PDA

View Full Version : ACA UPHELD BY THE SUPREME COURT



linda22003
06-28-2012, 10:16 AM
IN ITS ENTIRETY. Roberts joins the left leaning members of the Court.

jediab
06-28-2012, 10:17 AM
Fuck. We're screwed....:curse:

Bailey
06-28-2012, 10:19 AM
I just had a feeling that Roberts would fold. He folded to all the pressure the left was bringing down on the court..

ABC in Georgia
06-28-2012, 10:22 AM
NO! NO! NO!

I can't bear it!

John Roberts, how could you????????????

~ ABC

txradioguy
06-28-2012, 10:23 AM
I just had a feeling that Roberts would fold. He folded to all the pressure the left was bringing down on the court..

Wasn't just Roberts...Drudge is reporting the vote was 6-3

linda22003
06-28-2012, 10:25 AM
The only limitation is on the federal government withholding medicare funds from states. The rest of it is fine according to the Court. Exciting viewing on CPAN 3.

FlaGator
06-28-2012, 10:25 AM
I now have to count on the Congress to repeal this nonsense. It will be interesting to see what this does for campaign advertisements at the congressional level.

txradioguy
06-28-2012, 10:27 AM
I now have to count on the Congress to repeal this nonsense. It will be interesting to see what this does for campaign advertisements at the congressional level.

Well...time to hold Romney's feet to the fire about releaping this the first day he's in office.

linda22003
06-28-2012, 10:28 AM
Well...time to hold Romney's feet to the fire about releaping this the first day he's in office.

Or repealing it, even. This is probably a nightmare for Mitt. :cool:

Molon Labe
06-28-2012, 10:30 AM
Obama's promise to not raise taxes on people making $200K or less is complete bullshit.

The beast just keeps growing and growing. This will not end good.

This country is totally screwed. 6-3? Holy hell!

FlaGator
06-28-2012, 10:30 AM
IN ITS ENTIRETY. Roberts joings the left leaning members of the Court.

Roberts seems to have joined the left too?

Arroyo_Doble
06-28-2012, 10:31 AM
Or repealing it, even. This is probably a nightmare for Mitt. :cool:

He can't. Repeal would have to be a legislative act, not an executive act.

He might pull an Obama and just not enforce it, though. Or do that waiver thing for all 57 states.

Adam Wood
06-28-2012, 10:31 AM
Well...time to hold Romney's feet to the fire about releaping this the first day he's in office.The silver lining in this is that Obama is now doomed come November. 2/3 of the country hate this law, and now he has just successfully argued before the Supreme Court that it's a tax, when he both swore up and down that it wasn't a tax AND swore that he would not raise taxes on anyone making over $200K. Romney should run that 24/7 on every TV station in the country from now forward.

Bailey
06-28-2012, 10:34 AM
Or repealing it, even. This is probably a nightmare for Mitt. :cool:

Please President Romney is so happy today, they handed him a perfect weapon to slam Obama on...

txradioguy
06-28-2012, 10:35 AM
And what people don't realize is...now the Feds can tell us what to eat...what to wear...what to drive...all under the guise of healthcare and what's "good" for us

linda22003
06-28-2012, 10:36 AM
Please President Romney is so happy today, they handed him a perfect weapon to slam Obama on...

Unless Obama takes the position that Romney was the trailblazer on this, and his adoption of Romneycare is completely Constitutional.

Bailey
06-28-2012, 10:38 AM
And what people don't realize is...now the Feds can tell us what to eat...what to wear...what to drive...all under the guise of healthcare and what's "good" for us

Well people like Lindanumbers doesn't mind gov telling her what to drink or eat etc so it should be ok..

txradioguy
06-28-2012, 10:39 AM
The silver lining in this is that Obama is now doomed come November. 2/3 of the country hate this law, and now he has just successfully argued before the Supreme Court that it's a tax, when he both swore up and down that it wasn't a tax AND swore that he would not raise taxes on anyone making over $200K. Romney should run that 24/7 on every TV station in the country from now forward.

Adam I hope to God you're right. And maybe because it's just 5 minuts after this has broken...but I don't feel that optimistic right now.

He's (Obama) already proven he gives less than a damn about words he tells people if it interferes with his Master plan.

He said it himself in a stump speech "It's only words".

txradioguy
06-28-2012, 10:40 AM
Well people like Lindanumbers doesn't mind gov telling her what to drink or eat etc so it should be ok..

True...I'm sure that the beltway bitch and the little coward (mike360) will celebrate along with the Libtards tonite.

Bailey
06-28-2012, 10:40 AM
Unless Obama takes the position that Romney was the trailblazer on this, and his adoption of Romneycare is completely Constitutional.

Off the top of my head Romney can run on obama breaking his word on "no taxes for people who make under 200k" more then 50% of the people dont like ACA so there's another weapon, that is if Romney is smart enough to utilize them.

linda22003
06-28-2012, 10:41 AM
True...I'm sure that the beltway bitch and the little coward (mike360) will celebrate along with the Libtards tonite.

I haven't expressed any opinion about this. You need to watch your fucking mouth.
Have a nice day!

linda22003
06-28-2012, 10:42 AM
Well people like Lindanumbers doesn't mind gov telling her what to drink or eat etc so it should be ok..

I don't need government to tell me that; I actually like broccoli. :cool:

Bailey
06-28-2012, 10:43 AM
I haven't expressed any opinion about this. You need to watch your fucking mouth.
Have a nice day!

Oh you have, when bloomy said no drinks over a certain size you were like ho hum who cares? thats just the beginning of the path of this kind of way of life. You didnt seem to care so if i am wrong correct me...

linda22003
06-28-2012, 10:44 AM
Oh you have, when bloomy said no drinks over a certain size you were like ho hum who cares? thats just the beginning of the path of this kind of way of life. You didnt seem to care so if i am wrong correct me...

I thought it was silly (after all, you COULD buy ten sixteen ounce drinks at the same time), but I didn't get all mouth-foaming enraged about it.

Bailey
06-28-2012, 10:44 AM
Btw Tx you forgot to add elitist beltway etc :D

Bailey
06-28-2012, 10:45 AM
I thought it was silly (after all, you COULD buy ten sixteen ounce drinks at the same time), but I didn't get all mouth-foaming enraged about it.

You should nip this shit in the bud before it grows, now i think its to late.

txradioguy
06-28-2012, 10:45 AM
Originally Posted by linda22003
I haven't expressed any opinion about this.

You're a beltway RINO...which means you're a Lib. We ALL know what your opinion on this is.



You need to watch your fucking mouth.

Or what...



Have a nice day!


Go die in a fire

txradioguy
06-28-2012, 10:46 AM
Btw Tx you forgot to elitist beltway etc :D

My bad. I was trying to be nice. thanks for the backup though. :cool:

Bailey
06-28-2012, 10:46 AM
True...I'm sure that the beltway bitch and the little coward (mike360) will celebrate along with the Libtards tonite.

lol omg you owe me a new laptop.

Rebel Yell
06-28-2012, 10:46 AM
I'm sooooo glad I don't have children.

Bailey
06-28-2012, 10:48 AM
I'm sooooo glad I don't have children.

I have a daughter :(

Apocalypse
06-28-2012, 10:48 AM
I'm going to go and drink.

F' My insurance has doubled over the last year due to this.

Only one way now. We must win every thing in Nov.

ABC in Georgia
06-28-2012, 10:48 AM
The silver lining in this is that Obama is now doomed come November. 2/3 of the country hate this law, and now he has just successfully argued before the Supreme Court that it's a tax, when he both swore up and down that it wasn't a tax AND swore that he would not raise taxes on anyone making over $200K. Romney should run that 24/7 on every TV station in the country from now forward.

Adam ...

Thank you, thank you! You give me hope, even though you wrote "over" $200K instead of "under!" ... :love_heart:

~ ABC

linda22003
06-28-2012, 10:48 AM
For those who are so sure what I think, thanks for letting me know, because I have no idea what this is going to look like in the future. I have a lot of concerns about it, mostly because I don't see how to avoid it becoming a single payer system, and I like the healthcare I have now. But thanks for the surface analysis of me, which is the best you all can do. I appreciate it.

txradioguy
06-28-2012, 10:49 AM
If I'm reading the AP story right...states can opt out.

linda22003
06-28-2012, 10:51 AM
We'll see if people vote overwhelmingly Republican for President, House, and Senate in the fall. That's the only option, at this point.

Bailey
06-28-2012, 10:52 AM
For those who are so sure what I think, thanks for letting me know, because I have no idea what this is going to look like in the future. I have a lot of concerns about it, mostly because I don't see how to avoid it becoming a single payer system, and I like the healthcare I have now. But thanks for the surface analysis of me, which is the best you all can do. I appreciate it.

Lighten up Francis but I do find it odd someone who is as how should i say stubborn as you go along with whatever the gov says you should do without a peep.

ThinkingBig
06-28-2012, 10:52 AM
IN ITS ENTIRETY. Roberts joings the left leaning members of the Court.


No, dummy, that's the center of the court.

And BTW, before I forget.

http://liburuak.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/yay.gif?w=500

txradioguy
06-28-2012, 10:52 AM
I have a daughter :(

3 teenage daughters

3 sons.

:livid:

txradioguy
06-28-2012, 10:53 AM
No, dummy, that's the center of the court.

And BTW, before I forget.



Hey weewee...why don't you go play a nice game of hide and go fuck yourself.

Bailey
06-28-2012, 10:55 AM
No, dummy, that's the center of the court.

And BTW, before I forget.

http://liburuak.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/yay.gif?w=500

Why arent you mad at obama raising taxes on you when he said he wouldn't?

txradioguy
06-28-2012, 10:57 AM
Why arent you mad at obama raising taxes on you when he said he wouldn't?

Because assclowns like weewee/Big don't care as long as they get their free gov't. cheese. They count on people that actually want to work to pay for their freebies.

Apocalypse
06-28-2012, 10:59 AM
We'll see if people vote overwhelmingly Republican for President, House, and Senate in the fall. That's the only option, at this point.

All we have to do is win the House, Senate and WH. We don't need an overwhelming majority.

Remember, this piece of crap was passed because of the Byrd Rule.

It can be repealed the same way.

51% majority vote.

Molon Labe
06-28-2012, 11:00 AM
Please President Romney is so happy today, they handed him a perfect weapon to slam Obama on...

How do you figure that?
That jacknut invented it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6DrH6P9OC0

They have nominated a douchebag who's key success as governor was this very issue. After this decision today, this will not turn out good.
Wait until the ads run with Romney saying "I dig the individual mandate".
This is a f'n mess for the GOP.

linda22003
06-28-2012, 11:00 AM
Lighten up Francis but I do find it odd someone who is as how should i say stubborn as you go along with whatever the gov says you should do without a peep.

That's your assumption, based only on my not hitting the keyboard until bloody like that cartoon that posts around here. That's not much of a basis for an assumption, but I understand if it's all you've got.

txradioguy
06-28-2012, 11:01 AM
How do you figure that?
That jacknut invented it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6DrH6P9OC0

They have nominated a douchebag who's key success as governor was this very issue. After this decision today, this will not turn out good.
Wait until the ads run with Romney saying "I dig the individual mandate".
This is a f'n mess for the GOP.

ALl the more reason we the voters hold his feet to the fire and demand he stand by his promise to repeal this steaming pile of crap the first day he's in office.

txradioguy
06-28-2012, 11:02 AM
And next up on the Obama Mandate agenda...mandatory hiring by all companies of full time employees whether the greedy capitalists can afford it or not.

Arroyo_Doble
06-28-2012, 11:02 AM
All we have to do is win the House, Senate and WH. We don't need an overwhelming majority.

Remember, this piece of crap was passed because of the Byrd Rule.

It can be repealed the same way.

51% majority vote.

No. The law was not completely passed through the Reconciliation Process. Only the "fix" after the House agreed to the Senate version. The Senate did not have the 60 votes to pass the resulting bill that would come out of the conference committee because Scott Brown won the election in Massachusetts to replace Kennedy.

Reconciliation is not the answer except at the margins.

Bailey
06-28-2012, 11:04 AM
How do you figure that?
That jacknut invented it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6DrH6P9OC0

They have nominated a douchebag who's key success as governor was this very issue. After this decision today, this will not turn out good.
Wait until the ads run with Romney saying "I dig the individual mandate".
This is a f'n mess for the GOP.

Hey he can say he "evolved" on the subject or say its should be up to the states not the feds/

Apocalypse
06-28-2012, 11:07 AM
No. The law was not completely passed through the Reconciliation Process. Only the "fix" after the House agreed to the Senate version. The Senate did not have the 60 votes to pass the resulting bill that would come out of the conference committee because Scott Brown won the election in Massachusetts to replace Kennedy.

Reconciliation is not the answer except at the margins.

Google Repeal Obamacare Reconciliation Process

You will come up with 58,800 results from both the left and right all saying. It can and will be done.

txradioguy
06-28-2012, 11:07 AM
And here we go:


Stocks extended their losses Thursday, wiping out all of the previous session's gains, amid skepticism that European leaders would be able to form a solution to tackle the ongoing debt crisis and following the Supreme Court’s ruling on the health-care bill.

The Supreme Court upheld the individual health insurance requirement in President Obama's health-care law, a victory for Democrats and Obama. Medicaid-related stocks such as Amerigroup [AGP 65.02 2.62 (+4.2%) ] and Molina [MOH 22.41 1.09 (+5.11%) ] jumped following the announcement.

And hospital stocks including Universal Health [UHS 40.60 1.35 (+3.44%) ], Community Health [CYH 27.29 1.80 (+7.06%) ] and Tenet Healthcare [THC 5.28 0.30 (+6.02%) ] rallied.

But most managed care companies such as Cigna [CI 43.81 -1.59 (-3.5%) ], Wellpoint [WLP 65.54 -3.95 (-5.68%) ] and Aetna [AET 39.32 -1.64 (-4%) ] dragged.

“It’s a pretty clear negative. Until the election [in November], public policy uncertainty was going to be on the rise, dampening business confidence,” Barry Knapp, head of U.S. equity portfolio strategy at Barclays. “This clearly plays into that theme and it leaves a whole bunch of unanswered questions….Markets were going down anyway and this is just going to be a pretty clear negative catalyst over the next or two as opposed to something to stop the bleeding.”



http://www.cnbc.com/id/47994090

Molon Labe
06-28-2012, 11:07 AM
ALl the more reason we the voters hold his feet to the fire and demand he stand by his promise to repeal this steaming pile of crap the first day he's in office.

I.E. - "I know Romney is a flaming libtard douche who pretends to be free market friendly, but I'm voting for him anyways and hope he will repeal this shat legislation cause it's just happened so many times before"


I'm going to wager that will not happen.

The only way this happens is to get a Congress who has the balls to do it. I'm not going to hold my breath, but it's more likely than Willard doing it.

Rebel Yell
06-28-2012, 11:10 AM
I don't need government to tell me that; I actually like broccoli. :cool:

I do to.....smothered in cheese.

Adam Wood
06-28-2012, 11:11 AM
Adam ...

Thank you, thank you! You give me hope, even though you wrote "over" $200K instead of "under!" ... :love_heart:

~ ABC
http://i47.tinypic.com/zogcnr.jpg


Well, at least you know what I meant.

Apocalypse
06-28-2012, 11:13 AM
Google Repeal Obamacare Reconciliation Process

You will come up with58,800 results from both the left and right all saying. It can and will be done.

One of the best lines is this.


The Budget Act of 1974 established the reconciliation process. The House and Senate Budget Committees can direct other committees to make changes in mandatory spending and the tax code to make spending and revenue conform with the goals set by the annual budget resolution.

SCOTUS just ruled the mandate is a "Tax". Guess what we will nail?

And best yet. To kill it, we don't even need the House. Just the Senate and WH.

Adam Wood
06-28-2012, 11:25 AM
Lighten up FrancesFixed. :biggrin-new:

Wibbins
06-28-2012, 11:38 AM
I love how the pro-PPACA people are equating car insurance mandate with the health insurance mandate.


Car insurance mandate protects third parties from negligence.
Car insurance mandate forces car owners to buy their OWN insurance, so if they run a red-light the victim doesn't get stuck with the bill
Car insurance is used the correct way that insurance was intended i.e for catastrophic.


Just because you breath does NOT mean you should be forced to buy something, hell I bet the people that are fairly healthy and have the high deductible will be considered unapproved insurance and be fined, err I mean taxed.



Wait, wait, didn't Obama say he wasn't going to raise taxes with the bill? :evil-grin:I think roberts may have helped us, being extremely optimistic :cold:

Gina
06-28-2012, 11:40 AM
It's not a tax according to Obama himself. He argues hard that it isn't a tax.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0p9Txm55g8&feature=share

Bailey
06-28-2012, 11:43 AM
I love how the pro-PPACA people are equating car insurance mandate with the health insurance mandate.


Car insurance mandate protects third parties from negligence.
Car insurance mandate forces car owners to buy their OWN insurance, so if they run a red-light the victim doesn't get stuck with the bill
Car insurance is used the correct way that insurance was intended i.e for catastrophic.


Just because you breath does NOT mean you should be forced to buy something, hell I bet the people that are fairly healthy and have the high deductible will be considered unapproved insurance and be fined, err I mean taxed.



Wait, wait, didn't Obama say he wasn't going to raise taxes with the bill? :evil-grin:I think roberts may have helped us, being extremely optimistic :cold:


what other good and services will the gov force us to buy now?

ASquareDealer
06-28-2012, 11:53 AM
As a left leaning member of the board, I want to say this to you guys. Firstly, I don't view this as a "my side won, yours lost" sort of thing. It's not sports, it's national politics and thus the process should be treated with more dignity. I disagree with the large majority of you on both economic and social issues, but I don't dislike you or look down on you or think you're evil or whatever, as many hardcore leftwing politicos do. I simply respectfully disagree with you and view your opposition--and opposition in general--as the key to our system of government running in order. Disagreement in politics is utterly natural and it's also refreshing. It is why I choose to spend my time among Conservatives rather than spend it at DU. The way I see it, Americans have been divided over the direction this country should go in since the Founding. There's always been, in some form or another, a fight between the forces in favor of larger government, and those in favor of smaller government; the fight in essence beginning with the Hamiltonians and the Jeffersonians. No liberals that I know, myself included, actually want "Socialism" or anything akin to the USSR or China...Those that do are profoundly stupid.

Secondly, while the SC's decision has gravely upset many of you NOW, it could actually work to your advantage in the coming months. Why? Well, in the past couple of months, my "side" if you will has had some political victories--Mainly this and Obama's ruling on illegal immigrants--We've had a season of winnings, you have had a season of losses. This season of victories could embolden Obama and the left and his re-election people and make them complacent and not campaign as hard, thinking that they have it "in the bag" with all their recent victories--Basically all these short term victories leading to overconfidence on their part, with the general consensus that Obama will be re-elected helping cement a sense of complacency and overconfidence.

Basically, if you guys play your cards right, it could be sort of a reverse of 1948--Dewey was emboldened by the GOP's victories in 1946 and the division in the DNC and thus didn't even bother campaigning all that hard because everyone KNEW he was going to win and Truman was going to lose. He felt he didn't need to even really try because the election was his for the taking. Truman had the burden of a divided party, the burden of being in FDR's immense shadow and many liberals feeling he didn't measure up, the Congressional losses in 1946 and the overwhelming possibility of losing the election on his shoulders--Basically a season of losses for him and the Democratic Party--and it made him and the DNC fight hard, scrap, and win in 1948 despite all the obstacles and the opinions and predictions of the media and even the most clever political scientists.

If you guys look at these recent losses not as defeats to be lamented, but as rallying calls for increased politicking, which embolden you and make you fight harder, you could win.

On your end, though, there are some difficulties. Romney attracts moderates, centrists and liberals more than he does conservatives--his own base, the bulk of the party. He's sort of in a scenario similar to Ford in 1976 or Bush in 1992, where the bulk of the party was either apathetic, not enthusiastic, or actively against the nominee. He is seen as out of touch by many I know--Many of whom are only "casually" political. He's seen as robotic, out of touch, cold (think the dog on the roof of his car incident, the $10,000 bet, "corporations are people", the trees gaffe, etc), and MSNBC and other media groups are going for Obama...Not good for Romney. He is not as charismatic as Obama in general, just in terms of personality and not as eloquent a speaker; Obama is very clumsy but Romney is clumsier. I believe the debates will be an uphill battle for him. His VP choice, and the state of the economy come September/October/November, will seal his fate ultimately either way. The election, I believe, will be close, whichever way it swings. Gary Johnson could perhaps ignite some libertarians and be in the mix somehow.

Also on your end, the Tea Party rhetoric alienates a lot of people, even non political types and once again the casually political--the independents. Many I know see the Tea Party as backward, as wanting to turn back the 20th century, as anti-gay, as corporatist, as a "bunch of old angry white people." Many I've spoken to don't appreciate the Tea Party's fearmonging, or how those who disagree with the Tea Party are labelled as Socialists. People such as Glenn Beck do your side no favors; He has become the Michael Moore of the right wing. Most of my generation, while not Socialist, did not grow up during the Cold War. My generation does not fear Communism or Socialism because that was not the threat of our generation. In terms of my generation, those in their 20s, Socialism and Communism were things which died with the USSR and things which Joe McCarthy used to smear people with, and words that they hear their grandparents--people in their 50s and upwards--bitching about. That is the extent of what Socialism and Communism mean to the vast majority of my generation, both politically oriented people and casual citizens. There are of course exceptions--you have some young Socialists, who know what Socialism is and support it, you have young Libertarians, you have those who know what Socialism is but do not feel Obama is a socialist, etc.

On my side's end, Obama's recent stance on the issue of illegal immigration and the repeal of the Arizona laws have alienated many people who would normally support Obama. Not the far left--they are happy with the strike down of Arizona's law--I'm talking about the general mass of independent, moderate and centrist left wing people. Outside of a few on the far left, I know none who support illegal immigration; I know many, many people who are vehemently against it, even those not actively involved or concerned with politics. It is something both my generation and it would seem the great majority of people are against--And thus could be used against Obama in this election. It really burned a lot of people and with the proper strategy could hurt him.

The economy of course is a given--The state of the economy will be the decisive factor in whether or not Obama gets re-elected, and thus does not need much talk.

The healthcare law, too, is not something which will be a big issue in the Fall. Those who are against UHC have been against it; those who support it have supported it. Both sides will continue to, and the independents seem to lean in favor of it. The apolitical do not care either way and will probably only be swayed on the issue if it can be spun as something which will effect them directly in their day to day lives--if it is successfully painted as something which will inconvenience them in a big way in their day to day activities and lives.

The general consensus I've noticed, from ALL sides of the spectrum is:

The left wing (far left) is generally displeased with Obama because they feel he conceded too much to the right, but will vote for him anyway out of loyalty.
The right wing (far right) hates Obama but are not enthusiastic for Romney given his record and some have even considered sitting 2012 out entirely out of disappointment. Defeats such as today's may cause even more to feel despair and sit it out--which is why the pundits and politicos need to turn the SC's decision from a defeat into a rallying call for battle.
Many in the middle, independents feel it is the choice between two mediocre candidates and are generally undecided.
Many in the center left don't truly like Obama, but will vote for him because they feel Romney, the Tea Party and the current GOP are insane.
Many in the center right may sit out the election or vote Democratic as they feel the GOP has swung too far to the right with the rise of the Tea Party.

The major consensus is that the election is between two dud candidates. The majority need to be sold on both.

Bailey
06-28-2012, 12:08 PM
As a left leaning member of the board, I want to say this to you guys. Firstly, I don't view this as a "my side won, yours lost" sort of thing. It's not sports, it's national politics and thus the process should be treated with more dignity. I disagree with the large majority of you on both economic and social issues, but I don't dislike you or look down on you or think you're evil or whatever, as many hardcore leftwing politicos do. I simply respectfully disagree with you and view your opposition--and opposition in general--as the key to our system of government running in order. Disagreement in politics is utterly natural and it's also refreshing. It is why I choose to spend my time among Conservatives rather than spend it at DU. The way I see it, Americans have been divided over the direction this country should go in since the Founding. There's always been, in some form or another, a fight between the forces in favor of larger government, and those in favor of smaller government; the fight in essence beginning with the Hamiltonians and the Jeffersonians. No liberals that I know, myself included, actually want "Socialism" or anything akin to the USSR or China...Those that do are profoundly stupid.

Secondly, while the SC's decision has gravely upset many of you NOW, it could actually work to your advantage in the coming months. Why? Well, in the past couple of months, my "side" if you will has had some political victories--Mainly this and Obama's ruling on illegal immigrants--We've had a season of winnings, you have had a season of losses. This season of victories could embolden Obama and the left and his re-election people and make them complacent and not campaign as hard, thinking that they have it "in the bag" with all their recent victories--Basically all these short term victories leading to overconfidence on their part, with the general consensus that Obama will be re-elected helping cement a sense of complacency and overconfidence.

Basically, if you guys play your cards right, it could be sort of a reverse of 1948--Dewey was emboldened by the GOP's victories in 1946 and the division in the DNC and thus didn't even bother campaigning all that hard because everyone KNEW he was going to win and Truman was going to lose. He felt he didn't need to even really try because the election was his for the taking. Truman had the burden of a divided party, the burden of being in FDR's immense shadow and many liberals feeling he didn't measure up, the Congressional losses in 1946 and the overwhelming possibility of losing the election on his shoulders--Basically a season of losses for him and the Democratic Party--and it made him and the DNC fight hard, scrap, and win in 1948 despite all the obstacles and the opinions and predictions of the media and even the most clever political scientists.

If you guys look at these recent losses not as defeats to be lamented, but as rallying calls for increased politicking, which embolden you and make you fight harder, you could win.

On your end, though, there are some difficulties. Romney attracts moderates, centrists and liberals more than he does conservatives--his own base, the bulk of the party. He's sort of in a scenario similar to Ford in 1976 or Bush in 1992, where the bulk of the party was either apathetic, not enthusiastic, or actively against the nominee. He is seen as out of touch by many I know--Many of whom are only "casually" political. He's seen as robotic, out of touch, cold (think the dog on the roof of his car incident, the $10,000 bet, "corporations are people", the trees gaffe, etc), and MSNBC and other media groups are going for Obama...Not good for Romney. He is not as charismatic as Obama in general, just in terms of personality and not as eloquent a speaker; Obama is very clumsy but Romney is clumsier. I believe the debates will be an uphill battle for him. His VP choice, and the state of the economy come September/October/November, will seal his fate ultimately either way. The election, I believe, will be close, whichever way it swings. Gary Johnson could perhaps ignite some libertarians and be in the mix somehow.

Also on your end, the Tea Party rhetoric alienates a lot of people, even non political types and once again the casually political--the independents. Many I know see the Tea Party as backward, as wanting to turn back the 20th century, as anti-gay, as corporatist, as a "bunch of old angry white people." Many I've spoken to don't appreciate the Tea Party's fearmonging, or how those who disagree with the Tea Party are labelled as Socialists. People such as Glenn Beck do your side no favors; He has become the Michael Moore of the right wing. Most of my generation, while not Socialist, did not grow up during the Cold War. My generation does not fear Communism or Socialism because that was not the threat of our generation. In terms of my generation, those in their 20s, Socialism and Communism were things which died with the USSR and things which Joe McCarthy used to smear people with, and words that they hear their grandparents--people in their 50s and upwards--bitching about. That is the extent of what Socialism and Communism mean to the vast majority of my generation, both politically oriented people and casual citizens. There are of course exceptions--you have some young Socialists, who know what Socialism is and support it, you have young Libertarians, you have those who know what Socialism is but do not feel Obama is a socialist, etc.

On my side's end, Obama's recent stance on the issue of illegal immigration and the repeal of the Arizona laws have alienated many people who would normally support Obama. Not the far left--they are happy with the strike down of Arizona's law--I'm talking about the general mass of independent, moderate and centrist left wing people. Outside of a few on the far left, I know none who support illegal immigration; I know many, many people who are vehemently against it, even those not actively involved or concerned with politics. It is something both my generation and it would seem the great majority of people are against--And thus could be used against Obama in this election. It really burned a lot of people and with the proper strategy could hurt him.

The economy of course is a given--The state of the economy will be the decisive factor in whether or not Obama gets re-elected, and thus does not need much talk.

The healthcare law, too, is not something which will be a big issue in the Fall. Those who are against UHC have been against it; those who support it have supported it. Both sides will continue to, and the independents seem to lean in favor of it. The apolitical do not care either way and will probably only be swayed on the issue if it can be spun as something which will effect them directly in their day to day lives--if it is successfully painted as something which will inconvenience them in a big way in their day to day activities and lives.

The general consensus I've noticed, from ALL sides of the spectrum is:

The left wing (far left) is generally displeased with Obama because they feel he conceded too much to the right, but will vote for him anyway out of loyalty.
The right wing (far right) hates Obama but are not enthusiastic for Romney given his record and some have even considered sitting 2012 out entirely out of disappointment. Defeats such as today's may cause even more to feel despair and sit it out--which is why the pundits and politicos need to turn the SC's decision from a defeat into a rallying call for battle.
Many in the middle, independents feel it is the choice between two mediocre candidates and are generally undecided.
Many in the center left don't truly like Obama, but will vote for him because they feel Romney, the Tea Party and the current GOP are insane.
Many in the center right may sit out the election or vote Democratic as they feel the GOP has swung too far to the right with the rise of the Tea Party.

The major consensus is that the election is between two dud candidates. The majority need to be sold on both.


Please shove your sanctimonious screed right up your pie hole, freedom died a little today and you are so happy about it.

ABC in Georgia
06-28-2012, 12:09 PM
Adam ...

To go with your post that gave me hope. :love_heart:

From a hymn written by English poet William Cowper, 1731-1800

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0AgENR1FhM


~ ABC

Janice
06-28-2012, 12:18 PM
9 people. 9 unelected people/ lawyers with lifetime appointments just screwed 300 million people.

We were at a cross roads. No wonder the Communist Party USA declares that this president and his partys re-election is absolutely essential. (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/47655)

So the march of tyranny of the left against liberty continues with the help of the courts now. If your on the left you can never lose. They do by regulation and judicial fiat what they cannot do by representative government. And when they control the representative parts of government they confer power on to the unelected parts of the federal government so when theyre not in power it just keeps going. Even if the people are against them. They have the courts. If the courts are against them, they have the beaurocracy. If they cant get something the legitimate way, theyll just get it the illegitimate way. The system is broken and its being used against us.

November will reflect what most of us think about these actions. But we must not just elect republicans. The current Republican leadership are like a bunch of eunichs at a free sex party. We must elect conservatives if we are to have any chance of reversing course.

Teetop
06-28-2012, 12:21 PM
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson

There is still time to get this POS stopped, before 2014.

Molon Labe
06-28-2012, 12:24 PM
for those of you that keep saying we MUST have a Republican in the WH for Supreme court nominees, I give you none other than George Bush and Justice Roberts.

ASquareDealer
06-28-2012, 12:28 PM
Please shove your sanctimonious screed right up your pie hole, freedom died a little today and you are so happy about it.

Actually, no, I'm not. I never supported Obamacare, especially the individual mandate. I am not a far leftist, nor a Socialist, nor a Communist, nor a Marxist of any sort. I have read Marx, and I know history and as such I am very much against any form of Marxism, be it economic, cultural, social or political. I believe cultural Marxism to be a great threat to our society. I am what was once called a "Progressive Conservative"--a label which Eisenhower, Winston Churchill, William H. Taft and other leaders adhered to. My views are a mix of liberal and conservative viewpoints, which puts me to the left of most of you but to the right of many liberals, in essence, someone who would've been at home in a pre Tea Party GOP, or perhaps (in terms of the way he governed) a Clinton Democrat, or a Theodore Roosevelt Republican--Somewhere within that range. I have been accused of being a Neo-Con by liberals. As far as Universal Healthcare is concerned in general, it would be nice if some system could be devised where all people, whether poor or rich or in between, could have equal access to coverage, or at least, if all children, disabled, and otherwise helpless people could have equal access to coverage and equivalent levels of healthcare. I am not in favor of handouts for those who can help themselves but refuse to--but I do support aid for those who cannot help themselves, whether by the circumstances of birth or disease or some other misfortune. But devising such a system and having it work efficiently without layers of bureaucracy is probably unrealistic, and how such a system could be devised as to be both rightly constructed and also Constitutional is beyond me--I am not a legislator or a Constitutional scholar. But I do know that the system Obama and his people have constructed and supported is both a garbled mess and has affected myself and many I know negatively already. It is a sucky piece of legislation, so no, I am not happy about it.

As far as my "screed"? I was hoping I'd give some perspective on the current political climate as someone who is generally moderate and young, and, hoping I could show some of you that today's loss can be overcome. I was thinking of it as olive branch of sorts, as the deepening division in the country saddens me.

Novaheart
06-28-2012, 12:29 PM
I just had a feeling that Roberts would fold. He folded to all the pressure the left was bringing down on the court..

What pressure?

Novaheart
06-28-2012, 12:30 PM
NO! NO! NO!

I can't bear it!

John Roberts, how could you????????????

~ ABC

Eventually you will be a single payor system, if you aren't already.

Novaheart
06-28-2012, 12:31 PM
I now have to count on the Congress to repeal this nonsense. It will be interesting to see what this does for campaign advertisements at the congressional level.

What would be the precedent for that?

m00
06-28-2012, 12:33 PM
Well...time to hold Romney's feet to the fire about releaping this the first day he's in office.

I'm pretty cynical about these things, but I imagine with a Romney win what will happen is... nothing. He'll remove the provision that requires insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions, and increase the fine if you don't have insurance citing it's necessary for balancing the budget. There will be a long drawn out battle in Congress, and charges of obstructionism on both sides to the point of losing sight of the original issue. At the end of the day, the media will spin this as a win for "the other side" (depending on which paper it is), and the republican voters will largely hold the opinion that they are told to have.

Meanwhile, the RNC gets a nice campaign contribution from Big Pharma...

Novaheart
06-28-2012, 12:34 PM
Well...time to hold Romney's feet to the fire about releaping this the first day he's in office.

Romney isn't going to win. However, the Senate probably will go Republican.

Focus on what's important: the economy, the second amendment, and illegal/mass immigration.

linda22003
06-28-2012, 12:35 PM
I'm pretty cynical about these things, but I imagine with a Romney win what will happen is... nothing. He'll remove the provision that requires insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions

I doubt it. That's one provision that's popular with EVERYone, (D) or (R). Eventually, everyone's going to have a preexisting condition of some kind.

Novaheart
06-28-2012, 12:35 PM
9 people. 9 unelected people/ lawyers with lifetime appointments just screwed 300 million people.

The Justices are wise when they agree with you and idiots when they don't. As it was in the beginning, now and ever shall be.

SarasotaRepub
06-28-2012, 12:35 PM
Well to say I'm disappointed is an understatement.

This event solidifies my feeling that POTUS is going to be a lock for a second term.

As I've said before, Obama is beatable but I don't believe Romney has what it takes.


And lets remain civil boys and girls, the shots directed at Linda#'s are not called for.

Arroyo_Doble
06-28-2012, 12:36 PM
for those of you that keep saying we MUST have a Republican in the WH for Supreme court nominees, I give you none other than George Bush and Justice Roberts.

Republicans got their money's worth with Citizens United. It's asking a lot of Roberts to wholly invalidate the Judicial Branch of our government simply for partisan whim.

m00
06-28-2012, 12:40 PM
I doubt it. That's one provision that's popular with EVERYone, (D) or (R). Eventually, everyone's going to have a preexisting condition of some kind.

But it's not popular with insurance companies. Obamacare is a payout to lobbyists... it is the definition of corporate cronyism. Any changes that get made will be in the direction of making the deal better for the private interest, not the public.

Novaheart
06-28-2012, 12:42 PM
Single payor healthcare will liberate American workers to move around the country to where the jobs are, and to start businesses without fear of doing without healthcare for three years (or ever) while they get things started.

Wake up people, half of you are on government based health insurance systems as it is. The only way you convince yourself that you deserve it and others don't is your claim that you earned it through hard work or noble sacrifice. Guess what? Other people worked as hard as you did. Other people put their lives at risk on the job. You are simply telling yourself that you are better than and more entitled than other people because you can't square your political philosophy with the fact that your income and healthcare is government green.

ASquareDealer
06-28-2012, 12:48 PM
Well to say I'm disappointed is an understatement.

This event solidifies my feeling that POTUS is going to be a lock for a second term.

As I've said before, Obama is beatable but I don't believe Romney has what it takes.


And lets remain civil boys and girls, the shots directed at Linda#'s are not called for.

Romney lacks a spine. What he supports today may be the opposite of what he supports tomorrow. What he loves when he's in your state may be the exact opposite of what he loves when he's in the state next to yours. He is in essence the GOP's John Kerry. Why he was picked is beyond me...And why he appeals so much to moderates is interesting. I found myself drawn to him, but the man has no charisma, has no real warmth or personality in the way say, Eisenhower or LBJ or Reagan did. Romney is sort of like a white Obama...Simply a politician to the core, a cold sort of man with a fake smile; John Kerry with an (R) next to his name. The exact opposite of what the country needs. What the GOP needs is someone who has the economic views, personal likability, charisma and warmth and unshakable convictions of Ron Paul and the record to support it, a strong stance on defense, while at the same time appearing to be "above" mudslinging politics.

What the country needs is an utter transformation of our politics. Both the Republican and Democratic parties are riddled with corruption and their rhetoric is as fake as the fights in Wrestling. They dislike each other in word and then in deed show their disagreements are few. Neither party supports the interests of the people, but instead the interests of special interest groups. I do not believe in parties or that corporations or the media should be able to finance or push politicians or that lobbyists or special interest groups should exist...I believe every candidate that runs should have the backing only of private citizens, his or her own finances, and the public at large; Every candidate should be a "grass roots" candidate. A president should not be politically indebted to any group, organization, company or corporation.

Molon Labe
06-28-2012, 12:49 PM
Republicans got their money's worth with Citizens United. It's asking a lot of Roberts to wholly invalidate the Judicial Branch of our government simply for partisan whim.

This is the way you fight it then. Screw the Fed.

http://www.spikednation.com/evideo/bad-news-obamacare

We should just refuse to enforce it at the state level.

Arroyo_Doble
06-28-2012, 12:52 PM
This is the way you fight it then. Screw the Fed.

http://www.spikednation.com/evideo/bad-news-obamacare


We should just refuse to enforce it at the state level.


I believe Republican governors are already saying they will not enforce it in their states. Not sure which previsions they are talking about. Maybe the exchange bit or the Medicaid expansion.

m00
06-28-2012, 12:54 PM
I believe Republican governors are already saying they will not enforce it in their states.

Yeah but that would contradict the recent supreme court Arizona ruling. That ruling established that President's authority to enforce (or not enforce) Federal Law supersedes the states'

Janice
06-28-2012, 12:55 PM
9 people. 9 unelected people/ lawyers with lifetime appointments just screwed 300 million people.

We were at a cross roads. No wonder the Communist Party USA declares that this president and his partys re-election is absolutely essential. (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/47655)

So the march of tyranny of the left against liberty continues with the help of the courts now. If your on the left you can never lose. They do by regulation and judicial fiat what they cannot do by representative government. And when they control the representative parts of government they confer power on to the unelected parts of the federal government so when theyre not in power it just keeps going. Even if the people are against them. They have the courts. If the courts are against them, they have the beaurocracy. If they cant get something the legitimate way, theyll just get it the illegitimate way. The system is broken and its being used against us.

November will reflect what most of us think about these actions. But we must not just elect republicans. The current Republican leadership are like a bunch of eunichs at a free sex party. We must elect conservatives if we are to have any chance of reversing course.

Like I said, we must elect conservatives, not just republicans.

Romney could rally the base and the country as never seen before if he would take this bull, this issue by the horns and make this decision a central campaign issue along with the 0bamaville economy a rallying point. A clarion call. If he was smart, this is what he would do. We shall see.

Arroyo_Doble
06-28-2012, 01:00 PM
Yeah but that would contradict the recent supreme court Arizona ruling. That ruling established that President's authority to enforce (or not enforce) Federal Law supersedes the states'

This ruling disallows the Federal Government denying Medicaid funds if the Several States decide to not follow new provisions concerning Medicaid expansion. There is no downside for the Several States (other than the status quo).

It is an interesting ruling in that regard.

Janice
06-28-2012, 01:05 PM
Great quote from the dissent:


For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling. Taxes have never been popular, see, e.g., Stamp Act of 1765, and in part for that reason, the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Representatives. See Art. I, §7, cl. 1. That is to say, they must originate in the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at their next election, which is never more than two years off.




In short, to uphold this law, Chief Justice Roberts had to join the four liberal justices rewriting the law, making a liar out of President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, all of whom told the nation that this was not a tax.

NationalReview (http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos)

Odysseus
06-28-2012, 01:08 PM
And what people don't realize is...now the Feds can tell us what to eat...what to wear...what to drive...all under the guise of healthcare and what's "good" for us

The ruling stated that the mandate was legal as a tax, but not as an interstate commerce regulation. The only way that the government can dictate diet, housing or the other issues is through the power of taxation, which they have always had. What ought to be the obvious upshot of this is that in order to pass this, Obama repeatedly and publicly denied that it was a tax. He even excoriated George Stephanopoulus for asking the question.


Unless Obama takes the position that Romney was the trailblazer on this, and his adoption of Romneycare is completely Constitutional.

Which Romney can sidestep by simply pointing out that he will not make the same mistake twice. Massachusetts has already seen increased costs and drops in service from Romneycare. If he admits that, he's got two advantages, one being that he is honest about his record (unlike Obama), and two, that he learns from experience (see first parenthetical comment).


No, dummy, that's the center of the court.

And BTW, before I forget.

http://liburuak.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/yay.gif?w=500

Go ahead and cheer, Spicoli. We'll save the graphic for November.


No. The law was not completely passed through the Reconciliation Process. Only the "fix" after the House agreed to the Senate version. The Senate did not have the 60 votes to pass the resulting bill that would come out of the conference committee because Scott Brown won the election in Massachusetts to replace Kennedy.

Reconciliation is not the answer except at the margins.

Oh, so now you're a stickler for parliamentary procedures? If it could be passed through reconciliation, it can be repealed through it.

m00
06-28-2012, 01:09 PM
This ruling disallows the Federal Government denying Medicaid funds if the Several States decide to not follow new provisions concerning Medicaid expansion. There is no downside for the Several States (other than the status quo).

It is an interesting ruling in that regard.

Is it that there is no downsides, or there isn't the specific downside of Federal Government denying Medicaid funds? Because my reading of the Arizona ruling is that states aren't allowed to choose or not choose which federal laws to enforce, and to what degree -- that this is the sole domain of the executive. Structurally these don't conflict, because the Obamacare ruling only says "you can't deny Medicaid funds to states for not following the provisions" but I didn't see where it specifically allowed states to not follow the provisions in the first place.

SarasotaRepub
06-28-2012, 01:14 PM
In short, to uphold this law, Chief Justice Roberts had to join the four liberal justices rewriting the law, making a liar out of President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, all of whom told the nation that this was not a tax.

NationalReview (http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos)


The problem is, they don't care.

Wei Wu Wei
06-28-2012, 01:15 PM
I should point out that the Supreme Court came to the exact conclusion that I knew they would. I called this exact ruling on this forum over 2 years ago. Everyone here huffed and puffed and called me stupid but I was right, as usual.

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/archive/index.php/t-27093.html

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/archive/index.php/t-26691.html

Told you so.

Well now the Republican-designed, Heritage Foundation supported, corporatist bill has been upheld, you should all be happy. The wealthy and powerful will be even more wealthy and powerful. The Republican dream.

Arroyo_Doble
06-28-2012, 01:22 PM
Oh, so now you're a stickler for parliamentary procedures? If it could be passed through reconciliation, it can be repealed through it.

Now? I was always clear that the bill could not be passed through the Reconciliation Process.

And it wasn't.

Molon Labe
06-28-2012, 01:25 PM
Go ahead and cheer, Spicoli. We'll save the graphic for November.


What in THE hell will their be to cheer for come November win/lose for the GOP POTUS?

This shit will still stand.

When are you some of you going to figure out that establishment Republicans are Liberal lite?

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b143/dasimbaking21/Gifs/ChipperJones.gif

Janice
06-28-2012, 01:30 PM
GOP governors vow to ignore Obamacare

Republican governors are planning to ignore the Supreme Court's decision Thursday to uphold Obamacare hoping that the issue will drive voters to dump President Obama in favor of Mitt Romney who has vowed to kill the Affordable Care Act.

After the decision, the Republican Governors Association said that nothing should be done by the states until after the election, a clear signal that they believe a GOP president, House and Senate will kill the health care reform pushed through by Democrats and opposed by Republicans. >>>

The Virginia governor, who is on Mitt Romney's list of potential vice presidential candidates, added, "By replacing Barack Obama with Mitt Romney, we will not only stop the federal government's healthcare takeover, but will also take a giant step towards a full economic recovery."

Other governors have urged a similar strategy. Scott Walker, the newly re-elected Wisconsin governor, said that he won't put into place any elements of Obamacare until after the election. Other governors are taking a similar position.

TheExaminer (http://washingtonexaminer.com/gop-governors-vow-to-ignore-obamacare/article/2500862)

m00
06-28-2012, 01:43 PM
When are you some of you going to figure out that establishment Republicans are Liberal lite?

Dude if the RNC establishment supported Hillary Clinton for president running as a Republican, all you would hear is "you MUST vote for Hillary... what, you want Pelosi as president? This is the most important election OF YOUR LIFETIME."

Arroyo_Doble
06-28-2012, 01:46 PM
Dude if the RNC establishment supported Hillary Clinton for president running as a Republican, all you would hear is "you MUST vote for Hillary... what, you want Pelosi as president? This is the most important election OF YOUR LIFETIME."

Until the next most important election of your lifetime ..... usually two years later.

Teetop
06-28-2012, 02:00 PM
Ok, ACA has been ruled as a tax by the SCOTUS......fine.

The SCOTUS ruled on the Senate version of ACA......fine.

ANY revenue bill must be passed in the House, not the Senate.

This law will be before the SCOTUS again and overturned.

.....This opens up an entirely new line of legal attack, because any revenue bill must originate in the House. No one had bothered to make this argument in the past, because no one had considered the mandate a tax. But now that the court has declared it to be so, it could be struck down as unconstitutional because of the process. (http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=43179)

Arroyo_Doble
06-28-2012, 02:07 PM
Ok, ACA has been ruled as a tax by the SCOTUS......fine.

The SCOTUS ruled on the Senate version of ACA......fine.

ANY revenue bill must be passed in the House, not the Senate.

This law will be before the SCOTUS again and overturned.

.....This opens up an entirely new line of legal attack, because any revenue bill must originate in the House. No one had bothered to make this argument in the past, because no one had considered the mandate a tax. But now that the court has declared it to be so, it could be struck down as unconstitutional because of the process. (http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=43179)

The tax (fine, whatever ...) on those who don't purchase insurance isn't the only tax in the law.

Chuck58
06-28-2012, 02:15 PM
I love how the pro-PPACA people are equating car insurance mandate with the health insurance mandate.


Car insurance mandate protects third parties from negligence.
Car insurance mandate forces car owners to buy their OWN insurance, so if they run a red-light the victim doesn't get stuck with the bill
Car insurance is used the correct way that insurance was intended i.e for catastrophic.


Just because you breath does NOT mean you should be forced to buy something, hell I bet the people that are fairly healthy and have the high deductible will be considered unapproved insurance and be fined, err I mean taxed.



Wait, wait, didn't Obama say he wasn't going to raise taxes with the bill? :evil-grin:I think roberts may have helped us, being extremely optimistic :cold:


Plus they always forget to mention that auto insurance is a STATE issue, not federal. New Hampshire doesn't require car insurance, except in specific cases.

"Unlike almost every other state, New Hampshire does not automatically require motorists to carry an auto liability insurance policy or provide some of financial backing in order to drive a vehicle within its boundaries.

However, you may be forced to carry liability insurance if you have:

1. Been involved in an accident.
2. A conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
3. Multiple reckless driving convictions.
4. A traffic violation conviction that triggers a review."

I don't know how that works if you leave NH.

noonwitch
06-28-2012, 03:12 PM
Plus they always forget to mention that auto insurance is a STATE issue, not federal. New Hampshire doesn't require car insurance, except in specific cases.

"Unlike almost every other state, New Hampshire does not automatically require motorists to carry an auto liability insurance policy or provide some of financial backing in order to drive a vehicle within its boundaries.

However, you may be forced to carry liability insurance if you have:

1. Been involved in an accident.
2. A conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
3. Multiple reckless driving convictions.
4. A traffic violation conviction that triggers a review."

I don't know how that works if you leave NH.


The other thing about requiring drivers to be insured is that driving is not a constitutionally guaranteed right. That's why the SOS/DMV offices can also tell a woman to remove her burka or hijab for her driver's license photo. She doesn't have a right to drive, so if she chooses to drive, she has to follow the state's rules to do so.

Hubie
06-28-2012, 03:19 PM
GOP governors vow to ignore Obamacare

Huzzah!!! What's good enough for Obama... right?

Elspeth
06-28-2012, 03:47 PM
I am sick today and just got out of bed here in California. This news just makes the vomiting worse.

WHAT THE FUCK WAS THE SUPREME COURT THINKING?

(I'm too sick to work up proper outrage, but just feel like I lost all hope.)

http://freedomslighthouse.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/obamacare.jpg

Janice
06-28-2012, 03:48 PM
Huzzah!!! What's good enough for Obama... right?

Hmm... I suppose that if 0dummy can ignore federal law , so can the states ...

Gina
06-28-2012, 03:48 PM
In short, to uphold this law, Chief Justice Roberts had to join the four liberal justices rewriting the law, making a liar out of President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, all of whom told the nation that this was not a tax.
Maybe Roberts is a sneaky genius. What better way to rouse the troops than to show very starkly what a lying socialist Obama, Pelosi, Reid et al are? As was said before, a tax can be repealed, a mandate cannot.

Janice
06-28-2012, 03:50 PM
Maybe Roberts is a sneaky genius. What better way to rouse the troops than to show very starkly what a lying socialist Obama, Pelosi, Reid et al are? As was said before, a tax can be repealed, a mandate cannot.

Without the "tax", the mandate is dead in the water. :cool:

txradioguy
06-28-2012, 03:55 PM
Romney isn't going to win. However, the Senate probably will go Republican.

You keep dreaming. Your guy just sealed his own fate today. He ensured he's a one and done President.


Focus on what's important: the economy, the second amendment, and illegal/mass immigration.

YOu mean everything that Obama wants to either destroy take away or give away to those that don't deserve it?

You might think you Libtards got some kind of big won today Nova...but be careful how much you celebrate.

The SCOTUS just declared that anything we do can be taxed and/or regulated. From the cars we drive to the foods we eat and wrap it all up in the guise of our "health". If we don't eat the foods the government tells us to eat...drive the cars they tell us to drive etc etc it's bad for our "health" therefore they can tax the shit out of us.

That also includes certain high risk lifestyle choices.

Think about it. You always claim you don't want the Government in your bedroom...but with the ruling today that you and the other Libtards are celebrating...you just opened the bedroom door wide open.

Gina
06-28-2012, 03:57 PM
Without the "tax", the mandate is dead in the water. :cool:

Exactly. Also, this takes away the meme about the court being right wing, unfair and so on. It would have been nice to just strike it down but I think Roberts, if he comments, would say congress has a right to tax but not a right to use the commerce law the way this law would have done. Force you to buy something because you do nothing? noway

txradioguy
06-28-2012, 04:00 PM
What would be the precedent for that?

It's been officially ruled a tax.

Taxes have been repealed before by congress.

Rebel Yell
06-28-2012, 04:00 PM
And BTW, before I forget.

http://liburuak.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/yay.gif?w=500

I think you mean.....

http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa261/NCM2007/Misc/ElaineDance.gif

Janice
06-28-2012, 04:06 PM
Exactly. Also, this takes away the meme about the court being right wing, unfair and so on. It would have been nice to just strike it down but I think Roberts, if he comments, would say congress has a right to tax but not a right to use the commerce law the way this law would have done. Force you to buy something because you do nothing? noway

Unfortunately Roberts with his pals on the left have just legitimized that govt can now regulate any activity it desires via taxation. What you eat, what you drive, where you live, how you live and every other human activity you can imagine. If this isnt tyranny of the governed, what is?

So the transition is complete. The "fundamental transition" is here. We are no longer citizens. We are now subjects.

No wonder the left is so beside themselves. But we may have a little, tiny surprise for them come november.

Elspeth
06-28-2012, 04:09 PM
So the transition is complete. The "fundamental transition" is here. We are no longer citizens. We are now subjects.


Exactly.

(What a day to be sick. :( )

Gina
06-28-2012, 04:15 PM
But these things you say we can be subjects of would have to be in a bill brought to congress, etc.. just like this bill came about. The key is to have reps that listen to the people and don't vote yes on stupid intrusive bills.

I know this sucks but I still say if it had to pass the SCOTUS, it's better this way than through commerce.

Gina
06-28-2012, 04:27 PM
Krauthammer says it better than I:

Why Roberts Did It (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-why-roberts-did-it/2012/06/28/gJQA4X0g9V_story.html)

It’s the judiciary’s Nixon-to-China: Chief Justice John Roberts joins the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and upholds the constitutionality of Obamacare. How? By pulling off one of the great constitutional finesses of all time. He managed to uphold the central conservative argument against Obamacare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.

Why did he do it? Because he carries two identities. Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative. Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court’s legitimacy, reputation and stature.

As a conservative, he is as appalled as his conservative colleagues by the administration’s central argument that Obamacare’s individual mandate is a proper exercise of its authority to regulate commerce.

That makes congressional power effectively unlimited. Mr. Jones is not a purchaser of health insurance. Mr. Jones has therefore manifestly not entered into any commerce. Yet Congress tells him he must buy health insurance — on the grounds that it is regulating commerce. If government can do that under the commerce clause, what can it not do?

“The Framers . . . gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it,” writes Roberts. Otherwise you “undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers.”

That’s Roberts, philosophical conservative. But he lives in uneasy coexistence with Roberts, custodian of the court, acutely aware that the judiciary’s arrogation of power has eroded the esteem in which it was once held. Most of this arrogation occurred under the liberal Warren and Burger courts, most egregiously with Roe v. Wade, which willfully struck down the duly passed abortion laws of 46 states. The result has been four decades of popular protest and resistance to an act of judicial arrogance that, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said, “deferred stable settlement of the issue” by the normal electoral/legislative process.

More recently, however, few decisions have occasioned more bitterness and rancor than Bush v. Gore, a 5 to 4 decision split along ideological lines. It was seen by many (principally, of course, on the left) as a political act disguised as jurisprudence and designed to alter the course of the single most consequential political act of a democracy — the election of a president.

Whatever one thinks of the substance of Bush v. Gore, it did affect the reputation of the court. Roberts seems determined that there be no recurrence with Obamacare. Hence his straining in his Obamacare ruling to avoid a similar result — a 5 to 4 decision split along ideological lines that might be perceived as partisan and political.

National health care has been a liberal dream for a hundred years. It is clearly the most significant piece of social legislation in decades. Roberts’s concern was that the court do everything it could to avoid being seen, rightly or wrongly, as high-handedly overturning sweeping legislation passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president.

How to reconcile the two imperatives — one philosophical and the other institutional? Assign yourself the task of writing the majority opinion. Find the ultimate finesse that manages to uphold the law, but only on the most narrow of grounds — interpreting the individual mandate as merely a tax, something generally within the power of Congress.

Result? The law stands, thus obviating any charge that a partisan court overturned duly passed legislation. And yet at the same time the commerce clause is reined in. By denying that it could justify the imposition of an individual mandate, Roberts draws the line against the inexorable decades-old expansion of congressional power under the commerce clause fig leaf.

Law upheld, Supreme Court’s reputation for neutrality maintained. Commerce clause contained, constitutional principle of enumerated powers reaffirmed.

That’s not how I would have ruled. I think the “mandate is merely a tax” argument is a dodge, and a flimsy one at that. (The “tax” is obviously punitive, regulatory and intended to compel.) Perhaps that’s not how Roberts would have ruled had he been just an associate justice and not the chief. But that’s how he did rule.

Obamacare is now essentially upheld. There’s only one way it can be overturned. The same way it was passed — elect a new president and a new Congress. That’s undoubtedly what Roberts is saying: Your job, not mine. I won’t make it easy for you.

Teetop
06-28-2012, 04:41 PM
The tax (fine, whatever ...) on those who don't purchase insurance isn't the only tax in the law.

True, which is why the Senate bill that was passed, not the House bill. The ACA was from the Senate bill, therefore not legal to tax anything. The House holds the purse strings to taxation, not the Senate.

It will be re-visited by the SCOTUS next year and overturned. Or, the new Congress will do it.

ThinkingBig
06-28-2012, 04:51 PM
Krauthammer says it better than I:



That clown is such and idiot.

He looks like a poor man's gay vampire.

ThinkingBig
06-28-2012, 04:53 PM
Hmm... I suppose that if 0dummy can ignore federal law , so can the states ...

Great 1960s all over again.

Let's federalize the state militias early this time and not pussy-foot around.

Hell, send some drones in.

ThinkingBig
06-28-2012, 05:03 PM
Go ahead and cheer, Spicoli. We'll save the graphic for November.


Face it, we now get to watch the long slow death of Mitt Romney's political career.

The bump Obama will get off this will last until Dec. All the independents that felt let down because the case got to SCOTUS in the first place, are now feeling that maybe Barack Obama is all that we hoped as the hammer falls on the far-right Obama haters. This isn't about 'socialism' or 'taxes', you've all been duped. It's all about Power. The ACA is based in conservative principles of personal responsibility and Christian values. In an alternate universe somewhere a Republican president is taking credit for the exact same bill and their Sean Hannity has an erection for the Christian Conservative notion of taxing fat free-loaders before they show up at the emergency room with type II diabetes.

Oh, sure, we get to watch the Teatard congress scream and bitch repeal all summer. A waste of tax payer money because the repeal will go no where. That's right, the GOPs in congress get to use your tax dollars to put on political theater. Will you complain? And all Obama and Dems have to do is sit back and let the cameras roll as the Teaboys get that diarrhea of the mouth they've become famous for.

We're not stupid. We know when the Teabrain far-rights are lying. And every time they do, they crap all over the GOP brand. Moderates and independents will not hold their noses because we no longer have to.

The express train to the Land of Obscurity now boarding on track 5 -- all Tea Party congressmen please have your tickets ready.

Rockntractor
06-28-2012, 05:04 PM
That clown is such and idiot.

He looks like a poor man's gay vampire.

He is a quadriplegic you piece of garbage, do you always mock the handicapped?

m00
06-28-2012, 05:05 PM
And all Obama and Dems have to do is sit back and let the cameras roll as the Teaboys get that diarrhea of the mouth they've become famous for.


Are you for real?

Gina
06-28-2012, 05:07 PM
He is a quadriplegic you piece of garbage, do you always mock the handicapped?

TY. I was going to say something but I think in honor of Holder's contempt I'll hold TB in contempt and not speak to him anymore (if at all possible).

Gina
06-28-2012, 05:08 PM
Are you for real?

I think it's hilarious that TB accuses the GOP of lying, ignoring the Obama administration's lies about the ACA.

Rockntractor
06-28-2012, 05:16 PM
TY. I was going to say something but I think in honor of Holder's contempt I'll hold TB in contempt and not speak to him anymore (if at all possible).

This troll is an animal without a speck of decency, I'm about to remove him.

m00
06-28-2012, 05:17 PM
I think it's hilarious that TB accuses the GOP of lying, ignoring the Obama administration's lies about the ACA.

The GOP is a complete mess, I could do a whole thread on that.

He's right that Gingrich supported the same ideas at one point, and same with Romney obviously (at one point). The idea was that there's a lot of freeloaders on a system that everyone subsidizes, and an Obama-care like measure would be the solution. I wouldn't call this conservative, but I could call it the "Selectively Interpreting Ayn Rand Wing" of the Republican party.

Thing is, TB mixes a lot of wings of the Republican party. Teaparty was never for this. Neither was the Christian wing. Not the libertarians, obviously. It was very narrowly advocated within the Republican Party to the point of being fringe, but unfortunately Romney was one of the politicians that subscribed to this notion when he was Governor. Hopefully by now he's been convinced otherwise.

Gina
06-28-2012, 05:21 PM
This troll is an animal without a speck of decency, I'm about to remove him.

http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/GifGuide/clapping/audience.gif

ThinkingBig
06-28-2012, 05:32 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6DrH6P9OC0

Watch this video at your own peril.

Mitt Romney Op-Ed. (http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20090730/column30_st.art.htm)


Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn't have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn't cost the government a single dollar. Second, we helped pay for our new program by ending an old one — something government should do more often. The federal government sends an estimated $42 billion to hospitals that care for the poor: Use those funds instead to help the poor buy private insurance, as we did.


How the hell is Romney going to debate this. Obama will have this memorized word for word and read it out loud at each debate. "Thanks Mitt, I took your advice on the mandate."

Rockntractor
06-28-2012, 05:35 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6DrH6P9OC0

Watch this video at your own peril.

Mitt Romney Op-Ed. (http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20090730/column30_st.art.htm)




How the hell is Romney going to debate this. Obama will have this memorized word for word and read it out loud at each debate. "Thanks Mitt, I took your advice on the mandate."

Answer my post above, now!

Molon Labe
06-28-2012, 05:38 PM
I am sick today and just got out of bed here in California. This news just makes the vomiting worse.

WHAT THE FUCK WAS THE SUPREME COURT THINKING?

(I'm too sick to work up proper outrage, but just feel like I lost all hope.)

http://freedomslighthouse.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/obamacare.jpg

They don't think Elspeth. They are doing exactly what they were put there to do. To keep feeding the beast. They are just a symptom of overgrown government establishment class. Today's decision simply confirms for me what I think. That no POTUS will actually nominate a justice who would reverse 50 years of excessive Federalism and the social welfare state. Today is a very bad day.

Janice
06-28-2012, 06:08 PM
http://i.imgur.com/AaHa0.jpg

This no doubt a precedent for unlimited taxation. Even if this is repealed as a result of the election in november the precedent has still been set. There are no limits on what can be taxed, because this essentially is the federal government being granted the permission to tax behavior and to tax choices that you make, if you don't make the right one. So essentially your choice now costs you. In the case of health care, you must buy it now. So they can make you buy anything now and call it a tax.

0bamacare is the largest tax increase in the history of the world.

The next election is not going to be a good time to be a democrat. As november 2012 stands to be an even bigger repeat than what november 2010, the midterm elections were. Watch for the Rats jumping ship instead of attending the next democrat convention. Or being "seen" with 0bama.

Zathras
06-28-2012, 06:31 PM
Something else that was voted, 5-4, on and declared unconstitutional was the Stolen Valor act. So now it's legal to lie about serving in the military and all the awards you didn't earn.

As for the human skid mark ThinkingBig, I hope it's a permenant ban and not a time out.

Rockntractor
06-28-2012, 06:41 PM
As for the human skid mark ThinkingBig, I hope it's a permenant ban and not a time out.

He has a week, we are trying to re-enter him into the human race, he was raised by racoons in a culvert outside of Chicago.

ABC in Georgia
06-28-2012, 06:56 PM
He has a week, we are trying to re-enter him into the human race, he was raised by racoons in a culvert outside of Chicago.

Oh my!

"You are a better man than I, Gunga Din" ... or whatever the exact quotation was.

That being the case, Rock, from now on am going to vet each and every new comer in the "Welcome Wagon" section. I don't trust this low down troll not to come back!

Nor, do I trust DU, not to send some of THEIR low-lifes over here to gloat!

I want picture ID, Birth Certificate ... and Voter Registration!!! ... :evil-grin:

~ ABC

Zathras
06-28-2012, 07:05 PM
He has a week, we are trying to re-enter him into the human race, he was raised by racoons in a culvert outside of Chicago.

You and I both know that he will not learn from this....once a waste of skin, always a waste of skin.

Elspeth
06-28-2012, 07:06 PM
They don't think Elspeth. They are doing exactly what they were put there to do. To keep feeding the beast. They are just a symptom of overgrown government establishment class. Today's decision simply confirms for me what I think. That no POTUS will actually nominate a justice who would reverse 50 years of excessive Federalism and the social welfare state. Today is a very bad day.

I am actually starting to believe this. I held out a shred of hope that these guys actually had a duty to the Constitution. The fact that this abomination of a law was upheld on the grounds that it was a tax is just---God, there are no words for it.

For everyone arguing Mitty vbs. Oblahblah, forget it. The time to get someone who would stand up against this nonsense was the primaries. I do not see Romney or Congress overturning this. Maybe I'm just seeing everything through my illness today, but I just don't hold out hope for a purely political solution.

Rockntractor
06-28-2012, 07:09 PM
I am actually starting to believe this. I held out a shred of hope that these guys actually had a duty to the Constitution. The fact that this abomination of a law was upheld on the grounds that it was a tax is just---God, there are no words for it.

For everyone arguing Mitty vbs. Oblahblah, forget it. The time to get someone who would stand up against this nonsense was the primaries. I do not see Romney or Congress overturning this. Maybe I'm just seeing everything through my illness today, but I just don't hold out hope for a purely political solution.

Roberts wants to be a rock star, we had an attention whore nominated.

Cicero
06-28-2012, 07:28 PM
Something else that was voted, 5-4, on and declared unconstitutional was the Stolen Valor act. So now it's legal to lie about serving in the military and all the awards you didn't earn.

As for the human skid mark ThinkingBig, I hope it's a permenant ban and not a time out.

I actually agree with that ruling. As repugnant as lying about serving is I think you always have to come down on the side of freedom of speech. We don't need more limits on our freedom. Besides if we outlawed lying Washington DC would be a ghost town.


As for the other ruling today, we all took a beating. No doubt about it. The movement has a black eye and bloody nose. We think our great experiment might be over. We don't like our candidate because someone wrote that he is too moderate or because our guy didn't win in the primaries. We suspect all is lost and the welfare state will absorb us.

So what do we do? Do we pack it in and accept whatever crumbs the enemies of our republic offer? Do we sit on the sidelines and complain on internet message boards? Maybe. Some of us will do that. Not all of us.

Some of us will stand up, dust ourselves off, and get back in the damn fight. We will donate, attend rallies, make calls for candidates, donate our hard earned money. We will work to bring disaffected members back and heal the wounds of what was a bruising primary. We will proudly defend our principles and carry the fight all the way through November and beyond.

We will sometimes take our lumps like we did today. Things will seem dark and hopeless at times, but it is always the darkest before dawn and the dark is when it is most important to remember that we are still the "shining city on the hill" and best hope for preserving our republic.

Apache
06-28-2012, 07:56 PM
There is one hope that I take away today. The hope that the people will now, finally wake up in november and elect more than lip-service. Roberts has bitten us twice in one week. Dubya's centerist policies are continuing to bite us...


There are no pastels, only bright and glaring colors. Why do we keep letting the Left muddy this distinction?

Hawkgirl
06-28-2012, 08:39 PM
Americans have officially been screwed by all three branches of government. Government over-reaching at it's finest has been demonstrated these last few years by the Executive community organizer, the Pelosi lawmakers and now the SCOTUS.

It's time for us ordinary citizens to rise up and be heard. I hope the Tea Party organizes better in the next few months before the election. I hope private parties get Ads out to the public. This government is corrupt. They now have control over our HEALTH.

If this isn't cause for a revolution, I don't know what is. It's control through Taxation. The founding fathers are rolling over in their graves. It's a sad day for America.

JB
06-28-2012, 08:56 PM
It's time for us ordinary citizens to rise up and be heard.I guarantee you that if you (not you per se but everyone on this board and all their friends/famiy, etc) walked into your local Republican headquarters offering to help, they will not say no.

If 10,000 people came into the local Repub office that I work out of, I would find something for every one of them to do.

You want Obama out? It's going to take street people. Banging on doors, distributing literature, working at the polls, whatever.

There's no doubt Barry's street team will be organized. We just need to do more.

m00
06-28-2012, 09:10 PM
It's time for us ordinary citizens to rise up and be heard. I hope the Tea Party organizes better in the next few months before the election.

Have you been following the establishment RNC shenanigans during this primary?

Elspeth
06-28-2012, 09:21 PM
Have you been following the establishment RNC shenanigans during this primary?

Mitty boy was forced on us. I hold no hope for the electoral process.

Janice
06-29-2012, 12:06 AM
Mitty boy was forced on us. I hold no hope for the electoral process.

Yes, the Mittwitt was forced on us. But he has said he WILL repeal this crap sandwich should he win the WH. We just need to fill the House and the Senate with enough CONSERVATIVES to make him a man of his word in spite of his dem lite tendencies.

Elspeth
06-29-2012, 12:56 AM
The best thing I've seen today:

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee18/BrenKathryn/555082_353161171419035_1615996865_n.jpg

txradioguy
06-29-2012, 01:31 AM
That clown is such and idiot.

He looks like a poor man's gay vampire.

http://img862.imageshack.us/img862/2967/icrya.jpg

txradioguy
06-29-2012, 01:34 AM
He is a quadriplegic you piece of garbage, do you always mock the handicapped?

C'mon now Rock...you've been around long enough to know that to window lickers like wee/Big if you're Conservative you're fair game no matter what.

txradioguy
06-29-2012, 01:45 AM
I actually agree with that ruling. As repugnant as lying about serving is I think you always have to come down on the side of freedom of speech. We don't need more limits on our freedom. Besides if we outlawed lying Washington DC would be a ghost town.



Never served in the military have you? I'm guessing not.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/s480x480/206158_466463740047848_2011710641_n.jpg

So does that now mean I can exercise my freedom of speech rights and kick this guys ass?

Molon Labe
06-29-2012, 09:09 AM
I should point out that the Supreme Court came to the exact conclusion that I knew they would. I called this exact ruling on this forum over 2 years ago. Everyone here huffed and puffed and called me stupid but I was right, as usual.

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/archive/index.php/t-27093.html

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/archive/index.php/t-26691.html

Told you so.

Well now the Republican-designed, Heritage Foundation supported, corporatist bill has been upheld, you should all be happy. The wealthy and powerful will be even more wealthy and powerful. The Republican dream.


I'm wondering if a self proclaimed "socialist" is For or Against this decision. Because if you're for it and still an avowed socialist, I call Bull.

From the Socialists own mouths this:


The decision maintains the pro-corporate provisions of the bill, including the “individual mandate” to purchase insurance from private insurers. At the same time, the court undermined the key constitutional arguments used to support corporate regulations.

wsws.org
US Supreme Court upholds Obama’s health care law
By Kate Randall


If you think this does you any good, unless their are other nefarious things to come, I would say you miscalculated.

m00
06-29-2012, 09:35 AM
Yes, the Mittwitt was forced on us. But he has said he WILL repeal this crap sandwich should he win the WH. We just need to fill the House and the Senate with enough CONSERVATIVES to make him a man of his word in spite of his dem lite tendencies.

Have you read about the loyalty oaths to Mitt Romney that the RNC is making people sign? Not joking.

Arroyo_Doble
06-29-2012, 09:40 AM
I'm wondering if a self proclaimed "socialist" is For or Against this decision. Because if you're for it and still an avowed socialist, I call Bull.

From the Socialists own mouths this:



If you think this does you any good, unless their are other nefarious things to come, I would say you miscalculated.


That is what is so good about the ruling; Roberts has made a huge stride in removing the partisan taint off of the Supreme Court while simultaneously placing a clear line in the sand with not only the Commerce Clause but also in how the Federal Government relates to the Several States with regards to funding of government (7-2!).

Hell, if this court had been around during the Reagan administration, 18 year olds could buy a beer!

SarasotaRepub
06-29-2012, 10:07 AM
Well...bottom line is people love "Free" stuff. I hope everyone enjoys their free health care. :rolleyes:

Odysseus
06-29-2012, 10:09 AM
I should point out that the Supreme Court came to the exact conclusion that I knew they would. I called this exact ruling on this forum over 2 years ago. Everyone here huffed and puffed and called me stupid but I was right, as usual.

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/archive/index.php/t-27093.html

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/archive/index.php/t-26691.html

Told you so.

Well now the Republican-designed, Heritage Foundation supported, corporatist bill has been upheld, you should all be happy. The wealthy and powerful will be even more wealthy and powerful. The Republican dream.

No, you are still stupid, especially if you keep claiming that this was a Republican plan.


The tax (fine, whatever ...) on those who don't purchase insurance isn't the only tax in the law.

Ah, but this is a very critical point. A tax bill cannot be filibustered. It's an up or down, simple majority vote. If this is a tax, then it can be repealed much more easily than if it is an authorization. Imagine the scrutiny that those Democrats who supported this atrocity, took some of the bribes and are running for reelection in the Senate will be under come November. The court just handed the Republican Senate Campaign Committee their issue for 2012.

Gina
06-29-2012, 10:12 AM
No, you are still stupid, especially if you keep claiming that this was a Republican plan.



Ah, but this is a very critical point. A tax bill cannot be filibustered. It's an up or down, simple majority vote. If this is a tax, then it can be repealed much more easily than if it is an authorization. Imagine the scrutiny that those Democrats who supported this atrocity, took some of the bribes and are running for reelection in the Senate will be under come November. The court just handed the Republican Senate Campaign Committee their issue for 2012.

Exactly. Other than OWS and hollyweird, people don't like taxes.

Oh, and DUmmies.

Arroyo_Doble
06-29-2012, 10:23 AM
Ah, but this is a very critical point. A tax bill cannot be filibustered. It's an up or down, simple majority vote.

I think it is a little more complicated than that but I won't argue the point.

But what do you do about the non-budget parts of the Affordable Care Act?


If this is a tax, then it can be repealed much more easily than if it is an authorization. Imagine the scrutiny that those Democrats who supported this atrocity, took some of the bribes and are running for reelection in the Senate will be under come November. The court just handed the Republican Senate Campaign Committee their issue for 2012.

I honestly do not understand this line of thinking. The law exists and has existed for some time now. Nothing has changed (other than the Medicaid provision but that is now a State issue). Those who were vociferously opposed to the law are still opposed now that the Court didn't express their political will. Maybe they are madder but pushing the button harder for Romney in the voting booth doesn't really help.

Gina
06-29-2012, 10:29 AM
I think it is a little more complicated than that but I won't argue the point.

But what do you do about the non-budget parts of the Affordable Care Act?



I honestly do not understand this line of thinking. The law exists and has existed for some time now. Nothing has changed (other than the Medicaid provision but that is now a State issue). Those who were vociferously opposed to the law are still opposed now that the Court didn't express their political will. Maybe they are madder but pushing the button harder for Romney in the voting booth doesn't really help.


http://youtu.be/KgpSoiiWNww

Arroyo_Doble
06-29-2012, 10:34 AM
http://youtu.be/KgpSoiiWNww

And the Republicans took the House and a big hunk out of the Senate in 2010.

What has changed?

Odysseus
06-29-2012, 10:48 AM
I think it is a little more complicated than that but I won't argue the point.

But what do you do about the non-budget parts of the Affordable Care Act?

Since the entire act was passed in the manner that it was, without reconciliation, the congress never added severability. Repeal of the act can be done en masse through the budget process.


I honestly do not understand this line of thinking. The law exists and has existed for some time now. Nothing has changed (other than the Medicaid provision but that is now a State issue). Those who were vociferously opposed to the law are still opposed now that the Court didn't express their political will. Maybe they are madder but pushing the button harder for Romney in the voting booth doesn't really help.

You are assuming that the numbers haven't changed. They have. First, the last two years of waivers, Medicaid cuts and price hikes that are directly attributable to Obamacare have increased the scope, not just the intensity of opposition. Second, the attempt to sell this as anything but a tax has created a new issue. Obama claimed, publicly and loudly, that this was not a tax. The Democratic leadership in both houses made this claim repeatedly. They are on video stating this. Now, it's a tax. They lied. This is a huge windfall for the Republicans in November, the equivalent of Bush 41's going back on his "Read my lips" pledge. This now becomes a trust issue as well as a fiscal issue. The Democrats have demonstrated that the lust for power overrides any other considerations, including integrity. If Romney runs with this, he wins.

Arroyo_Doble
06-29-2012, 10:57 AM
Since the entire act was passed in the manner that it was, without reconciliation, the congress never added severability. Repeal of the act can be done en masse through the budget process.


I don't believe you are on firm ground, here.


You are assuming that the numbers haven't changed. They have. First, the last two years of waivers, Medicaid cuts and price hikes that are directly attributable to Obamacare have increased the scope, not just the intensity of opposition. Second, the attempt to sell this as anything but a tax has created a new issue. Obama claimed, publicly and loudly, that this was not a tax. The Democratic leadership in both houses made this claim repeatedly. They are on video stating this. Now, it's a tax. They lied. This is a huge windfall for the Republicans in November, the equivalent of Bush 41's going back on his "Read my lips" pledge. This now becomes a trust issue as well as a fiscal issue. The Democrats have demonstrated that the lust for power overrides any other considerations, including integrity. If Romney runs with this, he wins.

I think this the lemonade gambit.

Obviously, we will see, but I am not convinced this changes things in the direction of Romney. Screaming "tax!" really only has resonance with those who already oppose the current Executive (never mind that Romney supported this kind of tax in the past).

Oh, and "read my lips" hurt the great president George H. W. Bush more with his own party than the center.

Molon Labe
06-29-2012, 11:37 AM
And the Republicans took the House and a big hunk out of the Senate in 2010.

What has changed?

Nothing.

my hope is that this lady and many like her have woken up and learned a valuable lesson about what a "Conservative" is and what a Republican is. I would like to see a more principled and hearty Teaparty resurgance that becomes as pure as it was in 07 before the establishment types took hold, but I won't hold my breath, because so many are so easily duped time and again.

I'm beginning to believe that most people like their socialism and free goodies more than they like their freedom.

Arroyo_Doble
06-29-2012, 11:40 AM
Nothing.

my hope is that this lady and many like her have woken up and learned a valuable lesson about what a "Conservative" is and what a Republican is. I would like to see a more principled and hearty Teaparty resurgance that becomes as pure as it was in 07 before the establishment types took hold, but I won't hold my breath, because so many are so easily duped time and again.

I'm beginning to believe that most people like their socialism and free goodies more than they like their freedom.

I think you are correct that people like their "goodies." The problem is, they think they should be free.

Take a look at the ACA debate. People like all the provisions except the one that funds it.

Tipsycatlover
06-29-2012, 11:42 AM
Even if obamacare is repealed through legislative action, the ruling will still stand. It will still be the law that the government can control anything it wants to by imposing a tax on it.

Look at it this way, the government decides to give a Chevy Volt to all poor people who can't afford a car. They impose a transportation tax. All forms of transportation will be taxed including walking, bicyle, bus and train. Now there is a precedent for the government to do just that.

Worse, suppose a muslim majority decides to impose the jizya on all non-muslims. That's now Constitutional. People can be taxed for not doing something.

noonwitch
06-29-2012, 11:49 AM
Have you read about the loyalty oaths to Mitt Romney that the RNC is making people sign? Not joking.


That's pretty weird, but if enough prominent conservative republicans refuse to do so on principle, the RNC will likely back down.

Seriously, I don't think Newt Gingrich would sign such a thing. I think such a document would piss him off.

Molon Labe
06-29-2012, 11:53 AM
Listen to about 1:40 on

What do you all think Mitt means by "repeal and REPLACE" Obamacare?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58vTWxhEhYw

m00
06-29-2012, 11:57 AM
That's pretty weird, but if enough prominent conservative republicans refuse to do so on principle, the RNC will likely back down.

Seriously, I don't think Newt Gingrich would sign such a thing. I think such a document would piss him off.

It's the price of admission to the convention in Tampa.

Rebel Yell
06-29-2012, 12:19 PM
I think you are correct that people like their "goodies." The problem is, they think they should be free.

Take a look at the ACA debate. People like all the provisions except the one that funds it.

Well, duh!!!!!!

I looked at a new Porshe, I liked everything about it, except the price tag.

Rebel Yell
06-29-2012, 12:21 PM
Even if obamacare is repealed through legislative action, the ruling will still stand. It will still be the law that the government can control anything it wants to by imposing a tax on it.

Look at it this way, the government decides to give a Chevy Volt to all poor people who can't afford a car. They impose a transportation tax. All forms of transportation will be taxed including walking, bicyle, bus and train. Now there is a precedent for the government to do just that.

Like this?????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0ahJPxfGp4

Janice
06-29-2012, 12:29 PM
Listen to about 1:40 on

What do you all think Mitt means by "repeal and REPLACE" Obamacare?



Since he hasnt offered to replace 0'care with private sector solutions like allowing insurance co's to compete across state lines and private health accts Im of the impression he will try to do a Romneycare brand/ version.

He is after all a RINO. Maybe not much diff than Justice Roberts. And his inner circle and advisors are all dem lites too. Hopefully though we can force his hand if we fill the House and Senate with enough conservatives.

A lot of work ahead.

Rockntractor
06-29-2012, 12:30 PM
Even if obamacare is repealed through legislative action, the ruling will still stand. It will still be the law that the government can control anything it wants to by imposing a tax on it.

Look at it this way, the government decides to give a Chevy Volt to all poor people who can't afford a car. They impose a transportation tax. All forms of transportation will be taxed including walking, bicyle, bus and train. Now there is a precedent for the government to do just that.



You are correct, this freak Roberts has done no less than rape our country and its constitution, the precedent he has set here will be a thorn in our side.
Talk about stealing defeat from the jaws of victory!

Janice
06-29-2012, 12:38 PM
People can be taxed for not doing something.

Yes. Its like walking into a store and asking how much a large soda from the fountain is. Then deciding you dont want it. Then the cashier saying "that will $1.20 tax then ..." And you'll have to pay it!

John Roberts wanted a name for himself. He wanted to be liked by the DC crowd and the press. He will be "remembered" now to be sure... but for what an idiot he was, to do what he did.

Molon Labe
06-29-2012, 12:45 PM
Since he hasnt offered to replace 0'care with private sector solutions like allowing insurance co's to compete across state lines and private health accts Im of the impression he will try to do a Romneycare brand/ version.

He is after all a RINO. Maybe not much diff than Justice Roberts. And his inner circle and advisors are all dem lites too. Hopefully though we can force his hand if we fill the House and Senate with enough conservatives.

A lot of work ahead.

Personally I'm for removing insurance companies from the equation altogether, since along with tort laws, and red tape regulations, I believe they actually help drive up costs.

If people didn't have to meet the 8% medical costs on their taxes each year and could claim all medical costs, you would get a win win.

Once this happened Congress would beg to see medical reform and see costs lowered when they had to pay out those really big checks

noonwitch
06-29-2012, 12:52 PM
It's the price of admission to the convention in Tampa.


That is so wrong on so many levels.

They must be afraid of the whole "brokered convention" idea I've read about here and elsewhere. The way they are handling it is not going to get the results they want. I can see this leading to a massive Tea Party rally somewhere else in Tampa during the convention, which would take a lot of press coverage from the actual convention. In addition to being a bad political strategy, it's just wrong to expect the members of an American political party to sign a loyalty oath in order to participate in their convention.

Odysseus
06-29-2012, 12:53 PM
That is what is so good about the ruling; Roberts has made a huge stride in removing the partisan taint off of the Supreme Court while simultaneously placing a clear line in the sand with not only the Commerce Clause but also in how the Federal Government relates to the Several States with regards to funding of government (7-2!).

Hell, if this court had been around during the Reagan administration, 18 year olds could buy a beer!

Since when is the Constitution partisan?


I don't believe you are on firm ground, here.
Then explain why I am not.


I think this the lemonade gambit.

Obviously, we will see, but I am not convinced this changes things in the direction of Romney. Screaming "tax!" really only has resonance with those who already oppose the current Executive (never mind that Romney supported this kind of tax in the past).

Oh, and "read my lips" hurt the great president George H. W. Bush more with his own party than the center.

It hurt him with both. This was why Perot ran.


I think you are correct that people like their "goodies." The problem is, they think they should be free.

Take a look at the ACA debate. People like all the provisions except the one that funds it.

I don't know that people like any part of this act. They hate the idea that the government will impose cost controls, ration care and dictate approved treatments.


Ultimately, what it this decision comes down to is this: Is this a tax, or isn't it? If so, then it should not have been addressed at all, as the first day's arguments discussed. If not, then it is unconstitutional under the commerce clause. Either way, it should not have been upheld, but now that it has, we have an opportunity to remind people why every Democratic administration of the last forty years was followed by a Republican one, namely that people vote for Democrats because they forget what they are, and people vote for Republicans when they remember.

m00
06-29-2012, 12:55 PM
That is so wrong on so many levels.

They must be afraid of the whole "brokered convention" idea I've read about here and elsewhere. The way they are handling it is not going to get the results they want. I can see this leading to a massive Tea Party rally somewhere else in Tampa during the convention, which would take a lot of press coverage from the actual convention. In addition to being a bad political strategy, it's just wrong to expect the members of an American political party to sign a loyalty oath in order to participate in their convention.


watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzyGtc61Ph8

Rockntractor
06-29-2012, 12:56 PM
Personally I'm for removing insurance companies from the equation altogether, since along with tort laws, and red tape regulations, I believe they actually help drive up costs.

If people didn't have to meet the 8% medical costs on their taxes each year and could claim all medical costs, you would get a win win.

Once this happened Congress would beg to see medical reform and see costs lowered when they had to pay out those really big checks

Agreed, I'm not sure of the constitutionality of not allowing a private business such as an insurance company to operate but in theory I agree with you.

Rockntractor
06-29-2012, 12:58 PM
watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzyGtc61Ph8

Okay we got it, now I suppose we all need to jump behind some third party candidate and rally him to a win and then they will make a movie about it.

Janice
06-29-2012, 01:01 PM
... people vote for Democrats because they forget what they are, and people vote for Republicans when they remember.

Yes. They are Statists. Should be called the Statist Party not the Democrat Party. No wonder they have the full support (http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/08/04/communist-party-endorses-obama-2012) of the Communist Party USA.

m00
06-29-2012, 01:05 PM
Okay we got it, now I suppose we all need to jump behind some third party candidate and rally him to a win and then they will make a movie about it.

How did you get from "stripping elected delegates of their credentials to pack the convention with RNC insiders" to "vote 3rd party." That's quite a leap.

You guys all talk about holding Romney's feet to the fire, party platform, etc... where do you think that's going to happen? At the convention. Well, not if the RNC changes the rules to remove all the people that would do that (and were legally elected by the established process), in order to pack the convention with insiders and people blindly loyal to Romney.

It's especially short sighted that to do so, the party is disenfranchising young Republicans, Republicans that are minorities, women, etc. Because if their party is going to screw them, they're going to go somewhere else.

Molon Labe
06-29-2012, 01:08 PM
Okay we got it, now I suppose we all need to jump behind some third party candidate and rally him to a win and then they will make a movie about it.


I think that report just highlights the division in the GOP everyone is ignoring at their own peril.
The GOP estab "chose" OBomney for a reason. The GOP estab is not following their own rules because they are getting their ass handed to them by their own rules. And there is great division in the GOP and with conservives.

Voters who understand this and who Mitt is, are not going to just line up and vote for the guy who implemented Obama care as a Governor.

m00
06-29-2012, 01:12 PM
I think that report just highlights the division in the GOP everyone is ignoring at their own peril.
The GOP estab "chose" OBomney for a reason. The GOP estab is not following their own rules because they are getting their ass handed to them by their own rules. And there is great division in the GOP and with conservives.

Voters who understand this and who Mitt is, are not going to just line up and vote for the guy who implemented Obama care as a Governor.

"You must vote for whom we tell you, or you aren't allowed to vote" is perfectly fine, if it means we get to BEAT OBAMA.

Rockntractor
06-29-2012, 01:12 PM
How did you get from "stripping elected delegates of their credentials to pack the convention with RNC insiders" to "vote 3rd party." That's quite a leap.

You guys all talk about holding Romney's feet to the fire, party platform, etc... where do you think that's going to happen? At the convention. Well, not if the RNC changes the rules to remove all the people that would do that (and were legally elected by the established process), in order to pack the convention with insiders and people blindly loyal to Romney.

It's especially short sighted that to do so, the party is disenfranchising young Republicans, Republicans that are minorities, women, etc. Because if their party is going to screw them, they're going to go somewhere else.

Oh heck let's just skip all of it and just make the movie.

m00
06-29-2012, 01:13 PM
Oh heck let's just skip all of it and just make the movie.

Do you even read?

Rockntractor
06-29-2012, 01:14 PM
"You must vote for whom we tell you, or you aren't allowed to vote" is perfectly fine, if it means we get to BEAT OBAMA.

Yes beat Obama or I guess we could all just move to Canada with you.

Rockntractor
06-29-2012, 01:17 PM
Do you even read?

It's bullshit, you third party take my dolly and go home people are a broken fucking record moo128. We need to back Romney even more so now, not tear down Romney and the republicans, you like socialism stay in fucking Canada and live there.

m00
06-29-2012, 01:19 PM
Yes beat Obama or I guess we could all just move to Canada with you.

I move where the work is. I was smart enough not to get a house during the housing bubble. It's not my fault Washington DC has crippled the US economy... to the point where the actual socialist countries are doing far better.

We all want to beat Obama. Okay. The RNC has shoved Romney down everyone's throats, because "he's the only one that can beat Obama." Then all you guys say "oh but we'll hold his feet to the fire to make sure he actually governs as a conservative"

So doesn't it concern you that the RNC is removing the lawfully elected representatives who were planning to go to Tampa to do just that to replace them with unelected party insiders?

m00
06-29-2012, 01:22 PM
It's bullshit, you third party take my dolly and go home people are a broken fucking record moo128. We need to back Romney even more so now, not tear down Romney and the republicans, you like socialism stay in fucking Canada and live there.

It's not enough that you simply hold the opinion that the big (and mostly liberal) media tells you to hold. No, you have to go and be militant about it. Enjoy pledging allegiance to Mitt Romney.

Janice
06-29-2012, 01:23 PM
It's bullshit, you third party take my dolly and go home people are a broken fucking record moo128. We need to back Romney even more so now, not tear down Romney and the republicans, you like socialism stay in fucking Canada and live there.

Yup. 0bama is soooooooooo bad, even a GOP anointed linguini spine dem light Mittwitt will have to do.

We dont have to like him. ABA (anybody but 0bama) is as true now as it ever was.

Rockntractor
06-29-2012, 01:27 PM
I move where the work is. I was smart enough not to get a house during the housing bubble. It's not my fault Washington DC has crippled the US economy... to the point where the actual socialist countries are doing far better.

We all want to beat Obama. Okay. The RNC has shoved Romney down everyone's throats, because "he's the only one that can beat Obama." Then all you guys say "oh but we'll hold his feet to the fire to make sure he actually governs as a conservative"

So doesn't it concern you that the RNC is removing the lawfully elected representatives who were planning to go to Tampa to do just that to replace them with unelected party insiders?

I will worry about party fixing after this election, Romney is the candidate, get the fuck over it, either vote for him or shut the fuck up and write in kermit the frog for all I care.
You are no different then the other 128's on this forum that do nothing but try to tear the party and it's candidate down. If you like Obama support his sorry ass and quit this bullshit!

Molon Labe
06-29-2012, 01:27 PM
It's bullshit, you third party take my dolly and go home people are a broken fucking record moo128. We need to back Romney even more so now, not tear down Romney and the republicans, you like socialism stay in fucking Canada and live there.

Rock.. You are saying support the guy who implemented socialism in Massachusetts.
How is this conservative?

This is akin to saying I want to support the guy who will rape me less hard.

The GOP is not conservatism

m00
06-29-2012, 01:32 PM
I will worry about party fixing after this election,

lol, good luck with that. As I said in an early post, if the RNC puts up Hillary Clinton with an R after her name, you'd vote for her to keep out Pelosi... and verbally abuse anyone who thinks that might not be such a good idea.


Romney is the candidate, get the fuck over it

It would be a bit more fun if you understood how the Republican nomination process actually works. Technically he's not a candidate until the delegates vote in Tampa. Which is why the RNC is removing lawfully elected delegates from the states and replacing them with party insiders. This primary has seen massive disenfranchisement of Republicans and by Republicans to make sure Mitt gets elected. But hey, you get your conservative hero Mitt Romney, so what does it matter right?


either vote for him or shut the fuck up and write in kermit the frog for all I care.

Well clearly you do care. You can't stand it when people hold a different opinion than you.


You are no different then the other 128's on this forum that do nothing but try to tear the party and it's candidate down. If you like Obama support his sorry ass and quit this bullshit!

Yep! Everyone who holds a differing opinion to you is exactly the same. You know what, I take it back... you are the perfect Republican voter in the eyes of the establishment.

JB
06-29-2012, 01:39 PM
The day that Ron Paul retires from politics can not get here soon enough.

Rockntractor
06-29-2012, 01:40 PM
Rock.. You are saying support the guy who implemented socialism in Massachusetts.
How is this conservative?

This is akin to saying I want to support the guy who will rape me less hard.

The GOP is not conservatism

Redundancy 128 redundancy 128 danger danger!!

Rockntractor
06-29-2012, 01:41 PM
The day that Ron Paul retires from politics can not get here soon enough.

Amen, I'm so tired of these paulbots I could vomit!

Molon Labe
06-29-2012, 02:00 PM
Redundancy 128 redundancy 128 danger danger!!

yep...lol...redundancy is voting for the same shit sandwhich the GOP serves you every 4 years and calling it "different",

Oh....and funny how the jap slappin' pissin' match between you and him is virtually the same. You call him a fake conservative for voting Jerry Brown and you line up behind the most liberal candidate the GOP ever nominated for POTUS and expect everyone else to get on board. *snicker*

txradioguy
06-29-2012, 02:02 PM
It's not enough that you simply hold the opinion that the big (and mostly liberal) media tells you to hold. No, you have to go and be militant about it. Enjoy pledging allegiance to Mitt Romney.


So now in m00 logic...disagree with me and you're a mindless Liberal.

:rolleyes:

txradioguy
06-29-2012, 02:03 PM
Redundancy 128 redundancy 128 danger danger!!


These 100%'ers are as much to blame for the mess this country is in as the Dems.

TVDOC
06-29-2012, 02:06 PM
I will worry about party fixing after this election, Romney is the candidate, get the fuck over it, either vote for him or shut the fuck up and write in kermit the frog for all I care.
You are no different then the other 128's on this forum that do nothing but try to tear the party and it's candidate down. If you like Obama support his sorry ass and quit this bullshit!

I agree Rock, but this is an ever-present problem on internet discussion forums, be they liberal or conservative. There are always a very small and insignificant group of "purists" (on our side I call them "100% ers) that will never be satisified with a candidate that is anything less than in total lockstep with their version of "conservatism"........it's an exercise in futility to argue with them, as they simply don't accept the realities of politics in the US today.

Hell, even Reagan passed laws that were not part of conservative mainstream thought (like amnesty)......

Reality check for the 100% bunch:

Never gonna happen......

WHY: The "purist" conservatives are far too small in numbers, just like the socialists on the left........the numbers aren't there, and will never be.......presidential elections are determined by the votes of the "independents"........those in the center that will swing either way depending on the election circumstances......most of the determining votes come from people that make their final decision on who they are going to vote for in the car on the way to the polls......they aren't involved in the day-to-day ebb and flow of politics, they have other priorities.

Regardless of how much we'd like it to be otherwise, those are the unfortunate facts.......and they are NOT going to change........

Politics is "the art of the possible", and what they want simply isn't "possible"......or even realistic.

doc

Rockntractor
06-29-2012, 02:06 PM
yep...lol...redundancy is voting for the same shit sandwhich the GOP serves you every 4 years and calling it "different",

Oh....and funny how the jap slappin' pissin' match between you and him is virtually the same. You call him a fake conservative for voting Jerry Brown and you line up behind the most liberal candidate the GOP ever nominated for POTUS and expect everyone else to get on board. *snicker*

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/danger-danger-mike-demotivational-p.jpg

m00
06-29-2012, 02:15 PM
I agree Rock, but this is an ever-present problem on internet discussion forums, be they liberal or conservative. There are always a very small and insignificant group of "purists" (on our side I call them "100% ers) that will never be satisified with a candidate that is anything less than in total lockstep with their version of "conservatism"........it's an exercise in futility to argue with them, as they simply don't accept the realities of politics in the US today.

Hell, even Reagan passed laws that were not part of conservative mainstream thought (like amnesty)......

I agree Reagan wasn't a perfect conservative. But resurrect him and I'll happily vote for him. I mean clearly... not all of my own beliefs align with the "mainstream" right. And this is pretty normal because we're all different individuals, with all different interpretations of the core principles. And different conclusions as to practical applications.

but...

That someone is highly skeptical of Romney doesn't make him or her a purist. It makes them a right-winger, and an educated voter.

That someone wants the RNC to follow its own election rules doesn't make them a 3rd party nut.

That someone thinks given the reality of a Romney nomination, we shouldn't blindly follow him but instead actually try to force Romney to follow a platform doesn't make that someone mike128

That someone is more concerned about the long term survival of the Republican party and the country, than a short term pyrrhic victory in a single election, doesn't make them an Obama-lover.

TVDOC
06-29-2012, 02:21 PM
I agree Reagan wasn't a perfect conservative. But resurrect him and I'll happily vote for him. I mean clearly... not all of my own beliefs align with the "mainstream" right. And this is pretty normal because we're all different individuals, with all different interpretations of the core principles. And different conclusions as to practical applications.

but...

That someone is highly skeptical of Romney doesn't make him or her a purist. It makes them a right-winger, and an educated voter.

That someone wants the RNC to follow its own election rules doesn't make them a 3rd party nut.

That someone thinks given the reality of a Romney nomination, we shouldn't blindly follow him but instead actually try to force Romney to follow a platform doesn't make that someone mike128

That someone is more concerned about the long term survival of the Republican party and the country, than a short term pyrrhic victory in a single election, doesn't make them an Obama-lover.

All of which I can't disagree with, however........our choices are:

Romney......or........Obama

There are NO OTHER CHOICES........endless debating of this fact is a waste of time.......

Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld made a memorable comment in a press conference that I think is appropriate to this situation........"you go to war with the army that you have, not the one that you wish you had....."

doc

SarasotaRepub
06-29-2012, 02:27 PM
I agree Rock, but this is an ever-present problem on internet discussion forums, be they liberal or conservative. There are always a very small and insignificant group of "purists" (on our side I call them "100% ers) that will never be satisified with a candidate that is anything less than in total lockstep with their version of "conservatism"........it's an exercise in futility to argue with them, as they simply don't accept the realities of politics in the US today.

Hell, even Reagan passed laws that were not part of conservative mainstream thought (like amnesty)......

Reality check for the 100% bunch:

Never gonna happen......

WHY: The "purist" conservatives are far too small in numbers, just like the socialists on the left........the numbers aren't there, and will never be.......presidential elections are determined by the votes of the "independents"........those in the center that will swing either way depending on the election circumstances......most of the determining votes come from people that make their final decision on who they are going to vote for in the car on the way to the polls......they aren't involved in the day-to-day ebb and flow of politics, they have other priorities.

Regardless of how much we'd like it to be otherwise, those are the unfortunate facts.......and they are NOT going to change........

Politics is "the art of the possible", and what they want simply isn't "possible"......or even realistic.

doc

Nicely said TVDOC.

The facts are we are stuck with Mitt and I will support him over Obama. I also believe Obama is going to kick Mitts ass in November but we'll have to wait and see. I'd love to be wrong on this but the closer we get to Election Day... :blue::friendly_wink::friendly_wink:

m00
06-29-2012, 02:30 PM
All of which I can't disagree with, however........our choices are:

Romney......or........Obama

There are NO OTHER CHOICES........endless debating of this fact is a waste of time.......

doc

I'm not debating it. But think about it. Everyone was "okay" with Romney because, I was told, that we'll keep a short leash on him, we'll hold his feet to the fire, etc. This means surrounding him with actual conservatives in Tampa when the platform is defined.

So what I am debating is the RNC throwing out the elected delegates and replacing them with party insiders, that have signed a loyalty oath to Mitt Romney, to go and write the platform. Why are people on this thread okay with that?

m00
06-29-2012, 02:32 PM
Nicely said TVDOC.

The facts are we are stuck with Mitt and I will support him over Obama. I also believe Obama is going to kick Mitts ass in November but we'll have to wait and see. I'd love to be wrong on this but the closer we get to Election Day... :blue::friendly_wink::friendly_wink:

I thought the only reason the RNC shoved him down our throats and committed gross election fraud in the primaries was because he "was the only one that could beat Obama."

Does this mean no one can beat Obama?

TVDOC
06-29-2012, 02:36 PM
Nicely said TVDOC.

The facts are we are stuck with Mitt and I will support him over Obama. I also believe Obama is going to kick Mitts ass in November but we'll have to wait and see. I'd love to be wrong on this but the closer we get to Election Day... :blue::friendly_wink::friendly_wink:

Based on what I hear (from admitted DC insiders)........it isn't even going to be close........Obama is facing his "Jimmy Carter" moment......a tsunami that will make 2010 look tame.....

doc

TVDOC
06-29-2012, 02:44 PM
I'm not debating it. But think about it. Everyone was "okay" with Romney because, I was told, that we'll keep a short leash on him, we'll hold his feet to the fire, etc. This means surrounding him with actual conservatives in Tampa when the platform is defined.

So what I am debating is the RNC throwing out the elected delegates and replacing them with party insiders, that have signed a loyalty oath to Mitt Romney, to go and write the platform. Why are people on this thread okay with that?

I'd respond that the party "platform" is meaningless (as is the convention).......and has been since the candidate of either party was selected at the convention itself, and all conventions were "brokered". It's political kubuki.......just for show.

The primary focus is winning the election......

Every issue will come down to individual votes on bills in congress, and whether or not the president signs them........the bottom line.....

doc

m00
06-29-2012, 02:51 PM
I'd respond that the party "platform" is meaningless (as is the convention).......and has been since the candidate of either party was selected at the convention itself, and all conventions were "brokered". It's political kubuki.......just for show.

I think it's meaningless precisely because we (collectively) don't hold politicians to any sort of standard, or ideology, or to keeping the promises they made. And that's what people were starting to do at the grassroots level.

The fact that the RNC is going to such great lengths to disenfranchise elected delegates who are loyal to the party or to conservatism over Mitt Romney indicates to me that it could matter. If we wanted it to. Obviously the RNC/establishment doesn't. They would much prefer to have a Mitt Romney that is free to play out Obama's second term.

Rockntractor
06-29-2012, 03:03 PM
I think it's meaningless precisely because we (collectively) don't hold politicians to any sort of standard, or ideology, or to keeping the promises they made. And that's what people were starting to do at the grassroots level.

The fact that the RNC is going to such great lengths to disenfranchise elected delegates who are loyal to the party or to conservatism over Mitt Romney indicates to me that it could matter. If we wanted it to. Obviously the RNC/establishment doesn't. They would much prefer to have a Mitt Romney that is free to play out Obama's second term.

I just finished discussing this with a box of Velveeta cheese, it agrees with you.

Sent from my Dell Streak 7 using Tapatalk 2

Rebel Yell
06-29-2012, 03:54 PM
Rock.. You are saying support the guy who implemented socialism in Massachusetts.
How is this conservative?

This is akin to saying I want to support the guy who will rape me less hard.

The GOP is not conservatism

If you know you're gonna get one of them. Choose the one one with the littlest dick is what I say.

The country is broken beyond repair at this point. The idiots outnumber us and they are both sides of political spectrum. The nation is going to hell in a handbasket, the only question is how fast we're gonna get there.

Retread
06-29-2012, 04:23 PM
.................. The nation is going to hell in a handbasket, the only question is how fast we're gonna get there.

My feelings for the last 2-3 decades. The problem is that the slope just keeps getting steeper and slicker.

I'm trying to put together a letter to my G-son on where to go to hide before the roof caves in.

Gina
06-29-2012, 04:56 PM
Since he hasnt offered to replace 0'care with private sector solutions like allowing insurance co's to compete across state lines and private health accts Im of the impression he will try to do a Romneycare brand/ version.

He is after all a RINO. Maybe not much diff than Justice Roberts. And his inner circle and advisors are all dem lites too. Hopefully though we can force his hand if we fill the House and Senate with enough conservatives.

A lot of work ahead.
Not exactly true.
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care
MITT'S PLAN
On his first day in office, Mitt Romney will issue an executive order that paves the way for the federal government to issue Obamacare waivers to all fifty states. He will then work with Congress to repeal the full legislation as quickly as possible.

In place of Obamacare, Mitt will pursue policies that give each state the power to craft a health care reform plan that is best for its own citizens. The federal government’s role will be to help markets work by creating a level playing field for competition.

Restore State Leadership and Flexibility

Mitt will begin by returning states to their proper place in charge of regulating local insurance markets and caring for the poor, uninsured, and chronically ill. States will have both the incentive and the flexibility to experiment, learn from one another, and craft the approaches best suited to their own citizens.

Block grant Medicaid and other payments to states
Limit federal standards and requirements on both private insurance and Medicaid coverage
Ensure flexibility to help the uninsured, including public-private partnerships, exchanges, and subsidies
Ensure flexibility to help the chronically ill, including high-risk pools, reinsurance, and risk adjustment
Offer innovation grants to explore non-litigation alternatives to dispute resolution
Promote Free Markets and Fair Competition

Competition drives improvements in efficiency and effectiveness, offering consumers higher quality goods and services at lower cost. It can have the same effect in the health care system, if given the chance to work.

Cap non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits
Empower individuals and small businesses to form purchasing pools
Prevent discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage
Facilitate IT interoperability
Empower Consumer Choice

For markets to work, consumers must have the information and the power to make decisions about their own care. Placing the patient at the center of the process will drive quality up and cost down while ensuring that services are designed to provide what Americans actually want.

End tax discrimination against the individual purchase of insurance
Allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines
Unshackle HSAs by allowing funds to be used for insurance premiums
Promote "co-insurance" products
Promote alternatives to "fee for service"
Encourage "Consumer Reports"-type ratings of alternative insurance plans

Molon Labe
06-29-2012, 05:33 PM
If you know you're gonna get one of them. Choose the one one with the littlest dick is what I say.

The country is broken beyond repair at this point. The idiots outnumber us and they are both sides of political spectrum. The nation is going to hell in a handbasket, the only question is how fast we're gonna get there.

I used to think that way so much. Especially in 96' and 00. I've been an active member of the GOP for sometime, and reluctantly over the last 6 years. I hoping that what is happening on the local level GOP holds true for 16' and we don't get to hell before then. If the GOP nominates another McCain or Romney, I'm not sure I can stomach it any more.

Wei Wu Wei
06-29-2012, 06:13 PM
I'm wondering if a self proclaimed "socialist" is For or Against this decision. Because if you're for it and still an avowed socialist, I call Bull.

From the Socialists own mouths this:



If you think this does you any good, unless their are other nefarious things to come, I would say you miscalculated.

I am not happy about the bill itself. The decision is exactly the decision I knew they would come to though.

I never liked this plan, I'm opposed to many aspects of it, including (especially) the requirement for people to purchase private insurance. This is nothing but an enormous handout to insurance companies. A bill that promises millions of new costumers.

There shouldn't be a mandate to buy private insurance. If a person doesn't want to buy private insurance, their tax dollars should go to a public non-profit health care plan. This was, everyone is covered, but if you don't want public insurance you are free to buy your own premium plans or get coverage provided by your employer.

I don't like this plan, but I find the conservative opposition to it to be absurd. Once again, they are upset at the right thing for all the wrong reasons.

Wei Wu Wei
06-29-2012, 06:19 PM
No, you are still stupid, especially if you keep claiming that this was a Republican plan.

It was a republican plan. The idea included an individual mandate to purchase private health insurance. It was a fully pro-corporate right-wing plan.

In the 1990's, Republicans proposed the plan and the Heritage Foundation helped to write it up and fully supported it.

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182

This is well documented.

Wei Wu Wei
06-29-2012, 06:29 PM
Read it for yourself:

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/sourcefiles/1989_assuring_affordable_health_care_for_all_ameri cans.pdf

Stuart Butler with the Heritage Foundation in 1989



2) Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance.

Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seatbelts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement.

This mandate is based on two important principles. First, that health care protection is a responsibility of individuals, not businesses. Thus to the extent that anybody should be required to provide coverage to a family, the household mandate assumes that it is the family that carries the first responsibility. Second, it assumes that there is an implicit contract between households and society, based on the notion that health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection. If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate but society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services—even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tab.

A mandate on individuals recognizes this implicit contract. Society does feel a moral obligation to insure that its citizens do not suffer from the unavailability of health care. But on the other hand, each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself.

3) Provide help to those who cannot afford protection.

A mandate on households certainly would force those with adequate means to obtain insurance protection, which would end the problem of middle-class “free riders” on society’s sense of obligation.



Conceived, designed, and written by right-wing think tanks and supported by conservative lawmakers.

Janice
06-29-2012, 06:32 PM
Not exactly true.
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care
MITT'S PLAN


Thanks for that Gina.

Molon Labe
06-29-2012, 06:44 PM
Thanks for that Gina.


In my experience, what a candidate posts on his reelection campaign site...in an election year.......tends to be pretty different from their record on those issues....especially for Romney. Where he has stood on the issue is fairly clear.

But don't take my word for it...let Fred talk.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-groI7IpExA

Rockntractor
06-29-2012, 07:22 PM
It was a republican plan. The idea included an individual mandate to purchase private health insurance. It was a fully pro-corporate right-wing plan.

In the 1990's, Republicans proposed the plan and the Heritage Foundation helped to write it up and fully supported it.

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182

This is well documented.

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/BugsBunnyMaroon.jpg

Rockntractor
06-29-2012, 07:24 PM
Read it for yourself:

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/sourcefiles/1989_assuring_affordable_health_care_for_all_ameri cans.pdf

Stuart Butler with the Heritage Foundation in 1989




Conceived, designed, and written by right-wing think tanks and supported by conservative lawmakers.

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/stupidity_1170973245.jpg

Odysseus
06-29-2012, 11:05 PM
It was a republican plan. The idea included an individual mandate to purchase private health insurance. It was a fully pro-corporate right-wing plan.

In the 1990's, Republicans proposed the plan and the Heritage Foundation helped to write it up and fully supported it.

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182

This is well documented.

No, one person gave a lecture at the Heritage Foundation on the plan. They reproduced the lecture, but if you bothered to read the first line of the document that you link, you will see that Heritage had a disclaimer stating explicitly that it did not endorse it.

However, since the presence of one Republican in favor of this is enough to tar the entire institution, then can we agree that Van Jones' presence in the Obama administration means that they are all communists? Sauce for the goose...

Wei Wu Wei
06-30-2012, 01:00 AM
No, one person gave a lecture at the Heritage Foundation on the plan. They reproduced the lecture, but if you bothered to read the first line of the document that you link, you will see that Heritage had a disclaimer stating explicitly that it did not endorse it.

However, since the presence of one Republican in favor of this is enough to tar the entire institution, then can we agree that Van Jones' presence in the Obama administration means that they are all communists? Sauce for the goose...


Yes that document published by the Heritage Foundation has a standard disclaimer used by tax-exempt institutions. It's a matter of legal technicality to keep their tax evading status, don't play naive. We all know what the Heritage Foundation is.

If you read the document, the plan in question is referred to as "The Heritage Plan".


The fundamental defects of the existing system and the serious flaws in most solutions to the problem of uninsurance has led The Heritage Foundation to propose a national health system based on very different foundations.

From that point on, the plan is called "The Heritage Plan".

It isn't one Republican, it's right-wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, other Republicans also supported a mandate-based health care plan including Newt Gingrich and (of course) Mitt Romney

txradioguy
06-30-2012, 06:12 AM
Why is it that window lickers like peewee always leave out critical facts in their attempts to blame Republicans for everything?

Like how the Heritage Foundation ended up renouncing and backing away from support for the individual mandate when they realized exactly what it would entail?

I'm coming to realize that one reason that Libtards are always having to go back into ancient history to try and smear Republicans is because if they looked at the here and now and the facts on the ground...their arguments would completely disappear.

Gina
06-30-2012, 11:33 AM
Thanks for that Gina.

Np!

And I think it was 3wees that said nominees don't do what they say on their campaign site. The key is to have a house and senate that will make sure he or she does.

Cicero
06-30-2012, 03:36 PM
Never served in the military have you? I'm guessing not.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/s480x480/206158_466463740047848_2011710641_n.jpg

So does that now mean I can exercise my freedom of speech rights and kick this guys ass?

No I haven't. This doesn't mean I am not capable of forming an opinion about the issue. I am lucky enough to come from a military family and spent my childhood living on post at Fort Bliss in El Paso. My father served in Vietnam and suffers terribly today with Parkinson's disease and cancer due to agent orange and other defoliants. He also suffered from PTSD before it was called that and as a result the rest of us went through a lot as well. I won't go into detail on the internet but trust me we all payed a price for his experiences in that war.

My family sacrificed a lot for this country. One of the freedoms my father and grandfathers and brother fought for was freedom of speech. This freedom that we claim to cherish protects ALL speech, not just popular or correct speech. My Dad would often say that he disagrees with what people say but he would fight and die to defend their right to say it.

As for the picture, my only regret if you did kick his ass would be that I didn't get to him first. I would gladly face my punishment under the law for it.

Gina
07-01-2012, 01:16 PM
Rasmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/supreme_court_update)
Public opinion of the Supreme Court has grown more negative since the highly publicized ruling on the president’s health care law was released. A growing number now believe that the high court is too liberal and that justices pursue their own agenda rather than acting impartially.

A week ago, 36% said the court was doing a good or an excellent job. That’s down to 33% today. However, the big change is a rise in negative perceptions. Today, 28% say the Supreme Court is doing a poor job. That’s up 11 points over the past week.

The new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on Friday and Saturday following the court ruling, finds that 56% believe justices pursue their own political agenda rather than generally remain impartial. That’s up five points from a week ago. Just half as many -- 27% -- believe the justices remain impartial. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Thirty-seven percent (37%) now believe the Supreme Court is too liberal, while 22% think it's too conservative. A week ago, public opinion was much more evenly divided: 32% said it was too liberal and 25% said too conservative.

In the latest survey, 31% now believe the balance is about right.

txradioguy
07-01-2012, 03:06 PM
No I haven't. This doesn't mean I am not capable of forming an opinion about the issue.

No but it does mean that you don't have a clue what it means to people that have earned those medals to see some punk kid wearing them.



I am lucky enough to come from a military family and spent my childhood living on post at Fort Bliss in El Paso. My father served in Vietnam and suffers terribly today with Parkinson's disease and cancer due to agent orange and other defoliants. He also suffered from PTSD before it was called that and as a result the rest of us went through a lot as well. I won't go into detail on the internet but trust me we all payed a price for his experiences in that war.

And that gives you some kind of insight how? Ask your dad what he would think of the SCOTUS saying it's perfectly ok for some punk that couldn't make it past MEPS to deck himself out with a Medal of Honor or a Ranger Tab or a Bronze Star with V device.

I bet he doesn't share your views on allowing Stolen Valor to be struck down being a good thing.


My family sacrificed a lot for this country. One of the freedoms my father and grandfathers and brother fought for was freedom of speech. This freedom that we claim to cherish protects ALL speech, not just popular or correct speech. My Dad would often say that he disagrees with what people say but he would fight and die to defend their right to say it.

Again this is where you never having served hindering your understanding of just exactly what it means to someone who's put their ass on the line watch some idiot put on medals and tabs he didn't earn.


As for the picture, my only regret if you did kick his ass would be that I didn't get to him first. I would gladly face my punishment under the law for it.

Yeah...ok.

Cicero
07-02-2012, 02:11 AM
No but it does mean that you don't have a clue what it means to people that have earned those medals to see some punk kid wearing them.




And that gives you some kind of insight how? Ask your dad what he would think of the SCOTUS saying it's perfectly ok for some punk that couldn't make it past MEPS to deck himself out with a Medal of Honor or a Ranger Tab or a Bronze Star with V device.

I bet he doesn't share your views on allowing Stolen Valor to be struck down being a good thing.



Again this is where you never having served hindering your understanding of just exactly what it means to someone who's put their ass on the line watch some idiot put on medals and tabs he didn't earn.



Yeah...ok.

Actually my Father does agree with me. Again freedom of speech doesn't just apply to speech that doesn't offend us. He actually taught me this himself when we talked about the treatment he and so many others received coming home from southeast Asia.

The SCOTUS didn't say it was perfectly okay. That kind of thing is abhorrent to any reasonable person. What the SCOTUS refused to do was declare lying a criminal offense. Freedom of speech applies whether we like the speech or not. I believe it is crucial to our way of life that we not curtail the freedoms that people like yourself have given the "last full measure" to defend.

I can understand where you are coming from. I can never know what it is like to actually be in a combat situation but I do understand your outrage and share it. I just can't advocate criminalizing any form of speech.

I don't want to turn this into some argument. I have the utmost respect for you and everyone else that serves our nation. I have seen one sibling and one of my wife's siblings leave for Iraq and Afghanistan and I thank God every day for bringing them home again. You are correct that I do not and never can understand what it means to be in actual combat but I do have a profound appreciation for the deadly work you guys do. We disagree and that's okay. I do want to thank you sincerely for your service.

I have often wondered if given the opportunity whether or not I have the kind of courage and strength of character that it takes to be called a soldier. I like to think so but I must admit that deep down I really don't know for sure.

txradioguy
07-02-2012, 09:45 AM
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/2874/53959910150979655737906.jpg

m00
07-03-2012, 11:33 PM
I just finished discussing this with a box of Velveeta cheese, it agrees with you.

You're admitting to be dumber than cheese?

ThinkingBig
07-05-2012, 10:32 PM
Rasmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/supreme_court_update)
Public opinion of the Supreme Court has grown more negative since the highly publicized ruling on the president’s health care law was released. A growing number now believe that the high court is too liberal and that justices pursue their own agenda rather than acting impartially.


Just wait until they overturn every anti-gay law in the U.S. when they rule Prop 8 violates the U.S. Constitution. This time Scalia's own decisions will come back to haunt him and he'll have no choice but to side with the so-called 'liberal' on the court.

I'm sure the gay virus will spread through pre-schools like wild fire.:single_eye:

txradioguy
07-06-2012, 02:18 AM
Just wait until they overturn every anti-gay law in the U.S. when they rule Prop 8 violates the U.S. Constitution. This time Scalia's own decisions will come back to haunt him and he'll have no choice but to side with the so-called 'liberal' on the court.

Prop 8 didn't violate the Constitution anymore than Arizona SB 1070 did.

If you knew anything about the Constitution you'd know that.


I'm sure the gay virus will spread through pre-schools like wild fire.:single_eye:

Thanks to bully's like Dan Savage it already is.

AmPat
07-11-2012, 10:28 AM
Unless Obama takes the position that Romney was the trailblazer on this, and his adoption of Romneycare is completely Constitutional.
I already replied to Stinky Pig, now I'll pass this along to you. All Romney need do is to question O Blowhard as to why he would defend his unpopular and massive bill based upon a known failure?
Put the ball back in Maobama's court.