Originally posted by Ordo
I'm working on it.And you miss the points of:
*supremacy clause (federal law superceeding state law).
*noncompliance warrants cuts from federal funding (even Republicans wont break their hold on the teet of Medicaid and Medicare)
Commerce clause:
I just don't want to see an 1861.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, sense you are so smart, why don't you save the world? 🙄
Maybe the world doesn't want to be saved.
*puts on sunglasses*
*rides off into the night*
And actually that's a legitiamte answer. Unless you rule the world being a genius or having all the answers means that the first step is getting people to support you. If the truth is unpopular you need something more than that.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Commerce clause:
"The Supreme Court has long allowed Congress to regulate and prohibit all sorts of "economic" activities that are not, strictly speaking, commerce. The key is that those activities substantially affect interstate commerce." ~Washington Post
The government already regulates health insurance benefits and standards throuhg ERISA, COBRA, and HIPPA.
Regardless, "any state power to "nullify" unconstitutional federal laws has long been rejected." ~WashPo
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I just don't want to see an 1861.
Well, the 'tards who are doing this are already comparing health care reform to Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.
You're welcome to go join the neo-Confederacy though.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Maybe the world doesn't want to be saved.*puts on sunglasses*
*rides off into the night*And actually that's a legitiamte answer. Unless you rule the world being a genius or having all the answers means that the first step is getting people to support you. If the truth is unpopular you need something more than that.
It was sarcasm. 😉
Originally posted by Ordo
"The Supreme Court has long allowed Congress to regulate and prohibit all sorts of "economic" activities that are not, strictly speaking, commerce. The key is that those activities substantially affect interstate commerce." ~Washington PostThe government already regulates health insurance benefits and standards throuhg ERISA, COBRA, and HIPPA.
Well, the 'tards who are doing this are already comparing health care reform to Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.
You're welcome to go join the neo-Confederacy though.
Have you already joined the neo-union? Referring to people with real objections as tards is really enlightened. 🙄 However, that seems to be typical of the new democrats.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Have you already joined the neo-union? Referring to people with real objections as tards is really enlightened. 🙄 However, that seems to be typical of the new democrats.
There is the difference between having (generally uninformed) objections and calling the bill the "apocalypse," comparing it to the start of the American Civil War, and intentially misrepresenting established law to pander to your (uninformed) base.
Originally posted by Ordo
There is the difference between having (generally uninformed) objections and calling the bill the "apocalypse," comparing it to the start of the American Civil War, and intentially misrepresenting established law to pander to your (uninformed) base.
That is a reasonable point. However, the democrats have not used that way of thinking for 9 years now. The truth is the democrats are getting back what they served to the republicans. Therefore, all is fair is love, war and politics?
Originally posted by BackFire
How's that? The democrats actually voted for legislated brought up by the republicans when dems were in the minority. The republicans have not, and will not.
That is selective memory, but that's not the point I was getting at. Hate is what is at the core of a bigger problem. Hate has spread life a virus, and I hope that we are not seeing a repeat of history.
It's not selective memory. It's fact. Democrats voted for some things. Republicans have voted for almost nothing. Even after Obama and the democrats make changes to legislation based on complaints of the republicans, they still refuse to vote for it. They did this for the health care bill. Republicans said they couldn't vote for it because of so and so. The dems then put what the republicans wanted in the bill, and then they still refuse to vote for it. And then they complain about a lack of compromise. Say what you will about the democrats, but they did, factually, compromise when they were not in power. They voted for things they were not crazy about and met republicans half way on some things.
Originally posted by BackFire
It's not selective memory. It's fact. Democrats voted for some things. Republicans have voted for almost nothing. Even after Obama and the democrats make changes to legislation based on complaints of the republicans, they still refuse to vote for it. They did this for the health care bill. Republicans said they couldn't vote for it because of so and so. The dems then put what the republicans wanted in the bill, and then they still refuse to vote for it. And then they complain about a lack of compromise. Say what you will about the democrats, but they did, factually, compromise when they were not in power. They voted for things they were not crazy about and met republicans half way on some things.
Wow! the demarcates are as pure as the driven snow, and have worked so hard to give the evil republicans everything they wanted. 🙄
Were was you 5 years ago?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Wow! the demarcates are as pure as the driven snow, and have worked so hard to give the evil republicans everything they wanted. 🙄Were was you 5 years ago?
Selective memory? Really? Members on both sies have always crossed party lines.
Remeber John McCain...the "maverick" who always crossed lines on lots of issues? Now the same guy says "There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year" on ANY issue. Republicans now claim you need 60 votes for passage in the senate, and they have used the filibuster more times THIS YEAR than throughout the entire two decades of the civil rights movement combined. Single Republicans hold dozens of nominees in a holding pattern.
You want to talk about Hate? Only ONE side of this debate is calling the other socialist, communist, un-american, baby-killing, constitution shreadding n*ggers and f*ggots. Only one side is calling this an "apocalypse" (Bohener and Steele), calling Obama Hitler, is pro-secessionist, and claming outrageous things like dems are trying to kill people. Public death threats are comming from one side, the only side with rhetoric so over the top that they have no choice to continue it. Its pretty hard to negotiate killing Grandma with black Hitler.
btw...thats the side you're on...the one threatening segregation (re: Rick Perry).
Not that there haven't been partisan votes before...but damn you have NO memory.
Originally posted by Ordo
...btw...thats the side you're on...the one threatening segregation (re: Rick Perry).Not that there haven't been partisan votes before...but damn you have NO memory.
I'm not on any side. I have not, at any point in this conversation said what my "side" is. It seems that you have placed me on one side because of Hate. All you have done is proved my point.
If they think it's shit then they think their own ideas are shit, since the bill implemented a number of them. Ideas they complained were being ignored. Then they got put into the bill, and they still refused to vote or offer any particularly meaningful or intelligent criticism or alternatives. It's easy to say something is bad when you don't offer any serious alternative. Which is what they're doing.
Their only serious alternative is to offer out of state options. Great. So someone who's sick with cancer in Colorado and has gotten turned down by all insurance companies based in Colorado can now also get turned down by all the insurance companies in Minnesota and Nevada, how helpful.
Originally posted by BackFire
If they think it's shit then they think their own ideas are shit, since the bill implemented a number of them. Ideas they complained were being ignored. Then they got put into the bill, and they still refused to vote or offer any particularly meaningful or intelligent criticism or alternatives. It's easy to say something is bad when you don't offer any serious alternative. Which is what they're doing.Their only serious alternative is to offer out of state options. Great. So someone who's sick with cancer in Colorado and has gotten turned down by all insurance companies based in Colorado can now also get turned down by all the insurance companies in Minnesota and Nevada, how helpful.
I take it that this is just a general commit to the thread and not a reply to my post.