Justice Roberts????

[Mav88]

Your memory is self-servingly selective. I have given up treating guys like you as thinking adults a while ago.

and yet you respond, yet you respond... gotta wonder about a guy so 'above it all' who keeps wasting his time

Even so, it pains me to see that Ricter offering you a free education with ever post he writes but you're just to stupid to take notice, let alone notes.

Ricter offered one-liners, thats an education? My god (even though I don't believe in god) is that stupid. I questioned the one-liner liberal cliches, as any thinking person should.

You want to be treated like an adult but you spew crap. And then more crap. Expect to be judged by the crap "ideas" that you keep.

I expect nothing from you, you have demonstrated that you are all about trite ad hominems, as I said move along....

You demanded "proof" from Ricter regarding an earlier comment he made that was so blatantly obvious and accepted the world over by every thinking adult and government. Are you fucking serious?! And you expect to be taken seriously? Get a clue.

If the proof is so obvious then Ricter should pony up, are that much of a fucking automaton that you don't require proof for your beliefs?

You only have credibility in your small insular world of like-minded troglodytes. Beyond that, you're a bad joke.

let me be clear, I do not give a shit what you think you and I are. If you have something of substance then say it, beyond that you are just trolling.

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from Mav88:

that wasn't an offer RCG, that was a statement, know the difference?

Funny how you guys talk shit, but everytime I do start an actual one on one you can't come up with anything but this sort of glibness. Pretend all you want, don't care.

Geez Mav88 with your law degree and many years of study in constitional law you're thinking way over our heads. And you're a macro economics expert too aren't you?

 

[Mav88]

Au contraire, you are the one who did not get it. My post had to do with the Courts rejection of the idea that the requirement to buy insurance was an illegal mandate. My post had nothing to do with storm windows, other then to mention them as part of a common example of a tax incentive just like the incentive feature of the ACA.

a mandate is not the same as a tax incentive, false analogy

I offered no opinion as to whether the government should be in the business of offering tax incentives to install storm windows, or for that matter to buy health insurance. Perhaps you should re-read my post.

and I simply asked the question why gov't should be involved in any such endeavor and why do you pretend that it isn't my money in the first pace

Whether a politician calls something a mandate, a penalty, or a tax, doesn't necessarily make it so. The Court very correctly made its ruling based on what things really are, and not what they are called by politicians.

incorrect, again legal mandate on a choice is not the same as say a sin tax where I have an actual choice. Roberts is logically inconsistent when he says it is exactly like a gas tax

You, just like many others, assume the Court's ruling is wrong because you are opposed to the ACA. The Court, in fact, took no position on the issue of whether the ACA was good or bad law. Justice Roberts made that abundantly clear. They were asked to rule on the constitutionality of one aspect of the ACA. They did that, and correctly so.

what makes ACA bad is the fact that it has moved the line of govenment control further, and further limits the freedoms of the constitution. Roberts himself said in justifying this

when a court confronts an unconstitutional statue its endeavor must be to conserve, not destroy, the legislation

if that is not a clear indicator that is is no ordinary 'tax' then you have missed the boat

 

[Mav88]

Geez Mav88 with your law degree and many years of study in constitional law you're thinking way over our heads. And you're a macro economics expert too aren't you?

another empty comment irrelevent to the point I made, just how many are there of you guys?

 

[Mav88]

Ricter's assertion:

the widespread adoption of the windows will make the country as a whole stronger

Ricter's "Proof"

"Some say storm windows "pay for themselves" (salesmen no doubt), but I don't know that for certain. I think they only need to pay for the difference between themselves and ordinary windows, plus a penny, to make them more productive"

Brass:

You demanded "proof" from Ricter regarding an earlier comment he made that was so blatantly obvious and accepted the world over by every thinking adult and government

This reminds me of the debates I used to have with theists and reinforces my observation that liberalism is religion. Notice the level of evidence needed to 'prove' something. It's all about feelings, and that's about it. There are a billion muslims, that must mean they are right about muhammed? Well no, that is argumentum ad populum.... the strange belief that liberal gov't is always right in spite of decades of evidence to the contrary, then come the ad hominem attacks if you challenge their religion, and they call it 'progressive'

http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article238.html

One major argument that apologists for religion like to make against proponents of secularism, humanism and religion is to equate all opponents of religion with Communism and the numerous crimes against humanity perpetuated by such monsters as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot and Fidel Castro. The best argument against these people of faith is a simple one, far from being a humanist or rationalist belief system, Communism was and is a religion.

Like all religions, Communism is irrational, dogmatic and based on faith rather than science. Just like Christianity and Islam, Communism had its Holy Books which were treated as Holy Scripture, namely the writings of Lenin, Mao, Marx and others--all of which were far from scientific. Karl Marx, who was treated by Communists as a genius, was actually a small-time journalist whose writings are a collection of prejudices, generalizations and editorializing. Marx held and promoted some beliefs which were later disproved by science, for example Marx taught that many human characteristics we now know to be inherited through genetics were caused by environmental factors. When scientists in 1930s Russia pointed this fact out, Stalin reacted by throwing the scientists into the gulag just like the Church imprisoned Galileo. Just like fundamentalist Christians who promote creation science, Stalin (himself the recipient of an "education" in a Christian seminary) backed a charlatan named Lysenko who came up with a completely false science of genetics that fit squarely with Communist dogma and then banned the teaching of genetics because it contradicted Communist dogma.

As with Christianity and Islam, Communism attracted followers by promising a pie-in-the-sky heaven to the faithful. The difference being that the Communist heaven would be sometime in the future when all people would be happy and equal under Communism rather than after death. This magical future was conveniently pushed farther and farther into the future so that Communist leaders could "explain" to the average people impoverished by their wonderful system why they hadn't yet achieved utopia. It might also be pointed out that the Communists never actually said exactly how this utopia would be created--just as Christians and Moslems can present no evidence of life after death.

Like most religions, Communism operated on irrational faith; people in Communist countries had to have absolute faith in the Communist system and its leaders. Thinking for oneself was strictly verboten in Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, and Ho's Vietnam. Those who questioned Communism and its leaders were treated as heretics by the Communist state.

Far from being an example of the evils that occur when religion is removed in society, Communism is a perfect example of the excesses and horrors that result when religion is allowed to take over a society. The Communist Party acted just like the church had in Medieval Europe....

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from Mav88:

another empty comment irrelevent to the point I made, just how many are there of you guys?

All you're doing is bitching and moaning and crying for attention. You're not making an intellectual argument, you're not qualified to argue this only give an opinion which you've done with sereral hundred words now and I'm sure there will be several hundred more before you're winded.
My sarcasm helps your thread.

 

[PHOENIX TRADING]

Quote from ChkitOut:

so what he's saying is the govt has the power to tax nothing. buying gas and earning income is participating in something, its acting to DO something, (make money, consume fuel)

NOT owning insurance isn't DOING anything, how can you tax doing nothing?

Maybe i'm completely stupid, but i just dont get it.

Simply choosing not to have health insurance IS doing something, so they are taxing you on your healthcare insurance avoidance.
CAPISH?

 

[Mav88]

All you're doing is bitching and moaning and crying for attention. You're not making an intellectual argument, you're not qualified to argue this only give an opinion which you've done with sereral hundred words now and I'm sure there will be several hundred more before you're winded.
My sarcasm helps your thread.

and everyones qualifications here are? This is an internet forum dumbass, if you don't like my arguments then so what? It's amusing that people like you tell me these things yet can't refute such 'amateur' arguments, and you never seem inhibited from offering your opinions.

I'm telling you, it's religion

 

[piezoe]

Quote from OccupyThis:

"Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See §5000A(b). That, according to the Government,means the mandate can be regarded as establishing acondition—not owning health insurance—that triggers atax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance.Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, itmay be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax." -Roberts

So, Obama will be taxing those in financial distress, underemployed, unemployed, part time job holders, etc, Obama will be taking more money away from them unless they give money to the private health insurance business.

You'll have less problem with this if you think of it in reverse. Think of the tax being there to begin with, and government giving you a credit against your taxes for buying health insurance. this is exactly like all the other tax incentives that the government has used over the years to "encourage" you to do something they want you to do. Not saying it's good or bad, just saying it's really no different.

Your last paragraph may not be quite right. It seems the plan is to subsidize those who can't actually afford to buy insurance. So these folks won't be "giving" money to the private health insurance companies. Instead it will be you, via your tax dollars, doing the giving on behalf of the unemployed and low income workers.

None of this solves the problem that got us to this point, and that is that health care in the U.S. costs twice what it does in the next most expensive country, and up to eight times what it does in some other industrialized countries, and with worse outcomes. Health care delivery in the U.S. is a disaster! In the U.S., medical care is delivered by a government protected cartel --thoroughly capitalist by the way, but a very unsatisfactory form of capitalism, the worst kind, the kind without competition.

Just as the parent who habitually bails out an errant child becomes an enabler who has good intentions but in the end only makes matters worse, most of our efforts to find a way to pay for too expensive medical care have, in the end, just enabled the health care industry to charge even more and engage in still more egregious excesses and inefficiencies. Obama care, while it does incorporate a few features aimed at reducing inefficiencies and introducing more competition in medicine, was stripped of its most effective cost control feature, the public option. As such it won't do much to bring overall costs down. It is not going to solve the health care cost problem in the U.S.

There are two things slowly bleeding the U.S.A. to death, one is excessive military spending and the other is outrageous health care cost. Fix these and you'll have going a long way toward fixing what ails the U.S.A. (In all likelihood these things can't be fixed without changing the Constitution to allow elimination of big money's influence on politics and politicians.)

 

[Mav88]

You'll have less problem with this if you think of it in reverse. Think of the tax being there to begin with, and government giving you a credit against your taxes for buying health insurance. this is exactly like all the other tax incentives that the government has used over the years to "encourage" you to do something they want you to do. Not saying it's good or bad, just saying it's really no different.

Why do you have no problem making up some inconsistent fallacy? Clearly the tax isn't simply 'there' as if it has some inevitable existance, lots of people find cheaper ways to take care of themselves.

The magic of gov't: see Liberals 4:22