Pelosi said: “Are you serious?”

Pelosi said: “Are you serious?” (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

pahunkboy -> Pelosi said: “Are you serious?” (12/20/2009 6:56:47 PM)
When asked to point out where in the Constitution authority is granted to force an individual — ultimately at gunpoint — to buy government health care, Speaker of the House Pelosi said: “Are you serious?” http://www.prisonplanet.com/government-health-care-the-next-step-on-the-road-to-tyranny-and-slavery.html Government Health Care: The Next Step On the Road to Tyranny and Slavery Democrats deceptively argue that health care is legal under the commerce clause of the Constitution. The commerce clause relates to business, not individuals, but the Democrats have skewed the original purpose and intent of the Constitution. It is said Obama was a constitutional professor at the University of Chicago Law School (even this is a lie — he was in fact “a senior lecturer,” not a professor), so we should assume he has at least some knowledge of the principles of the Constitution. Obama likely knows that the Constitution does not mandate Americans be forced into a contractual agreement with a private party for health insurance. Apparently, like his predecessor, Obama regards the Constitution as little more than a goddamn piece of paper./snip =============== So Obama is Bush 3

DarkSteven -> RE: Pelosi said: “Are you serious?” (12/20/2009 7:03:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy Democrats deceptively argue that health care is legal under the commerce clause of the Constitution. The commerce clause relates to business, not individuals, but the Democrats have skewed the original purpose and intent of the Constitution. Too late by far. The commerce clause already has been misused to invest the federal government with the powers to regulate environmental issues. It was a heckuva stretch at the time, but is now accepted.

pahunkboy -> RE: Pelosi said: “Are you serious?” (12/20/2009 7:11:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy Democrats deceptively argue that health care is legal under the commerce clause of the Constitution. The commerce clause relates to business, not individuals, but the Democrats have skewed the original purpose and intent of the Constitution. Too late by far. The commerce clause already has been misused to invest the federal government with the powers to regulate environmental issues. It was a heckuva stretch at the time, but is now accepted. In many ways yes.

Sanity -> RE: Pelosi said: “Are you serious?” (12/20/2009 8:42:03 PM)
Its a different court now, a different time, and a different issue. If the court were more Liberal I'd grant your argument more credence but I'm ever hopeful that the Roberts court will rule on this one properly - on the side of the Constitution and against the Democratic majority. quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy Democrats deceptively argue that health care is legal under the commerce clause of the Constitution. The commerce clause relates to business, not individuals, but the Democrats have skewed the original purpose and intent of the Constitution. Too late by far. The commerce clause already has been misused to invest the federal government with the powers to regulate environmental issues. It was a heckuva stretch at the time, but is now accepted.

Arpig -> RE: Pelosi said: “Are you serious?” (12/20/2009 9:00:14 PM)
health care reform is a step towards slavery???? Jesus these guys must smoke some good shit

pahunkboy -> RE: Pelosi said: “Are you serious?” (12/20/2009 9:33:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig health care reform is a step towards slavery???? Jesus these guys must smoke some good shit 5 years of prison if you do not buy insurance. Tax will be taken out and your check AND the consumer gets nothing in return. So people then will become criminals. Restoring the hill burton standard would actually help the problem- based on the junk food and science is it any wonder why people are sickly?

Sanity -> RE: Pelosi said: “Are you serious?” (12/21/2009 3:19:51 AM)
I recall an Obama campaign promise. "I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." I wonder what he's going to call this, if not a tax. quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig health care reform is a step towards slavery???? Jesus these guys must smoke some good shit 5 years of prison if you do not buy insurance. Tax will be taken out and your check AND the consumer gets nothing in return. So people then will become criminals. Restoring the hill burton standard would actually help the problem- based on the junk food and science is it any wonder why people are sickly?

rulemylife -> RE: Pelosi said: “Are you serious?” (12/21/2009 3:38:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy It is said Obama was a constitutional professor at the University of Chicago Law School (even this is a lie — he was in fact “a senior lecturer,” not a professor)... UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined. (FactCheck.org)

rulemylife -> RE: Pelosi said: “Are you serious?” (12/21/2009 3:51:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy “Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given the power to mandate that an individual enter into a contract with a private party or purchase a good or service,” explains the Heritage Foundation. No decision or present doctrine of the Supreme Court justifies such a claim of power. So is the Heritage Foundation now going to take up the battle against mandatory auto insurance too? So when I get pulled over for speeding I can just flip off the cop when he asks me for proof of insurance?

pahunkboy -> RE: Pelosi said: “Are you serious?” (12/21/2009 4:04:31 AM)
I am against mandatory auto insurance as well.

rulemylife -> RE: Pelosi said: “Are you serious?” (12/21/2009 4:07:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy I am against mandatory auto insurance as well. The point being that everything does not break down into a Constitutional argument.

Sanity -> RE: Pelosi said: “Are you serious?” (12/21/2009 4:15:22 AM)
You're trying to equate being forced to pay big insurance a premium for breathing, to having to buy car insurance? No one is forced to drive, rml. Walk, take a bus, hail a taxi. But everyone has to breathe. Its like a tax on air for gods sake. Leave it to the fucking Democrats... quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy “Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given the power to mandate that an individual enter into a contract with a private party or purchase a good or service,” explains the Heritage Foundation. No decision or present doctrine of the Supreme Court justifies such a claim of power. So is the Heritage Foundation now going to take up the battle against mandatory auto insurance too? So when I get pulled over for speeding I can just flip off the cop when he asks me for proof of insurance?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi said: “Are you serious?” (12/21/2009 6:31:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy “Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given the power to mandate that an individual enter into a contract with a private party or purchase a good or service,” explains the Heritage Foundation. No decision or present doctrine of the Supreme Court justifies such a claim of power. So is the Heritage Foundation now going to take up the battle against mandatory auto insurance too? So when I get pulled over for speeding I can just flip off the cop when he asks me for proof of insurance? What Federal law requires automobile insurance? Firm

tazzygirl -> RE: Pelosi said: “Are you serious?” (12/21/2009 6:38:38 AM)
When did the jail term return to the health care debate?

tazzygirl -> RE: Pelosi said: “Are you serious?” (12/21/2009 6:45:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig health care reform is a step towards slavery???? Jesus these guys must smoke some good shit 5 years of prison if you do not buy insurance. Tax will be taken out and your check AND the consumer gets nothing in return. So people then will become criminals. Restoring the hill burton standard would actually help the problem- based on the junk food and science is it any wonder why people are sickly? Under the House bill those who can afford to buy insurance and don’t’ pay a fine. If the refuse to pay that fine there’s a threat – as with a lot of tax fines – of jail time. The Senate removed that provision in the Senate Finance Committee. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/11/interview-with-the-president-jail-time-for-those-without-health-care-insurance.html Its not five years if you dont buy the insurance. Its "potential" jail time if you evade your tax obligation... as it would be for any tax obligation.

mnottertail -> RE: Pelosi said: “Are you serious?” (12/21/2009 7:01:44 AM)
Point of order please? Now, if there is a passage to this bill, it still has to be reconciled with the senate version which is a way different animal, and when reconciled, does it have to be revoted by members of both houses or can it be committee approved by both, or revoted one and committee approved one? Does anyone know offhand, this isn't an area I have given much attention to. ? Ron

vincentML -> RE: Pelosi said: “Are you serious?” (12/21/2009 7:09:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Point of order please? Now, if there is a passage to this bill, it still has to be reconciled with the senate version which is a way different animal, and when reconciled, does it have to be revoted by members of both houses or can it be committee approved by both, or revoted one and committee approved one? Does anyone know offhand, this isn't an area I have given much attention to. ? Ron Voted by both Houses but without filibuster I think. 51% majority in both Houses. Check me on this please.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Pelosi said: “Are you serious?” (12/21/2009 7:52:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy “Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given the power to mandate that an individual enter into a contract with a private party or purchase a good or service,” explains the Heritage Foundation. No decision or present doctrine of the Supreme Court justifies such a claim of power. So is the Heritage Foundation now going to take up the battle against mandatory auto insurance too? So when I get pulled over for speeding I can just flip off the cop when he asks me for proof of insurance? Auto insurance is mandated by state law not Federal.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Pelosi said: “Are you serious?” (12/21/2009 8:02:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Point of order please? Now, if there is a passage to this bill, it still has to be reconciled with the senate version which is a way different animal, and when reconciled, does it have to be revoted by members of both houses or can it be committee approved by both, or revoted one and committee approved one? Does anyone know offhand, this isn't an area I have given much attention to. ? Ron Voted by both Houses but without filibuster I think. 51% majority in both Houses. Check me on this please. I don't think the "without filibuster" part is correct unless the Bill comes out of reconciliation without any "germane" amendments. Cloture rules

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Pelosi said: “Are you serious?” (12/21/2009 8:04:05 AM)
btw I noticed the Senate got rid of the "botox tax". It must have been a special request of Pelosi's

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875