TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77

fickman wrote:The SC isn't the childproofing mechanism to save the electorate from those we elect. People (preaching to the choir here) need to realize that what they do in the ballot box really does impact life, our future, and our vitality as a nation. The masses were very flippant with their votes in 2008, and we don't presently have a mop big enough for the mess it created.

True enough, but then the Founders never intended that "children" should be part of the electorate. They designed the system not to be a democracy and so that voting was limited to productive people with a stake in the system. We've stripped all that away for the delusion of "one man one vote." It's absurd that someone who doesn't pay taxes gets a vote on how those of us who do are taxed.

VMI77

Jasonw560 wrote:Here's some honest questions for the liberals here: Why do you want so much government control over our as well as YOUR OWN lives? What do you think you will personally gain from it? And what led you to your viewpoint? If you want my answers, I'll be more than happy to share them with you. After I get some sleep.

I think it's actually pretty simple and pretty much boils down to: liberalism makes it easy for them to feel good about themselves. Of course liberalism (collectivism) also gives it's exploiters a moralistic pretense to justify anything from petty theft to mass murder, but for the proles it's about feeling good.

VMI77

fickman wrote:2) The people elected the lawmakers and the law-signer, unless they clearly violate the Constitution, the people have to live with the consequences of that vote. We made our beds. . .

It does clearly violate the Constitution. Without even getting into the other elements of law as they relate to Congress, if you accept the penalty as a tax, then it must be initiated in the House because the Constitution requires revenue Bills to originate in the House. Also, aside from the income tax, the Constitution prohibits Congress from passing a tax on individuals that isn't apportioned by census. Furthermore, the logical contortion necessary to call it simultaneously a tax and a penalty doesn't meet the interpretive doctrine you allude to. And anyway you look at it the decision allows Congress to force people not engaged in commerce to buy a product they don't want or need. This is unprecedented.

fickman wrote:Congress can essentially tax anything. There is no revolution to be had. . . this time (unlike under King George), we had representation. If we don't like it, we have recourse.

That's not our history but that's our future. I won't even argue the claim that we had representation, though a good argument can be made that we really don't....however, we don't have any practical recourse, only serendipitous recourse. The SC just removed all limits on Congressional power by enabling it to coerce any activity by labeling it a tax. There are only two ways to change that: 1) a court ruling that overturns that decision (which suggests the appointment of a new justice favorable to such a decision; and 2) a Constitutional amendment.

fickman wrote:I really think this is the conclusion Roberts is hoping to drive us to. I don't like the results of his vote, but he might have been right to cast it. We shouldn't cross our fingers and hope the courts protect us from the people we elect. We should elect better people.

That's a nice theory but the system is rigged to prevent it.

VMI77

BillT wrote:
Heartland Patriot wrote:
BillT wrote:Yipeeeeeeee I'm beginning to think there is hope for this country!!! What a great day for America. So many children with very serious, life threatening diseases, and who don't know a thing about politics where just granted the opportunity of life. Maybe this country is beginning to find it's moral compass! For those of you that are upset by this I suggest you consider that we are not Human Beings having a Spiritual experience but that we are Spiritual beings having a Human experience...
I'm just going to flat out call shenanigans on your posting. You are trolling, and nothing more. That "think of the children" stuff you're spouting is bunk and you know it. Now, go back to wherever your little friends are and tell them how cool you are for spinning up folks on a gun forum...
Sorry friend, I'm not going away! This is entirely too much fun! As a firearms enthusiast all my life I have had to put up with the right wing extremism that is spouted by 60% of the people I encounter in the sport. I feel the obligation to try and enlighten folks just as you try and do. A bunch of right wing gun nuts aren't going to sway any national election. The issues are a lot bigger than what this forum is about. I'm just trying to give you guys a sporting chance in the next life you live! Take a blood pressure pill and relax, there's a ton of debate to be had between now and November. If I'm trolling, sorry if I snagged one of your nerves! That was not my intent. It would be a waste of my time. If you think there are not children affected by all of this your already living in denial. No one can help you with that. But have a nice day anyway....

You're obviously your number one fan.

You must have a lot of "gravitas" to go with your "enlightenment" because either none of it is escaping your position in space or it's not in the visible spectrum. I don't think you're trolling because I don't believe a bottom feeder can troll.

As to all those children you speak of let me shine a little light in your direction, though it will probably disappear into your gravity well of self-adulation: no one here denies that there are "affected" children, some of us probably think you're "affected" too --the message in the light that can't penetrate your galaxy of self-admiration is that WE are not responsible for YOUR decisions and YOUR children.

You, and everyone else, are free to have all of them you can pay for.

What you're not free to do is make the rest of us pay for your irresponsible decisions and behavior --well, at least this used to be true where we used to live, in the former Constitutional Republic of the United States of America.

VMI77

Heartland Patriot wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:http://pjmedia.com/blog/a-modest-propos ... epage=true
A Modest Proposal
The chief justice threw down the gauntlet on Thursday to those of us who support limited government.
by RAND SIMBERG
Chief Justice Roberts, advertently or otherwise, has pointed out a flaw in the founding document, and we should use this opportunity, with the anger of the public, to patch it. I propose that we amend the Constitution.

I am not a lawyer, and don’t even play one on the Internet, despite my disquisitions on space property rights, but here are my proposed Constitutional amendments. Together, if there is any justice, they will be known historically as the “ObamaCare amendments.”

First, to deal with the Ninth:

Congress shall not levy any tax on the people whose purpose is other than to raise revenue for legitimate government purposes, and in particular it shall not levy a tax on the people for the purpose of coercing their personal behavior, including purchase of a product.
And here’s the one to handle the Tenth:

Congress shall not withhold federal funding for a state under any federal program because it does not comply with Congressional dictates.
Can someone tell me why a) this wouldn’t make it clear that “We the Founders really meant it” when they wrote amendments nine and ten and b) it wouldn’t be a great Republican Party plank and campaign issue in the fall?

Obviously, it’s a monumental task to take back the country. Absent a Constitutional Convention, which requires two thirds of states to call it, it requires a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate (though the president has no role). It obviously won’t happen with the current Congress, or one that we can elect next year. But there are a lot of Democrats who are vulnerable in 2014, and the only way to make it happen is to make it a project of the people who want to restrict government. It won’t happen overnight, but the time to start to make it happen is now.
And, from Hillsdale College.....
"A Principled Prescription for America's Health: The Perspective of a Doctor-Turned-Lawmaker"
[youtube][/youtube]
TAM, my only fear of calling a Constitutional Convention is that the Second Amendment becomes vulnerable to being "adjusted"...and politicians are COMPROMISERS, constantly making deals...what if they, to put through the stuff you are posting here, remove the phrase "shall not be infringed" and replace it with "may be regulated with an eye to public safety" or some such language? I'm not as good at wording things as you are, but I hope what I'm saying makes sense.

There is no way they'd change the language like that....it will simply be eliminated. Anyway, what good is a new Constitution going to be....the government disregards the one we have, why would it behave any differently for a new one (unless the new just validates what they want to do anyway)?

VMI77

pinkpistol wrote:
Are you a doctor or health care professional? Even though we are participants in the health care system, we might not have the capability to understand the services rendered or the role of a third-party payer.

Yes, and Yes.

Sorry to offend, but it appears you all were already offended when I walked into the room. So I'll clarify and say that it is offensive to this American to read of talk of secessions, and rebellion and uprising. The America I was raised in, and which my family members fought for, suffered, and still serve today for, is worth the effort it takes to make this discourse respectable and civil. We owe it to ourselves, our country, each other, and our God.

"Respectful" and "civil" are often code words for what "I" believe is right and what "you" believe is wrong, so what "I" say is respectful and civil and what "you" say in opposition is disrespectful and uncivil. In order to have a respectful and civil discourse the involved parties must be intelligent, informed, and honest. Respect must be earned. I don't have respect for the politicians of either party and I consider the majority of them to be dishonest, at best. And I have no respect for people who advocate that the government use force to take my property in order to distribute it among people who choose to live irresponsibly, and that makes civility very difficult to maintain.

VMI77

The Annoyed Man wrote:So, last year, my business, after paying all of its expenses and making a small contribution to my income (the rest of which comes from burning through savings while we build a business) netted a profit of almost exactly $2,500 after taxes (I get no refund) and after paying for my own healthcare out of pocket. It took 4 years to net a profit. Now you want to garnish that to pay for yours and others' stupid healthcare? That's why I've worked my tail off for the last 4 years to try and build a business? How jacked up is your moral compass exactly? You and your kind are the killers of entrepreneurship and the American dream.
.

One thing liberals don't seem to understand is that once they've penalized responsibility and good decisions enough a lot of people are going to come to the conclusion that bad decisions and irresponsibility make more sense.

VMI77

mamabearCali wrote:So I should be happy that my husband and I are getting ripped off to the tune of several hundred dollars each month? So happy that I want this to expand into my healthcare costs. Quite honestly, if the premiums don't go up dramatically then services will have to decrease and my family will be forced into yet again paying for our services and the fair shares of many other people as we try to keep out family heathy despite govt interference.

It occurs to me that perhaps the non-behavior tax you should worry about is a tax on not sending your children to public schools. Granted, you pay school taxes, but the school has to forgo Federal matching funds without your children in attendance. Is that fair? --you're taking money right out of the school's pocket (using liberal logic here...the same kind that seems to hold that the government isn't taking your property when it withholds your tax refund).

VMI77

The Mad Moderate wrote:
mamabearCali wrote:
The Mad Moderate wrote:I for the most part support the ACA, I do not like the mandate but see it as necessary given the mandates put on the insurance companies. I think that in the near term rates will go up in the long term I think the costs will go down and be even more affordable. I think in 70 years the ACA will be looked at in the same way the Social Security Act is viewed now. This is not the death of freedom.

Oh you mean that thing my husband and I are forced to contribute to but will never EVER see a penny of.....yeah that is just how I hope lifesaving treatment is handled here in the US.
Could I borrow your time travel device, I would really like to know the lottery numbers for next week.

Check it out...those dastardly Arabs invented something called numbers and they enable people to tell when the amount of one thing is greater than another thing, such as when KNOWN future obligations exceed any realistic hope of future revenues.

Edited to add:

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

Margaret Thatcher

VMI77

The Mad Moderate wrote:I for the most part support the ACA, I do not like the mandate but see it as necessary given the mandates put on the insurance companies. I think that in the near term rates will go up in the long term I think the costs will go down and be even more affordable. I think in 70 years the ACA will be looked at in the same way the Social Security Act is viewed now. This is not the death of freedom.

Come on...Social Security? It's on it's last legs. I doubt if I'll see a dime even If I live long enough to qualify. The younger generation considers it a ripoff. They're not going to pay higher and higher taxes to support us old codgers. SS is on the road to collapse....20 years at the outside.

VMI77

The Annoyed Man wrote:Washington, Adams, and Jefferson........and even Lincoln......would be rolling in their graves. They were all about stewardship and the preservation of liberty for their descendents. Not so this bunch of political rape artists.
Slowplay wrote:For our francophone friends: L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
Translated for those who are not: "Hades is full of good intentions and desires."

If Romney does not get elected and then follow through on his promise to gut and/or repeal Obamacare, we are doomed.

Or put another way,"the road to Hades is paved with good intentions."

VMI77

anygunanywhere wrote:I'll stand by my statement. Everyone in the federal government should answer to we, the people. We have no recourse whatsoever to ANY action taken by the supreme boobs.

Anygunanywhere

While I sympathize with the sentiment, I don't think that's the answer, nor did the Founders intend it to be....in fact, that's the problem..."the people." The Founders never intended that a bunch of freeloaders with their hands out be able to vote, along with the ignorant, uniformed, and uneducated, and they didn't intend to create a Democracy.

VMI77

BillT wrote:To coin and old phrase...."America, love it or leave it". Today, as always, I am a proud American. For those of you so upset, there are a number of countries that would be more than happy to consider your immigration application. Americans are the model for the world, I've seen this with my own eyes as I have lived in and traveled extensively around the world for almost 40 years. In my humble opinion, there is no better place that shows democracy at work better than my country.
Just out of curiosity, is there anyone on this forum that wants health insurance but cannot get it at a price they can afford? Anyone have a chronic and severe health condition for which they are willing to forgo health care with potentially fatal consequences or worse yet your own child in that situation? I see a lot of crying and complaining, but alternative solutions to a very real problem facing millions of Americans is conspicuously absent from these post as well as the Republican leadership. If Republicans plan to run on a platform of repealing the Affordable Healthcare Act, then they better come up with an alternative solution to the problem. Otherwise the majority of Americans will vote to keep them out of office. For the record, I work for a small business. I pay dearly for my health insurance. I feel very fortunate in life and would be willing to contribute a little more of my disposable income for the benefit of those less fortunate to help solve this humanitarian issue. I'm guessing I'm in a very small minority in this forum, but not in the USA.

Umhhh....sorry, this is supposed to be a Republic, NOT a Democracy. And hey, you're free to contribute all your disposable income for the benefit of those less fortunate --no one here will stop you, I promise. What some of us oppose is YOU telling us how much of our income we must be compelled to give to others.

VMI77

chasfm11 wrote:
flintknapper wrote:I have always contributed (monetarily) to the Republican Candidate in Presidential elections.

But this time, I will give until it HURTS! I urge you to do the same.

Replace and Repeal is the ONLY answer at this point, forget about what judge decided what...that is done and over with, we have a job to do. GET OBAMA OUT OF OFFICE, or America will suffer a set back from which it might never recover.
Unfortunately, I have done the same thing in the past and we have to show for it a boat load of Rinos who walk, talk and act like Democrats. Are you willing to bet your life savings that Republicans who get elected to help repeal Obamacare will do so? I'm not.

The polls are showing Obama in the lead in several of the key swing States. Even if he is beaten badly, the chances of reversing the majority in the Senate are very slim at best. Unless and until the Senate is changed, repeal of Obamacare through the legislative process is a pipe dream.

They are already talking about a massive grab of our 401Ks to fund the Social Security system problem that noone except a few Republicans wants to talk about. The ruling today that they can tax anything makes the 401K "tax" almost inevitable. For the record, SCOTUS didn't invent the tax capability, they merely affirmed that Congress has it. I fear SS will be the next drum beat on the Hill and Obamacare will be a distant memory in their minds. Somebody please show me a shred of evidence that says I'm wrong. I would cherish it.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.

Attributed, perhaps erroneously, to Alexander Pytner.

VMI77

gdanaher wrote:
flintknapper wrote: Replace and Repeal is the ONLY answer at this point, forget about what judge decided what...that is done and over with, we have a job to do.
So, only a foolish man would look at our existing system of health delivery and smile at its success. So a Republican Congress repeals the bill. They have to replace it with something, or their replacements are going to have to do something about health care on a national basis. What would be on your wish list for federal or state legislation that would serve to repair, clean up and adjust the traditional system of care delivery?

The government is the primary driver of costs in collusion with the medical industry. Get rid of all FEDERAL involvement in health care and leave it to the states, as called for in the Constitution.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 22 matches

Re: obamacare upheld

Re: obamacare upheld

Re: obamacare upheld

Re: obamacare upheld

Re: obamacare upheld

Re: obamacare upheld

Re: obamacare upheld

Re: obamacare upheld

Re: obamacare upheld

Re: obamacare upheld

Re: obamacare upheld

Re: obamacare upheld

Re: obamacare upheld

Re: obamacare upheld

Re: obamacare upheld