that my support for the bill (which I don't really have a lot of... you're kind of making that up too) is based on fairness..

    Or that it has to do with me liking to be told what to do?

    Or I have contempt for my fellow citizens? I like being lied to?

    Again, your arguing style is a complete and utter joke. You write these posts that you think are grandiose, but they have no content to them.

    When you get challenged on anything you just dodge and deflect, then change the subject.

    You can't answer a single direct question to save your life, yet you claim it's everyone else that wants to avoid the details.

    You're so far gone it's impossible to have a real conversation with you. You just make **** up and project it on the rest of us to support your case because you don't have a legit way to support it otherwise.

    Unbelievably pathetic.
    Last edited by tshile; 07-02-12 at 10:26 AM.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  19. #19

    Join Date
    07-22-09
    Posts
    7,588
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tshile View Post
    You're freedom, everyone's freedom. You think I hate freedom in general, which is just pathetic.

    Your arguing style is a complete and pathetic joke. Look what you've turned the conversation into.

    Now, not only do I hate freedom, but I apparently the only reason I have any support for the bill is due to 'fairness'? I'm curious where you got that one from, since I don't recall ever saying that my support for the bill (which I don't really have a lot of... you're kind of making that up too) is based on fairness..

    Or that it has to do with me liking to be told what to do?

    Or I have contempt for my fellow citizens? I like being lied to?

    Again, your arguing style is a complete and utter joke. You write these posts that you think are grandiose, but they have no content to them.

    When you get challenged on anything you just doge and deflect, then change the subject.

    You can't answer a single direct question to save your life, yet you claim it's everyone else that wants to avoid the details.

    You're so far gone it's impossible to have a real conversation with you. You just make **** up and project it on the rest of us to support your case because you don't have a legit way to support it otherwise.

    Unbelievably pathetic.
    why should I take you "seriously"? you and Lanky haven't rebutted a single statistic, a single argument, a single assertion about the SCOTUS reasoning process, a single counter to the taxes clearly stipulated in the bill, a single assertion about how the legislation was passed. in the absence of credible....heck ANY......counters...one can only speculate. this is an old dynamic here - Ex, El, BB, Sarge, myself post details and sequence events...which none of you respond to. who is kidding whom here with all this nonsense about temperate exchange of ideas in the name of learning? speaking of pathetic - that is a conceit everyone sees through.

    "the rest of us"......nope...just the ones who mask reality.

    nope.....you're the ones playing jackstraw. at least be honest about it! pls...why don't you and Sarge march off and "set the rules" for the rest of us. I'm sure that is a psychological/intellectual state you would be absolutely thrilled to hold.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  20. #20

    Join Date
    09-20-11
    Posts
    8,920
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    George Mason

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fansince62 View Post
    why should I take you "seriously"? you and Lanky haven't rebutted a single statistic, a single argument, a single assertion about the SCOTUS reasoning process, a single counter to the taxes clearly stipulated in the bill, a single assertion about how the legislation was passed. in the absence of credible....heck ANY......counters...one can only speculate. this is an old dynamic here - Ex, El, BB, Sarge, myself post details and sequence events...which none of you respond to. who is kidding whom here with all this nonsense about temperate exchange of ideas in the name of learning? speaking of pathetic - that is a conceit everyone sees through.

    "the rest of us"......nope...just the ones who mask reality.

    nope.....you're the ones playing jackstraw. at least be honest about it! pls...why don't you and Sarge march off and "set the rules" for the rest of us. I'm sure that is a psychological/intellectual state you would be absolutely thrilled to hold.
    Excuse me? Are you delusional?

    I don't need to stick up for Lanky, and Lanky and I have very different opinions on many things political; lumping us together is not exactly fair. However I'll defend him where I find it easy to recall something that indicates you're just full of bull**** (as usual)

    "you and Lanky haven't rebutted a single statistic,"
    We've both posted many things. Just because you don't like the conclusion, or don't agree with them, doesn't mean we haven't posted them.

    "a single argument, a single assertion about the SCOTUS reasoning process"
    I've certainly posted on this. Again, you just didn't agree with me or like it - thats quite a bit different than not at all discussing it.


    "a single counter to the taxes clearly stipulated in the bill"
    Lanky has posted on that, and so have I. Again, you're making things up.

    "a single assertion about how the legislation was passed."
    I've commented on this MANY times, and I don't agree with how it was passed.


    This is exactly what i'm talking about. You just make **** up. Literally.
    You wont address any direct comment to your posts, you just continue to make **** up.

    You can't find a single place where i referenced 'fairness' in the bill. So I call you out, you wont go back to it.
    I've just point out that every single thing you mentioned above is false and incorrect. Both of us have posted many times. I'm sure you'll just avoid that with your next post and find something else to make up.

    You just make things up. Your posts are full of bull**** projections. Its what you want to be true.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. AP: Court: NFL is 32 teams, not single business
    By China in forum National Football League
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-24-10, 01:10 PM

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •