You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Justice Roberts????
- Thread starter RCG Trader
- Start date
Quote from Mav88:
I'm not in the GOP or the democratic party, this was a severe blow to liberty.
You think that Robert's thinking is logical? then you are an asshat
I haven't read the opinion, they should be up shortly. And do try to manage that anger. The liberty argument has been used since 1865. I am not impressed.
Quote from Mav88:
I don't give a shit if you are impressed, obviously you don't care about liberty since you are a leftist. The problem is that this country was built on liberty, now your type is wrecking this this place.
Uh huh, that is also why the Confederacy fired on Sumter, right?
Liberty?
Yeah, sure.
Deflection to a reference about the confederacy? what a weak brained argument, I expect emoticons soon.
I'm witnessing the destruction of my country. If you are not mad then either you are a gov't dependent (you perhaps?) or you have no frontal lobe. Yes liberty, as in freedom and the free market, it's what this place is supposed to be all about. Marx lost, a long time ago, when are you backwards idiots gonna see that?
I'm witnessing the destruction of my country. If you are not mad then either you are a gov't dependent (you perhaps?) or you have no frontal lobe. Yes liberty, as in freedom and the free market, it's what this place is supposed to be all about. Marx lost, a long time ago, when are you backwards idiots gonna see that?
Quote from JamesL:
How can the Court hold the mandate up as a tax when Obama and the acolytes said it wasn't?
They didn't. They said in effect that Congress could tax you, and as an incentive to buy health insurance, they could offer not to tax you.
This is the exact equivalent of say a tax credit as an incentive for buying storm windows, for example. You can choose to pay a tax equal to the credit you would receive if you were to buy storm windows, or you can choose to buy storm windows and not pay the tax equivalent to your credit.
There are many parallel examples. The court got this one exactly right -- surprising me at least. The court recognized that what opponents of the ACA insisted on calling a mandate, was not a mandate but a choice -- ironically had the tax penalty not been there, there would have been no choice, and a requirement to buy insurance would have then become an unconstitutional mandate!
The court let the Obama administration off the hook legally and on to the hook politically by correctly pointing out that in effect the law provided a choice between a tax and buying health insurance, whereas the administration had called the "tax" a penalty. I suppose that was because of the political liability associated with the "T"-word. But personally I don't see the word "penalty" as any more appealing than the "T"-word.
This is the exact equivalent of say a tax credit as an incentive for buying storm windows, for example. You can choose to pay a tax equal to the credit you would receive if you were to buy storm windows, or you can choose to buy storm windows and not pay the tax equivalent to your credit.
You just don't get it do you? Why is the government even in the business of storm windows? You act as if paying the tax should be the natural and exclusive alternative as opposed to say buying something else one wants, in other words you pretend it is not really my money.
Quote from PiggyBank:
.. who pays for all the entitlements? A clue: It isn't the people receiving them.
Actually that is more wrong than correct. There is a reason these programs are called "entitlements".
You could have been slightly more correct had you written that the entitlement programs finance America's wars.