Posted on 07/01/2012 9:15:07 AM PDT by Kaslin
The reply to these fools must always be something like
“The Supreme Court, the law that governs you, says it is a tax. The IRS which can jail you and strip you of your posessions, is legally bound to enforce this tax. For you to stand there and say it is not a tax carries no more weight in the face of law than saying trees drive cars. Both are figments of a delusional imagination and play no part in the reality we live in. If you want to look like an uneducated fool, that is your choice.”
Just hammer them with the fact they look ignorant to their friends and they will quickly change their tune or shut up. Because appearance is everything to these idiots. Substance matters not a whit.
If a tax, it’s easier to sh*tcan the whole mess—IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED—instead of that (spit) SCOTUS.
John Candy Crowley is the absolute ugliest, maggot-iest, mannish thing given a platform that I have ever seen.
Its name should be ‘Pat’.
I’m surprised Ms Candy is focused on anything but her next plate of chow.
“it only takes 51 votes in the senate to overturn a tax, because it is not subject to filibuster.”
That is correct, plus the fact that the administration argud before the USSC that it was a tax.
Can’t have it both ways.
The Democrats love taxes and always will. Unfortunately for them, voters do not love taxes and are loath to approve them. The Left must resort to stealth (lies), to offers of more free stuff, and to exemptions for their voters to sell the notion. That’s what they did in this case and they are going to be called on it. The press will do their best to confuse the issue, we must do our best to make them pay a political price.
Candy Crowley doesn’t care whether it’s a tax or not. She doens’t care because liberal journalists don’t really care about the legal reasoning in this case. They only care that “Obama won” and that the conservatives were defeated.
I must say, I am shocked at the reasoning in this case. And concerned because the legal reasoning can be used in future cases, unrelated to healthcare. This legal precedent means that the federal government can compel us to buy any product or service, or compel us to do anything, just by putting a tax on something, and then calling it a tax, not a penalty or a fee.
But all of this is lost on the Candy Crowleys of the world. All they care about is that “Obama won”.
Either way, the SCOTUS has ruled that it is permissable to force commerce activity. That is new. That is nothing resembling freedom. That is the hallmark of a Command Economy, something the Soviet Union has a lot of experience with -- but even THEY did not go as far as demanding their citizens buy something. Not even HITLER went THAT far, demanding Germans buy "Mein Kampf".
Of course she doesn’t care; she’s all in for Obamacare.
It is the Democrats dancing on the head of a pin. The SC said (my read) that the bill is constitutional if one considers it to be a tax. So let the Dems defend the tax.
Oh ... now they don’t want to consider it a tax ... OK. Then it is unconstitutional. which is it? and who is dancing on the head of a pin?
She has always disgusted me. I make no apologies for how I feel and are even more entrenched in my opinion in that her ugliness is to the bone.
Come the time when there are 5 liberals sitting on the bench the legal semantics of calling it a tax or upholding it under the commerce provision falls by the wayside. No one ever doubted that the 4 Dems on that court would uphold every provision of Obamacare as they do with ALL marquee Dem legislation. That is why this whole theoretical concept that Roberts by upholding it under the taxation rather than commerce provision is really restricting the overreach of the Court in the future is silly.When that 5th liberal is appointed, the mindless harping of the media looking for an interesting angle to report will be just that- mindless.
Unless the voter is part of the bottom rung leeches who pay almost none or zero taxes. Then they vote for it to stick it to the rest of us. King Barry's class warfare ploy dividing the populace.
Even when the Bush Tax Cuts go, the largest single group of taxpayers that will be impacted the most are the ones currently in the 10% bracket, their tax will increase 50% to 15%...these people are the ones making about $8K to $10k..... Never fear though, liberals have already worked it out. They don't pay any damned taxes anyway. Their EITC more that makes up for it - they may just get less, but I somehow doubt Obama is priming the pump to give more exemptions for lowlife incomers. Remember I did say "it appears on the surface."
About 48% of the people in this country don't pay taxes, or their bite is very minimal - and yet they still bitch and talk about 'fair share'.
This will end one of two ways: Obama is thrown out and some sense of controllable normalcy will come back, OR he will be re-elected and all of you Baby Boomers, Gen EXERs, Milleniums and whatever infighting, fragmented, diversionist crap pastime people are carping about get ALL of their 401Ks, IRAs, Roths, Stocks/Bonds, piggy banks get taken outright to give to these leeches. You might get a 'chit' for an extra $50/month from SS if you're lucky.
Candy is not dandy.
It's not fair for some people to have better health care than others, so Obama will punish people who have premium plans.
So, this is a tax on something that you either buy too little of, or buy too much of. Obama will decide how much is good enough for you.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.