Posted on 06/28/2012 7:29:13 AM PDT by for-q-clinton
Damn!!!!
No, I was merely trying to point out to the poster that his comments about “elections having consequences” was a stupid one seeing as how many, if not all of us on FR voted for Bush.
Ergo, we’re all “responsible” for the decision revealed today.
I only used Roberts as an example, since he’s a lightning rod for critcism right now.
You are not making any sense.
We will not repeal Obamacare by spouting off nonsense.
We need to have a plan.
I have stated mine.
What’s yours?
I had to dig around to see the vote count on the news sites.. cnn and msnbc.. Funny, if it’s a liberal loss they PLASTER the 5-4 or whatever part to show how close and unfair it was.
Pointing out that your posts are arrogant and illogical and motivated by extreme antipathy toward Romney is not a personal attack.
It is a straightforward, logical observation of fact.
Is this the new Free Republic?
rogue yam wrote:
“If George Washington was here he’d slap your face for saying that!”
And Lazamataz replied:
“If George Washington was here, he’d either muster troops for another revolution, or seeing the vast tech superiority possessed by the tyrants, find another country to settle.”
And therein lies the problem.
If there is to be a “coming struggle”, the “pro-federals” can easily crush the “pro-freedoms” by virtue of their superior military and police (think SWAT teams gone wild) powers, plus the overwhelming advantage the pro-feds have by virtue of the extraordinary technological advantages they possess.
I’d like to see a modern-day DC equivalent of “The Battle of Athens” (look that up on YouTube), but realistically, I don’t see that happening for the pro-freedoms, at least not with the same results.
However, Lazamataz’ second assertion may be much more viable. To put it another way, if enough pro-freedoms concentrated themselves into certain territories, it might prove less destructive for the pro-federals to agree to some kind of “parting of the ways” than to face the consequences of crushing the freedom-lovers out of existence. Why not a “Commonwealth of North American States”?
Aside:
It’s well-know how the ‘rats and the Obama administration have granted “waivers” to certain organizations (labor), and even entire states (wasn’t Nebraska exempted in some way in exchange for Ben Nelson’s vote?) to “opt out” of ObamaCare.
If Romney gets elected (uncertain at this point, and today’s decision doesn’t help), HE (through his administration) will then be able to grant waivers. Why not just offers states the option, on a statewide basis, to simply “opt out” of ObamaCare?
Those that want to stay with it, can do so.
Those that want to be left out, can do so.
And then we’ll see what works, and what doesn’t.
Your plan is to vote for politicians who tell you what you want to hear, but in the end break every promise.
Sounds like a great plan to me.
I can guarantee that you have principles that you have long since given up fighting for. Even if they aren’t readily apparent, they are there.
“John Roberts will go down in infamy as forever tied to the likes of Elena Kagan, Sotomayer, Ginsburg and Breyer.”
Not a chance. They will soon be forgotten.
Off the top of your head, without looking anywhere for reference, can you name the judges who voted in the majority in the Dred Scott decision?
I say we forget all of this apocalyptic talk and get down to the maddeningly slow, incremental business of winning back our freedoms at the ballot box, grass-roots tea party style.
Based on the unanimous ruling on the one area if the Immigration ruling I thought it would be unanimous that it was unconstitutional per the Commerce Clause and IT WAS
Never figured on the TAX ruling—That came from left field
This is one serious snakepit. I’m still reading the 11th Circuits opinion.
As far as I can tell, this is what happened:
Plaintiffs went in front of the 11th circuit court and claimed ACA was unconstitutional on two parts:
The Medicaid expansion
The individual mandate.(based on the commerce clause)
11th Circuit issued its findings:
Medicaid expansion was OK
Individual mandate was not ok(based on the commerce clause)
Government appealed to the USSC
Argued again the the medicaid expansion was OK.
Argued that the mandate was OK under the commerce clause, but additionally argued that it was OK under the taxing power.
USSC issues it’s decision
Throws out Medicaid expansion by making it optional for the states
Agrees that the individual mandate FAILS under the commerce clause
But in a new argument THAT NEVER WAS PART OF THE 11th Circuits case, finds that the individual mandate is proper under Congresses taxing power.
The Supreme Court today basically kicked the can down the road.
Like I said, it’s a snakepit and may take years to sort out, but there is NO WAY it can be said Obamacare was upheld, at least not in toto in the form it existed when passed by Congress.
I guess you can either continue to call the rest of us names or you can join the fight..
You think that you are a cynical quitter because you are wise.
I think that you are a cynical quitter because you are gutless and lazy and selfish.
And here is JRoberts supporter at time of nomination:
“Former Senator Fred Dalton Thompson helped to promote Roberts’ nomination.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts_Supreme_Court_nomination_and_hearings
If you persist in posting what I believe and don’t believe I will have to reciprocate.
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Its an easy enough sentence, so if you really don’t understand it, I don’t know why you’re on here.
I agree
Takes time to really analyze the decision and its implications
If you were capable of saying something intelligent you would.
You post garbage because you are too stupid to participate in the discussion but too egotistical to just stay silent.
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.