[usconservative]

I don't feel like I'm falling for anything. I see a Justice who exposed an income tax that some in Congress were deliberately trying to hide from being recognized as such.

What you 'feel' is irrelevant to the discussion. Congress put into the legislation the words "mandate", "fine" and "penalty."

It was Roberts who re-wrote the bill to use the word TAX.

What you're referring to is the Court's opinion of how the bill was written, not the bill itself. You're trying to justify a bad conclusion by making a wrong argument.

Is that deliberate on your part or not?

[philman_36]

I'm frankly shocked to see so many on here falling for it.
I don't feel like I'm falling for anything.

What you 'feel' is irrelevant to the discussion.
Boy, you sure are trying to twist what I wrote, aren't you.
Not very nice at all.

It was Roberts who re-wrote the bill to use the word TAX. Congress put into the legislation the words "mandate", "fine" and "penalty."
You and I differ on this then. To me Roberts exposed the individual mandate as the income tax that it was all along.

Psssst...Congress also put into the legislation the words "tax" many, many times. Or did you not know that?
The Democrats and the crafters of the bill tried to hide that tax...don't you get that? They tried to BS people and you're berating the man who is telling you..."Hey, I'm here to tell you that they're putting an income tax on you and they tried to be sneaky in doing so by using the words "mandate", "fine" and "penalty" instead of tax."

I can't believe you're falling for that trick.