Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal

dbphoenix said:
That's your interpretation. One could also argue that the first sentence is equivalent to all the rest and they are not subsumed to it.
More...
And people do make this nonsensical argument, but it's still illogical and unsupported by the evidence. To put it nicely, it's bullshit.

I would go digging through some of my old posts or post up some quotes to further prove my point, but I have the feeling I shouldn't bother cause you're not going to accept reality. So instead, if you believe what you say is correct based on the intentions of the Founders, pls post up some evidence, and some does exist. However, the overwhelming weight of evidence, which are they words of the Founders, is what I'm arguing. In other words, this is not my 'interpretation', it's theirs. But I suppose you know what they meant better than they did?

p.s. Now that I think of it, you also were making a similarly flawed argument about the 2nd Amendment on a thread upstairs, some time ago. Seems to be a pattern.
 
Tsing Tao said:
Yeah, it's a brilliant strategy. Just keep saying "I interpret that differently" to every argument posed to you, and there's nothing that can be said otherwise. No one can argue against it, even if you tell us that the sky is red to you, not blue. We can't argue, because maybe you think blue is actually red, right? What is blue? It could be open to interpretation!

Hilarious!
More...

Not unlike the tactic you follow.
 
"You don't need a complex law degree to know that congress INTENDED"...
Typical leftist response. Don't judge anything on what actually happens, just believe us when we say our intentions were for something else to happen than what is really happening.
They never intended that a weak foreign policy would lead to terrorist states being formed or commercial planes being shot out of the sky. No, the intention was all the bad guys would see we're really nice people and they would suddenly love us.
They never intended that a piss poor education system would lead to a bunch of mush minded adolescents graduating High School. They never intended that not holding people responsible would lead to gangs ruling the entire city of Chicago.
They never intended that turning a blind eye and deaf ear to government corruption would lead to veterans dying while on a waiting list, the IRS would become a political hitman, millions of illegals would invade our borders. No, no, no. Their intentions were different, or so they say.
 
PiggyBank said:
And people do make this nonsensical argument, but it's still illogical and unsupported by the evidence. To put it nicely, it's bullshit.

I would go digging through some of my old posts or post up some quotes to further prove my point, but I have the feeling I shouldn't bother cause you're not going to accept reality. So instead, if you believe what you say is correct based on the intentions of the Founders, pls post up some evidence, and some does exist. However, the overwhelming weight of evidence, which are they words of the Founders, is what I'm arguing. In other words, this is not my argument, it's theirs. But I suppose you know what they meant better than they did?

p.s. Now that I think of it, you also were making a similarly flawed argument about the 2nd Amendment on a thread upstairs, some time ago. Seems to be a pattern.
More...

Depends on whether or not "abiding by the Constitution" means including what anyone who had anything at all to do with the Constitution and everything each one of them wrote is to be included. If so, then it would be next to impossible to come up with a definitive statement of what the Constitution "means".

This is not to say that intentions should not be a factor. This is what we've been debating for two hundred years. But to then state that one must "abide by the Constitution" is pointless.
 
dbphoenix said:
Depends on whether or not "abiding by the Constitution" means including what anyone who had anything at all to do with the Constitution and everything each one of them wrote is to be included. If so, then it would be next to impossible to come up with a definitive statement of what the Constitution "means".

This is not to say that intentions should not be a factor. This is what we've been debating for two hundred years. But to then state that one must "abide by the Constitution" is pointless.
More...

Not at all. Follow the processes the Constitution has laid out (as you, yourself just pointed out in the other thread) if there is something that needs to be specifically interpreted or changed. What is so hard about that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top