PDA

View Full Version : Rep Phil Hare (IL-D) says he "doesn't worry about the Constitution"



PoliCon
04-02-2010, 08:35 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2iiirr5KI8&feature=player_embedded#

PoliCon
04-02-2010, 08:36 AM
This is sooooo funny I almost posted it in the lounge. But the fact that it is also sooo scary lead me to post it here.

FlaGator
04-02-2010, 08:50 AM
This is sooooo funny I almost posted it in the lounge. But the fact that it is also sooo scary lead me to post it here.

He doesn't care about the object that he took and oath to uphold:rolleyes: How very democratic of him.

FeebMaster
04-02-2010, 10:18 AM
So, he's an honest politician?

fettpett
04-02-2010, 10:21 AM
Personally I feel that if somene says/does anything like this they need to removed from office. Maybe then we'd get some people that do whats best for the US not their own selfish bullshit and political games

Sonnabend
04-02-2010, 10:23 AM
So, he's an honest politician?

Yes, he stays bought.

ralph wiggum
04-02-2010, 10:23 AM
So, he's an honest politician?

Yep, a rare moment of honesty.

NJCardFan
04-02-2010, 10:49 AM
OK. I watched and listened to the first 45 seconds of this clip and had enough. Must these people always go to the extremes? Never in the history of medicine has anyone driven any member of the family to the emergency room and walked out with a $10-$15K hospital bill after the doctor said that the person being treated is going to be OK. This doom and gloom shit is so stupid. The fact that idiots eat it up is even stupider.

RobJohnson
04-02-2010, 03:15 PM
I know the guy, he replaced Lane Evans D-IL that had Parkinson's disease. Lane Evans would of never said any thing so stupid. Lane Evans did alot for the community, seniors & vets.....Phil Hare, not so much. :mad::mad:

A friend of mine, Bobby Schilling (R) is running against Phil Hare. Phil needs to go...quickly.

http://www.bobby2010.com/

Veritas Aequitas
04-03-2010, 12:46 AM
Kudos to the cameraman and the others at the scene. They didn't back down.

dixierat
04-03-2010, 07:08 AM
About the 1:15 or so mark he says "I believe it says we have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Which is fine if you're quotung the Dec of Ind.

Any lawmaker who fails to "worry about the Constitution", regardless of party, needs to be removed from office.People like that are the reason we're in the shape we're in.

:cool:

NJCardFan
04-03-2010, 10:01 AM
About the 1:15 or so mark he says "I believe it says we have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Which is fine if you're quotung the Dec of Ind.

Any lawmaker who fails to "worry about the Constitution", regardless of party, needs to be removed from office.People like that are the reason we're in the shape we're in.

:cool:

Which if kind of funny because even if you're going to quote that passage, understand what it means. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit, note it says pursuit and not providence, of happiness, doesn't mean that the government must take care of your every need. This guy needs to be run out of the country.

NJCardFan
04-03-2010, 10:21 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2iiirr5KI8&feature=player_embedded#

I finally watched this whole thing and all I can say is that the congressman got pwn3d.

PoliCon
04-03-2010, 12:29 PM
This video will make for great ad's this fall. :)

ralph wiggum
04-03-2010, 01:08 PM
This video will make for great ad's this fall. :)

I was listening to a Chicago radio station yesterday morning, and the host was recommending that the Republican challenger use it early and often.

PoliCon
04-03-2010, 01:44 PM
I was listening to a Chicago radio station yesterday morning, and the host was recommending that the Republican challenger use it early and often.

Hell - I'd use it nationally as a perfect illustration of the disconnect in the democratic party.

Apache
04-03-2010, 02:03 PM
Hell - I'd use it nationally as a perfect illustration of the disconnect in the democratic party.

The entire way HCR passed already show that...

Kay
04-03-2010, 02:17 PM
Don't believe what you see and hear with your own eyes and ears in this video.
It was taken completely out of context by the evil teabaggers.....:rolleyes:



Congressman Defends His 'Constitution' Comments on Health Care Law

Updated April 03, 2010

FOXNews.com


An Illinois congressman who ignited a firestorm of controversy this week for telling a town hall audience he's "not worried about the Constitution" on the new health care law said his comments were "taken completely out of context."

Rep. Phil Hare's comments were captured on video by a Tea Party activist, posted on YouTube, and quickly went viral.

Hare was immediately battered by criticism in the blogosphere for appearing to flout the Constitution and for confusing it with the Declaration of Independence.

Hare responded to the controversy with his own YouTube video Friday in which he said he meant that he wasn't worried the health care bill would be ruled unconstitutional.

"If it had of been, I would have never voted for a bill that I knew would be unconstitutional," he said. "I took an oath to defend this Constitution. I will continue to do that. I served six years in the military. I'm saddened that this gotcha-type politics has to happen."

Hare also said he wants everyone to know that the Constitution is "near and dear to me."

"We can disagree on health care reform," he said. "But we don't have to be disagreeable."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/03/congressman-defends-constitution-comments-health-care/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/03/congressman-defends-constitution-comments-health-care/)

Apache
04-03-2010, 03:03 PM
Don't believe what you see and hear with your own eyes and ears in this video.
It was taken completely out of context by the evil teabaggers.....:rolleyes:

CYA



I was wondering how they would spin this...:rolleyes:

NJCardFan
04-03-2010, 04:54 PM
Don't believe what you see and hear with your own eyes and ears in this video.
It was taken completely out of context by the evil teabaggers.....:rolleyes:

He said he didn't care not once but twice. There is no misunderstanding that. Not to mention him showing his utter ignorance of our founding documents. I think every Republican candidate should run this along with Dingelberry's comment about controlling the people. These 2 comments alone could really swing the moderates.

Wei Wu Wei
04-03-2010, 06:04 PM
The often used question "where does it say in the constitution that X" isn't even a valid question, because the constitution is never the sole basis for legislation. Centuries of legislation, court decisions and simple technological changes are considered when new policies are passed, and it makes the question sort of absurd . Where exactly in the constitution is space exploration mentioned? Where exactly in the constitution does it discuss post-industrial corporations? Does the 2nd amendment cover chemical weapons? Small nuclear arms?

Still, this representative is pretty stupid for saying something like that in this political climate, it's politically stupid and unfortunately these days people just love to eat up the politics of politics.

Articulate_Ape
04-03-2010, 06:08 PM
The often used question "where does it say in the constitution that X" isn't even a valid question, because the constitution is never the sole basis for legislation.


It is supposed to be. The fact that it isn't is what has gotten us to where we are today, which is gaining speed on the slippery slope to tyranny.

Speedy
04-03-2010, 06:08 PM
The often used question "where does it say in the constitution that X" isn't even a valid question, because the constitution is never the sole basis for legislation. Centuries of legislation, court decisions and simple technological changes are considered when new policies are passed, and it makes the question sort of absurd . Where exactly in the constitution is space exploration mentioned? Where exactly in the constitution does it discuss post-industrial corporations? Does the 2nd amendment cover chemical weapons? Small nuclear arms?

Still, this representative is pretty stupid for saying something like that in this political climate, it's politically stupid and unfortunately these days people just love to eat up the politics of politics.

Under this stream of logic, Affirmative Action does not have any merit either so I hired all those Black people for nothing! Don't I feel like a fool!

Articulate_Ape
04-03-2010, 06:17 PM
WWW, if you would like a clear and concise explanation of the failure of our government to use the Constitution for guidance over the last 100 years, and the result of that slow stumble into the soft tyranny we live under now, I suggest that you (and everyone for that matter) read this book:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41j6pu3y9sL._SL500_AA300_.jpg


We have been in the grip of a soft tyranny for some time now, but our strides toward tyranny proper are getting longer and our gait faster with every step away from the very document that was drafted to protect against such an outcome for this nation.

Wei Wu Wei
04-03-2010, 06:21 PM
It is supposed to be. The fact that it isn't is what has gotten us to where we are today, which is gaining speed on the slippery slope to tyranny.

No it's not. Immediately after the constitution was written new laws were made, court decisions were made, under your logic we should have never left the exact moment the constitution was written.

You skipped the rest of my post, we live in an entirely different world than when the constitution was written most things we have issue with are modern day issues that weren't imaginable in those days.

This idea is totally silly it's based in a fundamentalist fantasy realm where everything can be explained and understood in a very short statements of doctrine.

There are no answers bro, all we ever do is approximate and those approximations always change, not only in direction, but in dimension as well.

Wei Wu Wei
04-03-2010, 06:23 PM
WWW, if you would like a clear and concise explanation of the failure of our government to use the Constitution for guidance over the last 100 years, and the result of that slow stumble into the soft tyranny we live under now, I suggest that you (and everyone for that matter) read this book:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41j6pu3y9sL._SL500_AA300_.jpg


We have been in the grip of a soft tyranny for some time now, but our strides toward tyranny proper are getting longer and our gait faster with every step away from the very document that was drafted to protect against such an outcome for this nation.

What is the Supreme Court for?

Apache
04-03-2010, 06:35 PM
The often used question "where does it say in the constitution that X" isn't even a valid question, because the constitution is never the sole basis for legislation. Centuries of legislation, court decisions and simple technological changes are considered when new policies are passed, and it makes the question sort of absurd . Where exactly in the constitution is space exploration mentioned? Where exactly in the constitution does it discuss post-industrial corporations? Does the 2nd amendment cover chemical weapons? Small nuclear arms?

Still, this representative is pretty stupid for saying something like that in this political climate, it's politically stupid and unfortunately these days people just love to eat up the politics of politics.

This is probably the most idiotic post I've read. In the case of HCR, the federal government has pole-vaulted over its constitutional boundries! The Feds are constrained by the Constitution, PERIOD!

Apache
04-03-2010, 06:37 PM
No it's not. Immediately after the constitution was written new laws were made, court decisions were made, under your logic we should have never left the exact moment the constitution was written.

You skipped the rest of my post, we live in an entirely different world than when the constitution was written most things we have issue with are modern day issues that weren't imaginable in those days.

This idea is totally silly it's based in a fundamentalist fantasy realm where everything can be explained and understood in a very short statements of doctrine.

There are no answers bro, all we ever do is approximate and those approximations always change, not only in direction, but in dimension as well.

Nice little smoke screen...

Articulate_Ape
04-03-2010, 06:43 PM
No it's not. Immediately after the constitution was written new laws were made, court decisions were made, under your logic we should have never left the exact moment the constitution was written.

You skipped the rest of my post, we live in an entirely different world than when the constitution was written most things we have issue with are modern day issues that weren't imaginable in those days.

This idea is totally silly it's based in a fundamentalist fantasy realm where everything can be explained and understood in a very short statements of doctrine.

There are no answers bro, all we ever do is approximate and those approximations always change, not only in direction, but in dimension as well.

I skipped nothing. Ever heard of a Constitutional Amendment, WWW? The founders understood full-well that the world would change and ingeniously constructed our Constitution to deal with such change. Amending the document was that mechanism. Fortunately, that is not so easy to do and wasn't meant to be, because they knew the whimsy of man. Unfortunately, because of the arduous process involved in amending the Constitution, politicians have chosen rather to ignore the document's constraints nearly altogether.

No, WWW, the Constitution is was not, and is not, a perfect document. It is, however, our Constitution and if falls short of covering aspects of the brave new world, then it needs to be amended, not ignored. The former corrects for advancements in time, attitudes, and technology; the latter allows the very foundation of this great and yet very fragile house to rot.

Articulate_Ape
04-03-2010, 06:49 PM
What is the Supreme Court for?

The Supreme Court is in place to try every case brought before it against the Constitution and determine whether a law or an argument complies to the permissions or limits as defined by the Constitution -- period.

Wei Wu Wei
04-03-2010, 07:41 PM
I skipped nothing. Ever heard of a Constitutional Amendment, WWW? The founders understood full-well that the world would change and ingeniously constructed our Constitution to deal with such change. Amending the document was that mechanism. Fortunately, that is not so easy to do and wasn't meant to be, because they knew the whimsy of man. Unfortunately, because of the arduous process involved in amending the Constitution, politicians have chosen rather to ignore the document's constraints nearly altogether.

No, WWW, the Constitution is was not, and is not, a perfect document. It is, however, our Constitution and if falls short of covering aspects of the brave new world, then it needs to be amended, not ignored. The former corrects for advancements in time, attitudes, and technology; the latter allows the very foundation of this great and yet very fragile house to rot.

What you're asking for is for everything to be clearly and unambiguously defined. That is not reality.

Consider how many different ideas there are in our nation, a very individualistic nation, how many different opinions and beliefs, policy solutions and backgrounds. If we only passed legislation by getting enough consensus to pass constitutional amendments, we would never get anything done.

Rigid, nonevolving societies always crumble because change+uncertainty is as inevitable as death (and through a fundamentalist lens, it is death).

Wei Wu Wei
04-03-2010, 07:43 PM
The Supreme Court is in place to try every case brought before it against the Constitution and determine whether a law or an argument complies to the permissions or limits as defined by the Constitution -- period.

Why are cases brought to the supreme court instead of being resolved in earlier courts?

Articulate_Ape
04-03-2010, 07:52 PM
Why are cases brought to the supreme court instead of being resolved in earlier courts?

Because that is the legal appeals system in the USA. Hello?

Articulate_Ape
04-03-2010, 08:00 PM
What you're asking for is for everything to be clearly and unambiguously defined. That is not reality.

Consider how many different ideas there are in our nation, a very individualistic nation, how many different opinions and beliefs, policy solutions and backgrounds. If we only passed legislation by getting enough consensus to pass constitutional amendments, we would never get anything done.

Rigid, nonevolving societies always crumble because change+uncertainty is as inevitable as death (and through a fundamentalist lens, it is death).

No, what I am asking for is that those who swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America do just that. If that is simplistic, then I am guilty as charged. If we are going to abolish the rule of law, then so be it and we will suffer the fate of the millions who have throughout history. Just don't pretend that you are working within the framework of a Constitution that you violate as a matter of course.

How old are you, WWW? Just out of curiosity I wonder how long it has taken you to gain this level of recklessness.

PoliCon
04-03-2010, 10:06 PM
The often used question "where does it say in the constitution that X" isn't even a valid question, because the constitution is never the sole basis for legislation. Centuries of legislation, court decisions and simple technological changes are considered when new policies are passed, and it makes the question sort of absurd . Where exactly in the constitution is space exploration mentioned? Where exactly in the constitution does it discuss post-industrial corporations? Does the 2nd amendment cover chemical weapons? Small nuclear arms?

Still, this representative is pretty stupid for saying something like that in this political climate, it's politically stupid and unfortunately these days people just love to eat up the politics of politics.

You stupid fucktard. This mentality is why our country is so fucked up right now. :rolleyes: Legal precedent is only as valid as the source it points to. ALL federal law must be justified in and by the constitution in the enumerated and implied powers.

Articulate_Ape
04-04-2010, 01:32 AM
You stupid fucktard. This mentality is why our country is so fucked up right now. :rolleyes: Legal precedent is only as valid as the source it points to. ALL federal law must be justified in and by the constitution in the enumerated and implied powers.

Yeah, what he said; but I said it more nicely.

Wei Wu Wei
04-04-2010, 03:52 AM
How exactly is the health care bill unconstitutional? Are taxes unconstitutional? Are tax credits unconstitutional? Are regulations on major industries unconstitional?

Also I'd argue that not all the boundaries of the government are clearly defined in the constitution.

Constitutionally Speaking
04-04-2010, 06:32 AM
No it's not. Immediately after the constitution was written new laws were made, court decisions were made, under your logic we should have never left the exact moment the constitution was written.

The Constitution gives guidelines as to the powers that our government has.

Government is granted power over a very limited area - and you know what? Laws passed by congress are perfectly within that scope of that framework - as long as they stay within the restrictions outlined in the Constitution.

When we say things are unconstitutional, we are saying they violate that principle.

Constitutionally Speaking
04-04-2010, 06:37 AM
Where exactly in the constitution is space exploration mentioned? Where exactly in the constitution does it discuss post-industrial corporations?


The Constitution does indeed discuss this. Read the 10th amendment. It is none of the federal governments business. They have no authority.

I would ask what the hell "post industrial" has to do with anything in the first place though. Why do you think that is significant?

Constitutionally Speaking
04-04-2010, 06:44 AM
How exactly is the health care bill unconstitutional?

I would suggest you read the 10th Amendment.

It is not within the defined powers of laid out. And if you read any of the arguments surrounding the writing and ratification of the Constitution, you would know that this would be an anathema to those who wrote it and approved it.



Are taxes unconstitutional?


Depends on the tax.



Are tax credits unconstitutional?

Tax law is covered under the Constitution - read it.


Are regulations on major industries unconstitional?

Yes they are Unconstitutional.


Also I'd argue that not all the boundaries of the government are clearly defined in the constitution.


Then you would be mistaken. They are as clear as day - they have only muddied up by those who seek to undermine it.

PoliCon
04-04-2010, 08:29 AM
Yeah, what he said; but I said it more nicely.

I'm done being nice to this fucktard troll.

PoliCon
04-04-2010, 08:34 AM
How exactly is the health care bill unconstitutional? Are taxes unconstitutional? Are tax credits unconstitutional? Are regulations on major industries unconstitional?

Also I'd argue that not all the boundaries of the government are clearly defined in the constitution.

well lets think - the mandate is unconstitutional. The kickbacks are unconstitutional. The whole FUCKING PROGRAM is unconstitutional. There is no provision in the constitution for the federal government to take over any industry. There is no provision in the constitution to regulate IN STATE trade. Medical care is almost 100% IN STATE. Insurance cannot be purchased across state lines. I do not cross state lines to see my fucking doctor - IN STATE COMMERCE. FURTHERMORE - only a complete and total FUCKTARD could possibly look at a GOOD/SERVICE and claim that provision of that good/service is a right. Access - sure that can be a right. Provision? LAZY FUCKING FUCKTARD - go buy your own. :mad:

AmPat
04-04-2010, 08:58 AM
So, he's an honest politician?

No, he is a liar and a bad one at that. He claimed to have read this O Bortion bill 3 times----Liar. 8100+ pages in a week. This meathead looks like reading a comic book would be a challenge to him.

He is therefore a "typical" politician.

AmPat
04-04-2010, 09:06 AM
He said he didn't care not once but twice. There is no misunderstanding that. Not to mention him showing his utter ignorance of our founding documents. I think every Republican candidate should run this along with Dingelberry's comment about controlling the people. These 2 comments alone could really swing the moderates.

After every DIM comment, run loops of the Marxist -in-Chief's comments. Drive O Blah Blah style Hopey Changey down America's throat. The voters are obviously stupid enough to fall for O Blah Blah and the rest of the idiot left's lies so we need to give them simple soundbites they can understand.

AmPat
04-04-2010, 09:09 AM
The often used question "where does it say in the constitution that X" isn't even a valid question, because the constitution is never the sole basis for legislation. Centuries of legislation, court decisions and simple technological changes are considered when new policies are passed, and it makes the question sort of absurd . Where exactly in the constitution is space exploration mentioned? Where exactly in the constitution does it discuss post-industrial corporations? Does the 2nd amendment cover chemical weapons? Small nuclear arms?

Still, this representative is pretty stupid for saying something like that in this political climate, it's politically stupid and unfortunately these days people just love to eat up the politics of politics.

Where to start?:rolleyes: Are you even an American? Have you read the Constitution? Did you ever crack a history book-----------one that wasn't written by a Marxist?

If legislation is clearly UNConstitutional, it is ILLEGAL.

AmPat
04-04-2010, 09:16 AM
No it's not. Immediately after the constitution was written new laws were made, court decisions were made, under your logic we should have never left the exact moment the constitution was written.

You skipped the rest of my post, we live in an entirely different world than when the constitution was written most things we have issue with are modern day issues that weren't imaginable in those days.

This idea is totally silly it's based in a fundamentalist fantasy realm where everything can be explained and understood in a very short statements of doctrine.

There are no answers bro, all we ever do is approximate and those approximations always change, not only in direction, but in dimension as well.

The Constitution, that document you know nothing about, imposes limits on gov't. It does not, nor was it intended to be the sum total of laws. It lays out the limits of the branches of gov't and CLEARLY gives Congress the duties to write new laws. Those new LAWS can NEVER be in violation of the LIMITS the Constitution imposes. Those NEW laws are ruled as to their CONSTITUTIONALITY by the Supreme Court. You truly are ignorant of your own history, much like 99% of your beloved Marxist-DIMRAT Party---------------------------------------------------COMRADE.:cool:

Wei Wu Wei
04-04-2010, 02:37 PM
well lets think - the mandate is unconstitutional.

No because it's perfectly constitutional for the government to issue taxes and credits.


The kickbacks are unconstitutional.

No.


The whole FUCKING PROGRAM is unconstitutional. There is no provision in the constitution for the federal government to take over any industry.

Regulations are not unconstitutional.


There is no provision in the constitution to regulate IN STATE trade. Medical care is almost 100% IN STATE. Insurance cannot be purchased across state lines. I do not cross state lines to see my fucking doctor - IN STATE COMMERCE. FURTHERMORE - only a complete and total FUCKTARD could possibly look at a GOOD/SERVICE and claim that provision of that good/service is a right. Access - sure that can be a right. Provision? LAZY FUCKING FUCKTARD - go buy your own. :mad:

Um actually we as a people can decide what are things are necessary as rights as the world changes,

Apache
04-04-2010, 02:48 PM
How exactly is the health care bill unconstitutional? Are taxes unconstitutional? Are tax credits unconstitutional? Are regulations on major industries unconstitional?

Also I'd argue that not all the boundaries of the government are clearly defined in the constitution.

Because, for one, it says that ALL Americans MUST purchase a service. The government has no business telling me, "You must buy X, because you live." The Constitution does not,(repeat) DOES NOT, give them any such authority.

Wei Wu Wei
04-04-2010, 02:50 PM
Because, for one, it says that ALL Americans MUST purchase a service. The government has no business telling me, "You must buy X, because you live." The Constitution does not,(repeat) DOES NOT, give them any such authority.

No it does not, that's just the way it's being framed.

It says you must pay a new tax (what some are calling a fine) unless you have or purchase health insurance, in which case you get a credit on that tax.

There's not a criminal law being passed.

Apache
04-04-2010, 02:57 PM
No because it's perfectly constitutional for the government to issue taxes and credits.Not to force someone to purchase a service they don't want, just because they live!




No.
Oh, snappy! Love how you back that up with .....FACTS :rolleyes:



Regulations are not unconstitutional.Forced government takeovers ARE!




Um actually we as a people can decide what are things are necessary as rights as the world changes,

Um actually, that's called a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.....DOH!

And guess what, it wouldn't pass....:eek:

Apache
04-04-2010, 03:06 PM
No it does not, that's just the way it's being framed.

It says you must pay a new tax (what some are calling a fine) unless you have or purchase health insurance, in which case you get a credit on that tax.

There's not a criminal law being passed.

Are you even looking at what you're writing? I mean SERIOUSLY, are you?


Because, for one, it says that ALL Americans MUST purchase a service.to which you say...


No it does not, that's just the way it's being framed.

and then, in the very same post...
It says you must pay a new tax (what some are calling a fine) unless you have or purchase health insurance Now the "tax" is also a FINE, since not everyone will be paying it, only those who have not purchased HCI....



See how easy that is?

Wei Wu Wei
04-05-2010, 12:57 AM
Are you even looking at what you're writing? I mean SERIOUSLY, are you?

Yes I'm writing that there isn't a criminal law being passed it's not going to be against federal law to not purchase insurance you simply won't qualify for a tax credit.

Rockntractor
04-05-2010, 12:58 AM
Yes I'm writing that there isn't a criminal law being passed it's not going to be against federal law to not purchase insurance you simply won't qualify for a tax credit.

You spin like a top Wei one!

Wei Wu Wei
04-05-2010, 01:00 AM
and then, in the very same post... Now the "tax" is also a FINE, since not everyone will be paying it, only those who have not purchased HCI....



See how easy that is?

Yes except it's perfectly constitutional for the government to issue taxes and tax credits. The government doesn't "fine" you for not having children, but you do get credits for having dependents. The government doesn't "fine" you if your kids go to college, but you can receive education credits if they do.

Just because you're calling the tax a fine (which is perfectly fine if that's what you call it) doesn't make it any less constitutional because there isn't a criminal law being passed.

You may not like it, and that's perfectly legitimate (I don't like it either to be perfectly honest, I consider it another handout to big business) but it is not unconstitutional.

Rockntractor
04-05-2010, 01:01 AM
Yes except it's perfectly constitutional for the government to issue taxes and tax credits. The government doesn't "fine" you for not having children, but you do get credits for having dependents. The government doesn't "fine" you if your kids go to college, but you can receive education credits if they do.

Just because you're calling the tax a fine (which is perfectly fine if that's what you call it) doesn't make it any less constitutional because there isn't a criminal law being passed.

You may not like it, and that's perfectly legitimate (I don't like it either to be perfectly honest, I consider it another handout to big business) but it is not unconstitutional.
What do you think of the new tax on white woman?:rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
04-05-2010, 01:03 AM
I don't consider women to be commodities.

Rockntractor
04-05-2010, 01:08 AM
I don't consider women to be commodities.
:confused:


http://www.ibj.com/healthcare-bill-stings-local-tanning-industry/PARAMS/article/18888

Wei Wu Wei
04-05-2010, 01:20 AM
Cool a tax on tanning salons sounds like a good idea like taxes on alcohol and cigarettes.

Any more defense about this tax and tax credit being somehow unconstitutional?

Rockntractor
04-05-2010, 01:22 AM
Cool a tax on tanning salons sounds like a good idea like taxes on alcohol and cigarettes.

Any more defense about this tax and tax credit being somehow unconstitutional?
This is a tax on white woman you idiot!

NJCardFan
04-05-2010, 01:57 AM
Yes I'm writing that there isn't a criminal law being passed it's not going to be against federal law to not purchase insurance you simply won't qualify for a tax credit.

Um, sweetums. Not a criminal law? OK, try not paying the fine for not having insurance and let me know how that turns out. And for the rest of you, just stop. Wee wee's idea of logic and understanding is vastly different from us. You could put wee wee and my dog in the same room and try to get them to understand the unconstitutionality of HCR and after a couple of hours my dog would have a better understanding of it than wee wee would. In fact, my dog would actually get it.

Apache
04-05-2010, 01:58 AM
Yes except it's perfectly constitutional for the government to issue taxes and tax credits. The government doesn't "fine" you for not having children, but you do get credits for having dependents. The government doesn't "fine" you if your kids go to college, but you can receive education credits if they do.

Just because you're calling the tax a fine (which is perfectly fine if that's what you call it) doesn't make it any less constitutional because there isn't a criminal law being passed.

You may not like it, and that's perfectly legitimate (I don't like it either to be perfectly honest, I consider it another handout to big business) but it is not unconstitutional.

You dummy, IT IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL TO FORCE SOMEONE TO BUY SOMETHING BECAUSE THEY LIVE!

When are you going to get that through your thick skull?

PoliCon
04-05-2010, 07:22 AM
No because it's perfectly constitutional for the government to issue taxes and credits.

It's not just taxes and credits you stupid brain-dead fucktard. It's a mandate that if I don't buy some good or service that I will be fined or sent to fucking JAIL if I refuse.


No.Bribery and kickbacks are constitutional? Ok - where in what fucked up version of our constitution do you find kickbacks listed as something the government can use or accept? :rolleyes:




Regulations are not unconstitutional. It's not just fucking regulations queef breath. It's a whole sale take over of a whole industry. When the regulations put all the decisions into the hands of the government even if the means of production remain in private hands - that's UNCONSTITUTIONAL. We have this whole private property thing that lets us own and use and decided about our own property - including goods and services - as we see fit. There is no constitutional justification for fascism.



Um actually we as a people can decide what are things are necessary as rights as the world changes,SWEET AND FLUFFY LORDS OF KOBALT! Someone needs to find your mother and punch her in the gut for not swallowing you. :mad: WE do not decide what are rights either as a community or through our representative government. Our rights are GOD GIVEN and NATURAL. They do not change. They do not EVOLVE. We do not get to change what they are. Neither does our representative government. We ALL have them at birth. The government can infringe upon or guarantee you your rights - but it cannot GIVE you your rights - NEITHER can any collective group give you rights and it doesn't matter how the world changes. God given rights are the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow and no where in those God given rights will you find the right to have someone else provide you with any GOOD OR SERVICE at the expense of someone else because that would infringe upon their rights to PRIVATE PROPERTY. :rolleyes: Now do the world a favor and give yourself a retroactive abortion.

THE RESISTANCE
04-05-2010, 11:17 AM
jOHN LOCKE wrote that government is like a contract. That if the government breaks the contract then the people have a right to disobey their ruler(s). They have the right to rebel.

The Constitution is ouR contract with the government.

The Bill of Rights, the first ten admendments to it was written and adopted after the First Part of the Constitution was written and adopted for running government only, so it , the Bill of Rights is stronger than the first part.

TheBill of rights were based on the ideas mostly from Locke and agreed by the Founders , on individual rights.

Our rights are our part of the contract. I don't believe that the people have ever broken its part of the " contract" but the government has many times over with the most recent the health care bill.
Local governments, state governments, weaken the contract and ignore it also and that in time leads to the federal government with the aid of the Supreme Court ( see Kelo last greatest breaking of the Constitutional contract ) breaking the contract also for life, liberty and property which equals the pursuit of happiness.

MARX WAS NOT A FOUNDING FATHER! His philosophy has no part or must never have a part in our country or how it is run. Founding principles must be returned to or we will be even more, but most importantly, our children and grandchildren will become villeins to the state. Only a fool does not believe that,a socialist fool!

Apache
04-05-2010, 01:38 PM
jOHN LOCKE wrote that government is like a contract. That if the government breaks the contract then the people have a right to disobey their ruler(s). They have the right to rebel.

The Constitution is ouR contract with the government.

The Bill of Rights, the first ten admendments to it was written and adopted after the First Part of the Constitution was written and adopted for running government only, so it , the Bill of Rights is stronger than the first part.

TheBill of rights were based on the ideas mostly from Locke and agreed by the Founders , on individual rights.

Our rights are our part of the contract. I don't believe that the people have ever broken its part of the " contract" but the government has many times over with the most recent the health care bill.
Local governments, state governments, weaken the contract and ignore it also and that in time leads to the federal government with the aid of the Supreme Court ( see Kelo last greatest breaking of the Constitutional contract ) breaking the contract also for life, liberty and property which equals the pursuit of happiness.

MARX WAS NOT A FOUNDING FATHER! His philosophy has no part or must never have a part in our country or how it is run. Founding principles must be returned to or we will be even more, but most importantly, our children and grandchildren will become villeins to the state. Only a fool does not believe that,a socialist fool!

Illegal use of facts. 10 yard penalty, First down! :p

Wei Wu Wei
04-05-2010, 02:36 PM
Um, sweetums. Not a criminal law? OK, try not paying the fine for not having insurance and let me know how that turns out. And for the rest of you, just stop. Wee wee's idea of logic and understanding is vastly different from us. You could put wee wee and my dog in the same room and try to get them to understand the unconstitutionality of HCR and after a couple of hours my dog would have a better understanding of it than wee wee would. In fact, my dog would actually get it.

It's against the law to not pay your taxes.

Wei Wu Wei
04-05-2010, 02:41 PM
It's not just taxes and credits you stupid brain-dead fucktard. It's a mandate that if I don't buy some good or service that I will be fined or sent to fucking JAIL if I refuse.

No it's a tax and credits and if you don't buy some good or service you do not get a credit on that tax and if you don't pay your taxes then you get sent to jail.



Bribery and kickbacks are constitutional? Ok - where in what fucked up version of our constitution do you find kickbacks listed as something the government can use or accept? :rolleyes:

Almost every single bill to pass congress has stuff in it for individual districts, representatives always do that.



It's not just fucking regulations queef breath. It's a whole sale take over of a whole industry. When the regulations put all the decisions into the hands of the government even if the means of production remain in private hands - that's UNCONSTITUTIONAL. We have this whole private property thing that lets us own and use and decided about our own property - including goods and services - as we see fit. There is no constitutional justification for fascism.

There's nothing unconstitutional about regulations. Many (almost all) industries have federal regulations. Hyperbole doesn't change that.




SWEET AND FLUFFY LORDS OF KOBALT! Someone needs to find your mother and punch her in the gut for not swallowing you. :mad: WE do not decide what are rights either as a community or through our representative government. Our rights are GOD GIVEN and NATURAL. They do not change. They do not EVOLVE. We do not get to change what they are. Neither does our representative government. We ALL have them at birth. The government can infringe upon or guarantee you your rights - but it cannot GIVE you your rights - NEITHER can any collective group give you rights and it doesn't matter how the world changes. God given rights are the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow and no where in those God given rights will you find the right to have someone else provide you with any GOOD OR SERVICE at the expense of someone else because that would infringe upon their rights to PRIVATE PROPERTY. :rolleyes: Now do the world a favor and give yourself a retroactive abortion.

So what about the right to vote for minorities and women?

What about education?

What about the right to be a free man rather than a slave?

These rights were not considered God given or natural until later the people decided otherwise and by using the government of the people changed it.,

Wei Wu Wei
04-05-2010, 02:42 PM
You dummy, IT IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL TO FORCE SOMEONE TO BUY SOMETHING BECAUSE THEY LIVE!

When are you going to get that through your thick skull?

They're not forcing anyone to do that. It is perfectly constitutional for the government to tax someone and if you don't buy insurance you don't get a credit and have to pay a tax.

Lager
04-05-2010, 03:50 PM
They're not forcing anyone to do that. It is perfectly constitutional for the government to tax someone and if you don't buy insurance you don't get a credit and have to pay a tax.

Does this bill, or does it not, force you to pay a penalty if you do not purchase health insurance from a private company? You can parse words and twist euphemisms all you want. You're tap dancing, defending something you once claimed you didn't like all that much. Even those on the du don't offer such a lame argument.

PoliCon
04-05-2010, 03:51 PM
No it's a tax and credits and if you don't buy some good or service you do not get a credit on that tax and if you don't pay your taxes then you get sent to jail. Do you get dizzy spinning like this? You can spin it any way you like - If I choose not to buy a service I do not need or want I will be sent to jail for not buying it.





Almost every single bill to pass congress has stuff in it for individual districts, representatives always do that. AND THAT MAKES IT RIGHT??? are you as fucking stupid at that??? If congress offered up a blood sacrifice with every bill - if they killed a child every time they passed a law would that make it right?





There's nothing unconstitutional about regulations. Many (almost all) industries have federal regulations. Hyperbole doesn't change that. Regulation to control totally - they call that fascism. Fascism denies private property. THAT is unconstitutional.






So what about the right to vote for minorities and women?

What about education?

What about the right to be a free man rather than a slave?

These rights were not considered God given or natural until later the people decided otherwise and by using the government of the people changed it.,All rights are given by God not by government.

PoliCon
04-05-2010, 03:52 PM
They're not forcing anyone to do that. It is perfectly constitutional for the government to tax someone and if you don't buy insurance you don't get a credit and have to pay a tax.

it's not a fucking tax - it's a FINE. You pay a FINE if you do not buy what the government has MANDATED. :rolleyes: Stop spinning and tell the fucking truth.

Wei Wu Wei
04-05-2010, 05:18 PM
Does this bill, or does it not, force you to pay a penalty if you do not purchase health insurance from a private company?

No, it forces you to pay a tax (like you're already legally required to pay taxes) unless you qualify for the tax credit by purchasing health insurance from a private company.


You can parse words and twist euphemisms all you want. You're tap dancing, defending something you once claimed you didn't like all that much. Even those on the du don't offer such a lame argument.

I don't like it, that doesn't change what it is though.

Wei Wu Wei
04-05-2010, 05:21 PM
it's not a fucking tax - it's a FINE. You pay a FINE if you do not buy what the government has MANDATED. :rolleyes: Stop spinning and tell the fucking truth.

You can call it a fine, but it is a tax. It sort of functions as a fine because the only people paying the tax will be those who don't purchase health insurance but it's still just a tax.

You aren't getting fined for not buying health insurance, you're getting taxed and not qualifying for a credit if you don't buy health insurance.

You aren't going to jail for not buying health insurance you'd go to jail if you don't pay your taxes.

Lager
04-05-2010, 05:39 PM
You choose to defend the mandate, which even many liberals have problems with. I would have thought if you are going to defend this bill you would pick something like the pre-existing conditions portion. You will have plenty of other "taxes" to defend when we see what new ones are required to pay for this fiasco.

What other aspects of our economy do you think the government would be better off taking over? Come on, be honest now.

Wei Wu Wei
04-05-2010, 05:46 PM
You choose to defend the mandate, which even many liberals have problems with. I would have thought if you are going to defend this bill you would pick something like the pre-existing conditions portion. You will have plenty of other "taxes" to defend when we see what new ones are required to pay for this fiasco.

What other aspects of our economy do you think the government would be better off taking over? Come on, be honest now.

I do not like the mandate, imposing a mandate on citizens to purchase health insurance from the same private companies that put us in the problem to begin with is ridiculous. It's a handout to big corporations who do not need it. I strongly supported a Public Option and without it, this is just an Insurance Company Profit Protections Bill. I get the reasoning behind it but I still dislike it and do not support it. Until a public option is passed I will remain strongly opposed to this and there needs to be a change in the bill before 2014.

However, just because I dislike doesn't change the reality of what it is. It doesn't make it into some monstrous unconstitutional thing. I'm not going to twist the facts just to match my personal opinion of it. They are using taxes and tax credits which is perfectly constitutional.

I do not like it, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional.

Lager
04-05-2010, 05:52 PM
You are twisting the facts. Fortunately we have the SCOTUS, who are just a little bit more knowledgable and experienced than you are, to make the decision. What do you think the purpose of the mandate was? Was it strictly to bring in general revenue, or was it to force more people to purchase insurance and hopefully bring the cost of premiums down?

PoliCon
04-05-2010, 06:23 PM
You can call it a fine, but it is a tax. It sort of functions as a fine because the only people paying the tax will be those who don't purchase health insurance but it's still just a tax.

You aren't getting fined for not buying health insurance, you're getting taxed and not qualifying for a credit if you don't buy health insurance.

You aren't going to jail for not buying health insurance you'd go to jail if you don't pay your taxes.

Lets go over the definition of terms spooge for brains.

TAX: a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purpose

FINE: a sum imposed as punishment for an offense

The government has MANDATED that I consume a service - a service I do not need and do not want. And as part of that mandate is an imposed FINE if I fail to comply - and I do not pay the fine - JAIL TIME - which clearly indicates an intent to PUNISH. I WILL NOT buy health insurance. I do not NEED it and I do not WANT it. AND I'll FUCKING DIE before I pay their fine or go to jail.

Rockntractor
04-05-2010, 06:27 PM
Lets go over the definition of terms spooge for brains.

TAX: a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purpose

FINE: a sum imposed as punishment for an offense

The government has MANDATED that I consume a service - a service I do not need and do not want. And as part of that mandate is an imposed FINE if I fail to comply - and I do not pay the fine - JAIL TIME - which clearly indicates an intent to PUNISH. I WILL NOT buy health insurance. I do not NEED it and I do not WANT it. AND I'll FUCKING DIE before I pay their fine or go to jail.

What is spooge?:confused:

Wei Wu Wei
04-05-2010, 06:28 PM
Lets go over the definition of terms spooge for brains.

TAX: a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purpose

FINE: a sum imposed as punishment for an offense

The government has MANDATED that I consume a service - a service I do not need and do not want. And as part of that mandate is an imposed FINE if I fail to comply - and I do not pay the fine - JAIL TIME - which clearly indicates an intent to PUNISH. I WILL NOT buy health insurance. I do not NEED it and I do not WANT it. AND I'll FUCKING DIE before I pay their fine or go to jail.

Except that the law doesn't make not purchasing insurance a criminal offense.

That's the key difference, it is NOT a crime to not-buy-insurance. Everyone is taxed, and if you don't buy it, you don't get a credit. It is NOT a criminal offense.

Jailtime occurs if you refuse to pay your taxes, which IS a criminal offense, and which you DO get punished for with jail.

Wei Wu Wei
04-05-2010, 06:32 PM
It is NOT a criminal offense to refuse to purchase insurance.

It IS a criminal offense to refuse to pay your taxes.


Like I said, you may not like it, but that doesn't change reality.

edit: this is my 666'th post oooohh spooooky

PoliCon
04-05-2010, 06:33 PM
Except that the law doesn't make not purchasing insurance a criminal offense.

That's the key difference, it is NOT a crime to not-buy-insurance. Everyone is taxed, and if you don't buy it, you don't get a credit. It is NOT a criminal offense.

Jailtime occurs if you refuse to pay your taxes, which IS a criminal offense, and which you DO get punished for with jail.


Not in those exact words of course not. They're politicians. They're generally smarter than coming straight out and admitting that they are making a power grab. So the couch it in nice soft language and talk about TAXES and credits instead of mandates and fines - and send queefs like you out to message boards to spin your tales trying to convince people that we're all over reacting and that the whole thing is 'for our own good.' :rolleyes:

PoliCon
04-05-2010, 06:34 PM
It is NOT a criminal offense to refuse to purchase insurance.

It IS a criminal offense to refuse to pay your taxes.


Like I said, you may not like it, but that doesn't change reality.

They can have it when the come and pry it out of my cold dead fingers. I will not pay. And I will not go down without a fight. :mad:

Wei Wu Wei
04-05-2010, 06:35 PM
You are saying that you will refuse to pay your taxes? lol okay bud hope that works out well for you.

Wei Wu Wei
04-05-2010, 06:38 PM
Not in those exact words of course not.

and the specific language is what the Surpreme Court would look at to determine it's constitutionality.


They're politicians. They're generally smarter than coming straight out and admitting that they are making a power grab. So the couch it in nice soft language and talk about TAXES and credits instead of mandates and fines - and send queefs like you out to message boards to spin your tales trying to convince people that we're all over reacting and that the whole thing is 'for our own good.' :rolleyes:

The bill uses taxes. Say what you like and I can say what I like but the bill is the bill and the facts are the facts. You may say that "in effect, this tax system is a form of mandate", and yes it is, but because they are not using criminal law, it is NOT unconstitutional.

PoliCon
04-05-2010, 06:40 PM
You are saying that you will refuse to pay your taxes? lol okay bud hope that works out well for you.

I'm a firm believer in tax evasion for starts - but what I am saying is that I refuse to comply with the obamacare mandate and refuse to pay their fine for non-compliance. I had considered being a political prisoner. I have since reevaluated my stance and intend to be a martyr before a prisoner.

PoliCon
04-05-2010, 06:42 PM
and the specific language is what the Surpreme Court would look at to determine it's constitutionality.



The bill uses taxes. Say what you like and I can say what I like but the bill is the bill and the facts are the facts. You may say that "in effect, this tax system is a form of mandate", and yes it is, but because they are not using criminal law, it is NOT unconstitutional.

I'm not hanging my hopes on the SCOTUS for the elimination of this bullshit. I plan to take matters into my own hands. I will be actively campaigning for it's repeal and if that fails - I will be actively defending myself and my property.

Wei Wu Wei
04-05-2010, 06:44 PM
I'm a firm believer in tax evasion for starts - but what I am saying is that I refuse to comply with the obamacare mandate and refuse to pay their fine for non-compliance. I had considered being a political prisoner. I have since reevaluated my stance and intend to be a martyr before a prisoner.

How do you see yourself becoming a martyr if there is no death penalty for tax evasion?

Lager
04-05-2010, 06:45 PM
You never answered my other questions Wei, what other aspect of the economy do you think the government should take over?
So you admit the government is using a penalty to force citizens into purchasing a product from a private company?
Do you like Radiohead? Cause you remind me of an earlier member on this site.

PoliCon
04-05-2010, 06:45 PM
How do you see yourself becoming a martyr if there is no death penalty for tax evasion?

Where there is a will - there is a way. Like I said - I will NOT go quietly. I WILL defend myself and my property.

PoliCon
04-05-2010, 06:46 PM
You never answered my other questions Wei, what other aspect of the economy do you think the government should take over?
So you admit the government is using a penalty to force citizens into purchasing a product from a private company?
Do you like Radiohead? Cause you remind me of an earlier member on this site.

He stinks so badly of sock I feel like I'm in a locker room. :rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
04-05-2010, 06:59 PM
Where there is a will - there is a way. Like I said - I will NOT go quietly. I WILL defend myself and my property.

So why don't you want to get health insurance if you can afford it? (after all, if you can't, it can be subsidized) I mean politics aside, don't you think it's just a good idea to play it safe when it comes to your health and livelihood?

Wei Wu Wei
04-05-2010, 07:02 PM
don't want to see anyone here on their deathbed if they can avoid it you know

Rockntractor
04-05-2010, 07:20 PM
So why don't you want to get health insurance if you can afford it? (after all, if you can't, it can be subsidized) I mean politics aside, don't you think it's just a good idea to play it safe when it comes to your health and livelihood?
They will charge him full price and he is half sized!:rolleyes:

patriot45
04-05-2010, 07:54 PM
They will charge him full price and he is half sized!:rolleyes:

They could solve that problem by using smaller Drs and nurses!

Rockntractor
04-05-2010, 07:59 PM
They could solve that problem by using smaller Drs and nurses!

They could do double occupancy on beds too. put a pillow on each end!:D

PoliCon
04-05-2010, 08:54 PM
So why don't you want to get health insurance if you can afford it? (after all, if you can't, it can be subsidized) I mean politics aside, don't you think it's just a good idea to play it safe when it comes to your health and livelihood?

Why the fuck should I dump thousands of dollars a year down the drain paying for something I never use and do not need? We made a choice when we married - neither of us want excessive measures take to keep us alive seeing as how we have nothing to fear from death. Neither of us engages in risky behavior - anymore. . . . . Children are not an option so we don't need pregnancy care. Neither of us ever goes to the doctor. We don't run crying for antibiotics every time we get the sniffles. And when either of us does need to see a doctor - we have friends we served in the mission field with and it only costs us $20 out of pocket to see her in office - and nothing to get her to call in a script. And we'd much rather invest that money in helping others. We give 1/4 of our annual income to missions. If I was dumping thousands a year into insurance I never use - or ever will use - how does that benefit me or anything I believe in??

Apache
04-05-2010, 09:34 PM
So why don't you want to get health insurance if you can afford it? (after all, if you can't, it can be subsidized) I mean politics aside, don't you think it's just a good idea to play it safe when it comes to your health and livelihood?

You're a communist, aren't you. C'mon admit it. You just get warm tingly feelings crawling onto Uncle Zero's lap and finding your teet. Knowing that you won't have to do a thing, Unkie Bama got it all planned out for you...


Your motto is, "If it's free, it's for me", huh?

Do yourself a favor...DROP A SET ANDWORK FOR what you want, instead of having it handed to you. You might just respect it a little bit more...

Articulate_Ape
04-05-2010, 10:03 PM
don't want to see anyone here on their deathbed if they can avoid it you know

Then you are supporting the wrong folks, WWW. The bottom line is that the HCR bill passed was no such thing. It was a health insurance reform bill. Health insurance does not equal healthcare, WWW. That is what you and your ilk fail to comprehend. You will.

Wei Wu Wei
04-05-2010, 10:34 PM
Then you are supporting the wrong folks, WWW. The bottom line is that the HCR bill passed was no such thing. It was a health insurance reform bill. Health insurance does not equal healthcare, WWW. That is what you and your ilk fail to comprehend. You will.

I said health insurance in that post.

PoliCon
04-05-2010, 10:47 PM
You say health insurance but what you mean is health care.

NJCardFan
04-05-2010, 11:40 PM
The magic number that keeps getting repeated is 30 million. Well, of those 30 million, how many are illegal immigrants? How many are young people who don't believe they need health insurance? How many of those can afford it but who opted to keep up with the Jones' instead? Something tells me that the exact number might be maybe around 10 million. So basically the government is selling out the country for 10 million people.

AmPat
04-06-2010, 10:50 AM
The magic number that keeps getting repeated is 30 million. Well, of those 30 million, how many are illegal immigrants? How many are young people who don't believe they need health insurance? How many of those can afford it but who opted to keep up with the Jones' instead? Something tells me that the exact number might be maybe around 10 million. So basically the government is selling out the country for 10 million people.

"Selling out" suggests there are potential buyers. Who would buy a bankrupt country?:confused::eek: