Our guest poster returns.
Largely overlooked yesterday in the wake of the president’s latest salvo in the Global War on the MIddle Class was the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision upholding Obamacare’s individual mandate.
That this abhorrent piece of legislation is neither fully understood by anyone, nor welcomed by those with a functioning brain is distressing enough; yesterday’s majority opinion should scare the daylights out of those of us who not only understand the Constitution better than Richard Stengel, but what the Obama administration will now feel empowered to do with it’s newfound green light to regulate just about every damned choice Americans make.
Overstatement, you say? Consider this snippet, excerpted ad Hot Air:
Congress had a rational basis for concluding that, in the aggregate, the practice of self-insuring for the cost of health care substantially affects interstate commerce. Furthermore, Congress had a rational basis for concluding that the minimum coverage provision is essential to the Affordable Care Act’s larger reforms to the national markets in health care delivery and health insurance. Finally, the provision regulates active participation in the health care market, and in any case, the Constitution imposes no categorical bar on regulating inactivity. Thus, the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause, and the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Wait a second. “ [T]he Constitution imposes no categorical bar on regulating inactivity?” Oh. My. God. Unbeknownst to me, the Commerce Clause apparently renders every other word in the Constitution irrelevant, and is the only real clause that has ever mattered. After all, it is contended, the federal government may do anything so long as, in the aggregate, it “affects interstate commerce,” which, as is often pointed out, applies to everything.
Ace sums it up nicely:
“Having sex with your wife? This affects interstate commerce, as you might wind up creating the ultimate economic effect — a child; a future one-man army of economic activity, labor, investment, and consumption — and even if you don’t, your choice to have sex is a choice not to sample the fruits of interstate commerce, which is affected, then, by your choice to not enter the stream of paid entertainments.
“Can we mandate that people have more children? Seems to me we could fix some of the demographic problems with SS and MediCare if only people had more children.”
Obama has a very troubling history of basically doing whatever the hell it is he wants, which is precisely what the left wrongly wet their pants over under George W. Bush. Unfortunately for us, Mr. Obama seems to have taken the Democrat Party’s “by any means necessary” credo and is now running with it.
Now that the 6th Circuit has taken the handcuffs off (and pretty much given him a no-limit American Express Centurion card and keys to a Ferrari), one must hope that those of us who are ultimately responsible for paying the bill are still able to do so once he is finally called to account for his petulant impudence.
Behold the Slippery Slope……
If this stands it means that no activity, or inactivity, is out-of-bounds to the President and Congress.
So, from this day forward everything and anything is what progessives think it is………….until that thought evolves?
It would appear that we are at war with Europa. We have always been at war with Europa.
We have never been at war with Eurasia.
This would be funny as hell, were it not happening to us.
Power hungry judges acting as legislatures for the State; their rational is Congress can make anything mandatory which is not true. Congress has limited powers which ObamaCare violates. The mandate remains unconstitutional.
America will not put up with ObamaCare; it’s that simple. Obama is not running on ObamaCare; in fact, he’s running away from it.
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that’s clear
I will choose freewill.
Canadian Rock, now US policy.
Red Barchetta is next?
I ain’t commentin’ until Cas and Levi ‘splains it to me.
The ruling deals with the findings that not pre-purchasing health insurance constitutes a choice by the individual to force others to pay for their future treatment. Since all citizens will eventually use medical services that are paid for or supported by funding from the public, (ambulances, emergency rooms, hospitals)
I notice that the same people who decry activist judges were the same ones cheering the Wisconsin race between blatantly partisan judges. Perhaps if so many had not worked so hard at politicizing the judiciary you would not be worried about who was making these calls.
Eric in Chicago,
“This would be funny as hell, were it not happening to us.”
So, I’m guessing we can expect to be in a Keynesian coma for the remainder?
Incorrect, sir. The ruling deals with granting the government unprecedented and unconstitutional authority to compel citizens to either purchase products they do not want under color of law. If you cannot acknowledge as much, than I suggest you are either as blatantly ignorant as Richard Stengel, or deliberately obtuse.
Personally, I tend to believe the left is both.
I realize the sting from the Wisconsin election must still hurt, but dare I suggest you at least attempt to keep your emotions under control.
Eric how silly of me I thought that rulings are made from reasoned arguments listed in the briefs. I’m sure it just says exactly what you quoted. How are you as a conservative championing a system that forces the public to contribute so much to cover over abuse of the emergency room network we’ve established in this country?
I live in Oklahoma, the rights that that the Wisconsin state rulings don’t affect me at all. Like I stated I just wish people weren’t politicizing judges as much.
on a different note do you ever think that the labels you use to refer to people could in the long term be de-humanizing to both them and you? Many studies have shown that it by stripping people of their names that we create the, “Other” in an attempt to free ourselves of the normal rules of social and physical interaction. As a gay perhaps I am just slightly aware of the tendency for people to use derogatory labels for that effect.
#8: “I notice that the same people who decry activist judges were the same ones cheering the Wisconsin race between blatantly partisan judges. Perhaps if so many had not worked so hard at politicizing the judiciary you would not be worried about who was making these calls.”
Yet another irrelevant, clueless comment from Tim that ends up proving exactly the opposite of what he apparently thinks it does.
Wisconsin State Law requires its incumbent Supreme Court Justices to stand for reelection every 10 years. Many states have the same type of law, subjecting their incumbent judges to periodic reelection as well (my home state of California does). If you think subjecting state court judges to elections “politicizes” them, then the solution would to repeal the state laws and treat state judges like federal ones–lifetime appointment by the chief executive subject to the advise/consent of a legislative body. If that were the case, Tim, Justice Prosser would not have had to be reelected and would have simply continued to serve on the Wisconsin Supreme Court as he has done for the past 12+ years. However, that would also mean the Wisconsin Democrats (and the unions they’re beholden to) would not have had a shot at getting Kloppenburg on the state’s highest court to do their POLITICAL bidding (nevermind the fact that she’s an unqualified, partisan hack with no judicial experience or record, and a history of being rejected for judgeships by, for example, the state’s previous DEMOCRAT governor and President Obama).
So, Tim, if “politicizing” judicial elections is the problem, why didn’t the unions and the Democrats (your party, btw) just back an unopposed reelection of the qualified, experienced, incumbent Supreme Court Justice on the ballot–> Prosser? Why did they have to go and politicize a typically routine, non-partisan judicial election by backing Kloppenburg? Any thoughts?
I’m not faulting you at all for your inability to understand the ruling, Tim. No need to blame yourself.
You are, of course, a tad presumptuous here. I’ve made no such statement, and am a little offended (albeit entirely unsurprised) that you feel thoroughly justified in making this assumption.
I’m terribly sorry, but I’m fairly certain that “ignorant” and “obtuse” aren’t labels. Again, I encourage you to not allow your emotions or sensitivities to get in the way of your reasoning. We’re discussing politics, Tim, not the left’s proclivity to view every discussion through the eyes of an imagined victimhood.
Tim, please restate this in a more comprehensible sentence. You seem to be contradicting yourself.
Are you somehow insinuating that I am not, in fact, gay? I don’t know you at all, nor do you know me, so I am a little confused as to what you’re getting at here. You seem to be saying that because you are “a gay,” you are somehow more aware of what you wrongly perceive to be an insult, where none was given.
For the record, Tim, I am a 45 year-old gay man, who has embraced his sexuality since the age of 13. I would therefore ask you to kindly come down off of the cross.
Other people, you see, need the wood.
One more thing…I hadn’t noticed this at first glance:
Do you mean to say, Tim, that you aren’t as aware of ad hominem attacks as the rest of us, or are you using sarcasm as a substitute for substance?
Please, feel free to clarify.
Tim,
The ruling says the government can regulate inactivity.
Let us suppose that you eat hamburgers with a juicy bun and a dollop of mayonnaise. Let us suppose that this is determined by Congress to be detrimental to your long term well being and that your “choice” will incur health costs down the road. Therefore, you should have an insurance rider that specifically covers your above mentioned consumption. This will make you a government licensed consumer who has paid for access to this food.
No establishment may serve you this food without your government verification of access. Nor may any establishment sell you the ingredients without such verification.
Now, suppose you hold a clandestine cook-out and serve up this regulated artery enemy to willing participants who do not have the necessary insurance and appropriate riders. Should you not be fined and jailed for corrupting the public order?
Every citizen is mandated to foresee his liabilities and insure himself accordingly, Couch potatoes rot in place. That will eventually lead to peripheral vascular problems and expensive health care. Weed consumers and those that flirt with alcohol are more likely to cost us all a pretty penny down the road. People with conditions that affect their reflexes and their balance are a pocketbook menace to society.
I can not begin to calculate the list of things that cause imperfections that eventually will cost “the system” money.
We lock up criminals who are known recidivists. They get sick in the body and in the head and they stab one another and they cause all kinds of economic burdens on all of us through state expenditures. Shouldn’t we just snuff them, cremate the bodies and use the ashes to grow corn for ethanol?
“Inactivity” is the same as not acting. So anything you do that is not acting to benefit the state is inactivity. How many charges can we conceivably bring against your own lard butt?
Tim,
The ruling says the government can regulate inactivity.
Let us suppose that you eat hamburgers with a juicy bun and a dollop of mayonnaise. Let us suppose that this is determined by Congress to be detrimental to your long term well being and that your “choice” will incur health costs down the road. Therefore, you should have an insurance rider that specifically covers your above mentioned consumption. This will make you a government licensed consumer who has paid for access to this food.
No establishment may serve you this food without your government verification of access. Nor may any establishment sell you the ingredients without such verification.
Now, suppose you hold a clandestine cook-out and serve up this regulated artery enemy to willing participants who do not have the necessary insurance and appropriate riders. Should you not be fined and jailed for corrupting the public order?
Every citizen is mandated to foresee his liabilities and insure himself accordingly, Couch potatoes rot in place. That will eventually lead to peripheral vascular problems and expensive health care. Weed consumers and those that flirt with alcohol are more likely to cost us all a pretty penny down the road. People with conditions that affect their reflexes and their balance are a pocketbook menace to society.
I can not begin to calculate the list of things that cause imperfections that eventually will cost “the system” money.
We lock up criminals who are known recidivists. They get sick in the body and in the head and they stab one another and they cause all kinds of economic burdens on all of us through state expenditures. Shouldn’t we just snuff them, cremate the bodies and use the ashes to grow corn for ethanol?
“Inactivity” is the same as not acting. So anything you do that is not acting to benefit the state is inactivity. How many charges can we conceivably bring against your own lard butt?
How about this.
Tim’s worst fears are given life and Michelle Bachman becomes President. She then cites this ruling to show that chosing to have anal sex impacts commerce and writes an executive order banning it. Will Tim accept the constitutionality of this?
#11: “How are you as a conservative championing a system that forces the public to contribute so much to cover over abuse of the emergency room network we’ve established in this country?”
Tim, I assume you mean “over abuse of the emergency room network YOU’VE established in this country,” and by YOU, I mean Democrats, liberals, leftists, power-hungry elitists,…because programs that began as healthcare safety nets for truly needy, indigent American citizens have exploded into multi-trillion dollar entitlement programs for all takers, especially those who are living in this country illegally because YOUR PARTY is about making as many people in America (citizen or not) dependent on government for their survival. It’s YOUR PARTY’S method of securing lifetime electoral support from those people you “help” and “care about” (with other people’s money, of course). Medi-Cal is one of the reasons my home state is totally insolvent.
And of course a clueless imbecile like you actually believes the solution to all of those “abused emergency rooms” is to take, for example, an illegal alien giving birth to an anchor baby in the ER and go ahead and grant her and her baby (and anyone she claims as a “relative”) FREE premium health insurance for the rest of their lives, covering every illness or injury, including pre-existing conditions AND preventative care as well (why not? it’s not their money or yours).
That’s right, Tim. The only way to ease the burden on ERs and our healthcare system in general is to give 50+ million people “free” premium health insurance for life. Once full-throttle Obamacare kicks in
in 2014, we’ll be SAVING money hand over fist, just like Obama and all the other Democrats said.
@Eric the only point of “substance” in your entire comment was listing your age and sexuality your reply to original comment listed nothing of the brief, nothing of the substance of the legal case and was little more than a quote from 1984, a pearl clutching moment where you state, “The ruling deals with granting the government unprecedented and unconstitutional authority to compel citizens to either purchase products they do not want under color of law.”
Indeed the entire trial is about the constitutionality of the matter and since you are neither a federal judge nor apparently a constitutional lawyer I think I will defer to the people who actually are.
I already have to purchase home owners insurance and car insurance I think the precedent is well established that use of a service can constitute the enforcement of insurance is not that big a step. The crux of the case was whether or not choosing to not buy insurance is an decision of economic merit. The numbers show that it is, everyone will use the hospital system at some time, pretending that since it hasn’t happened yet that it won’t is blind full or willfully false. We all want hospitals that can take care of us in emergencies, we have to accept that the funding situation that we have created is not meeting that goal. We’re the last major western country that hasn’t done this, and we are simply getting to the point where we have to.
. I made no assumption to your sexuality I merely reflected that your use of the term, “the left” was creating an, “Other”. A term used to reflect outsiders to your group. This despite the fact that no one looking at a ‘right’ or ‘left’ identifying person could tell the difference.
@Heliotrope it is an intriguing subject isn’t it? but the government also regulates drug possession regardless of whether a person is taking them or not. Also the precedent was established long before that if a person knows of a crime being committed and does nothing to notify authorities or stop the crime they become an accessory to said crime. Drink and driving is a crime as well even if no traffic violations have taken place, simply the potential for risk and damage is enough to regulate the behavior and it’s legal status.
Regulating inactivity in the face of direct economic consequence is not that big of a step given our legal history.
Not when you choose to not own a home or drive a car. Please explain to me how you can choose to not live. Or else I invite you to demonstrate.
#19: “I already have to purchase home owners insurance and car insurance I think the precedent is well established that use of a service can constitute the enforcement of insurance is not that big a step.”
No surprise to see Tim cite the easily distinguishable and thoroughly, intellectually eviscerated homeowners/car insurance talking point. Reminds me of something Obama said to state his opposition to a health insurance mandate in the 2008 campaign: “If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house.”
@Sean A using your clever little fingers go check and see which party passed Part D Medicare benefits to seniors completely unfunded in an effort to buy votes. Than tell me how one party is to blame for everything.
@Livewire your own argument is self explanatory.
#23: “@Sean A using your clever little fingers go check and see which party passed Part D Medicare benefits to seniors completely unfunded in an effort to buy votes. Than tell me how one party is to blame for everything.”
Opposed it then, oppose it now. YOU supported it then, support it now, AND you’ve supported/currently support multiplying those “unfunded liabilities” by a factor in the thousands.
Shorter Tim: I can’t refute those points, so I’ll ignore them.
Learn that trick from your 15 year old?
Comment by Tim — July 1, 2011 @ 11:38 am – July 1, 2011
It is a well-known fact that birds teach their offspring to fly by kicking them out of the nest. More often than not, the chicks quickly understand that to fly is to live.
One of the hardest things a conservative has to accept, therefore, is that we’re not birds, and the so-called “divine spark of reason” we humans possess sometimes leads ordinarily good people to believe that remaining under their mothers’ wings in perpetuity is safer (and infinitely more comfortable) than risking independence.
Such, I fear, is the case with the minority in this country who remain steadfastly loyal to an ideology that refuses to accept the very Darwinist principles they fought for in that courtroom in 1925. They’ve suddenly latched onto Jesus’ teaching that “whatsoever you do to the least of you, you do unto Me.”
I imagine this would be noble, were it born of a genuine desire to serve their fellows. Alas, we know the truth, don’t we?
While it’s been amusing to watch the left fight for particular principles, only to be forced into adopting contrary positions as a result of the atrocious consequences of their impassioned beliefs, I find myself resolved that I’ve done precisely the same thing during the course of my ideological evolution.
In other words, while I initially resented being told by the Darwinists that my own beliefs were utter nonsense, I’ve come to embrace the concept of “survival of the fittest.”
The weakest of our species will be, either at the hands of Divine Intervention or simple science, invariably forced out of the nest. That isn’t politics, folks; it’s proven, incontrovertible, scientific fact. They will either learn to fly, and hence provide for themselves through independent thought and learning or cooperation (not to be confused with redistribution, as is their wont), or they will die. Mother birds, after all, have never been observed caring for their adult offspring.
Therefore, my heart soars at the knowledge that we appear to be living in a time when the majority of producers in this great nation have decided that perhaps, in this instance, Darwin nailed it squarely on the head.
How are you as a conservative championing a system that forces the public to contribute so much to cover over abuse of the emergency room network we’ve established in this country?
You have no idea what you’re talking about, Timmeh.
From that report:
Among Medicaid beneficiaries under age 65, more than one-quarter of children and nearly two in five adults had one or more ED visits in a 12-month period (Figure 2). Medicaid beneficiaries were more likely to have had at least one ED visit in a 12-month period than persons with private insurance and the uninsured.
Frequency of ED use was associated with insurance status, with Medicaid beneficiaries being the most likely to have visited the ED multiple times in the past year.
And….
The data also show that persons without a usual source of medical care are not more likely to have an ED visit than those with a usual source of care, and that uninsured persons are not more likely than others to access the ED for nonurgent visits.
And wait, there’s more:
Researchers at the University of California San Francisco and Stanford University found that the uninsured patients paid 35 percent of their overall emergency room bills in 2004, versus 33 percent for Medicaid.
“What surprised us was that uninsured patients actually pay a higher proportion of their emergency department charges than Medicaid does,” said Renee Hsia, an emergency room doctor and researcher at UCSF who led the study.
Now, do you have something intelligent to contribute, or are you going to continue to demonstrate that you haven’t thought beyond your Obama Party talking points?
Tim @ #20:
No.
If you think trying to bail out a sinking boat with a sieve is an interesting subject, you had better have the best water wings known to mankind.
If inactivity can be the subject of taxation, the entire Constitution if made null and void.
Your examples of aiding and abetting criminal activity are not examples of inactivity in any way shape or manner.
Your example of knowingly putting innocent parties at risk due to your choices are not examples of inactivity. You had to take the cocaine before you operated on you best friend with no medical training or license. That is not inactivity. And your friend is an idiot.
Regulating behavior is the essence of common law. I think you better think it out again.
We all want hospitals that can take care of us in emergencies, we have to accept that the funding situation that we have created is not meeting that goal.
Correction, Timmeh.
The funding system that YOU created in Medicaid.
YOU dumped millions of people onto the public dole, told them they could have whatever they wanted in terms of care without any financial consequence to themselves, and then told hospitals you weren’t going to pay their bills.
And now look what you have. Godawful service. People using emergency rooms at exponentially higher costs. Out of control spending, even given that you pay providers at a LOWER rate than the uninsured do and you deny claims at nearly three times the rate.
Again, Timmeh, you have Cas disease, and we have to recognize that. You are trying to rationalize the fact that you will benefit at other peoples’ expense, and are desperate to have other people start paying your bills — both because you’re too damn lazy to pay them yourself and because you want to punish those who make more than you do.
And that’s all the Obama Party is about. The Obama Party, as represented by its base of Timmeh and Cas, is essentially purchasing people with the promise of free benefits and demagoguing those who actually work and produce to pay for it.
“Opposed it then, oppose it now. YOU supported it then, support it now, AND you’ve supported/currently support multiplying those “unfunded liabilities” by a factor in the thousands.
Comment by Sean A”
So are you saying it didn’t happen than? Or it didn’t happen because you opposed it? Really I can’t tell which you mean you broadly stated that it was democrats that created all the problems but when faced with clear evidence that republicans did exactly the same thing as you brush it off with a mere, “i opposed it”.
I support the principal of what the legislation meant to correct because I have personal experience with the stupidity of the medicare “Hole”. However passing legislation without funding it was foolish.
The crux of the case was whether or not choosing to not buy insurance is an decision of economic merit. The numbers show that it is, everyone will use the hospital system at some time, pretending that since it hasn’t happened yet that it won’t is blind full or willfully false.
Then let’s run this one.
1) Government studies show that gay sex transmits HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, at over forty times the rate of heterosexual sex
2) AIDS is in almost every case lethal if untreated, and normally requires extensive hospitalization at an enormous cost
3) The drugs used to moderate HIV infection are extremely expensive, often costing in the tens of thousands per annum.
4) HIV infection is grounds for claiming taxpayer-funded disability payments and medical coverage, again at considerable cost.
Therefore, it can be clearly shown that the choice to have gay sex carries a considerable amount of negative economic impact and cost to taxpayers.
Thus, under the power of the Commerce Clause, the government has the full and complete right to regulate gay sex, including compulsion and penalties around behavior.
Thus, since gay sex increases health care costs for everyone, gay sex can be banned as a destructive and harmful activity under Obamacare rules, similar to smoking and gun ownership.
In addition, since gay marriage promotes gay sex, gay marriage can be banned by Congress under the Commerce Clause, since it could lead to severe economic damages.
This really shows how little both the low-IQ Barack Obama Party and their supporters like Timmeh thought through their arguments. Perhaps the answer for gays and lesbians like Timmeh is to have a Republican Congress and executive branch apply the Obamacare rules in their full force and regulate gay sex out of existence.
However passing legislation without funding it was foolish.
Oh really?
So where’s the funding for Obamacare, Timmeh?
Answer: Via using outright lies in funding assumptions.
Again, the hilarity: Timmeh and his ilk shriek and scream about Enron, but they use accounting lies that not even Enron was stupid enough to try.
Enron didn’t have good enough lawyers.
@ND30 while I can appreciate the belief that I am a supernatural being capable of doing all things including employing all peoples in the nation, controlling the basic concept of supply and demand, writing, passing and enforcing all legislation in this country for the last 100 years, and than pretending to be a 36 year gay man in Oklahoma with no outstanding debt. but honestly no, you flatter me to much. I might even mention that every member of congress save one is a republican, and I live in a state so red we turned our soil red. Or that I’m a registered republican and have been for years. But because I disagree with you, you seem happy to throw me out of the party. Has your belief in the supernatural driven you batty?
Your use of hyperbole is untouched as always and at no time did you make an honest argument. You posted articles that say some use the ER less than others but you never found any article that found a group that NEVER uses the ER. That is my point and that is the point the judges made.
Personally I think our ideas of using insurance to pay for medical costs are self contradictory at best however it is the system we have and people seem to think it works. but I’ve never understood why.
Typically people buy insurance to offset risks, my car insurance and house insurance is based on the presumption that there is not a 100% of usage. However we all use medical services and we all will outside of sudden and catastrophic death. Therefore it seems like it would make more sense to pay into a hospital fund from birth given the assured knowledge of use in an effort to keep the local hospital operating at the peak of efficiency. But i digress
@Eric I’m going to assume you have no training or education in science since you are both misstating the basic rule of evolution, and devolving into a eugenics argument that is in direct opposition to human social nature and breeding.
You mistake survival of the most adaptable for survival of the fittest. Humans on their own are frail, hairless primates that can’t survive cold weather. However when banded together we become the top predator in our food chain. Perhaps you should meditate on our national motto a bit more “E pluribus unum”
Hence, the left does a far superior job dissembling their own argument than I ever could.
And by their words, shall you know them.
NDT,
You’re the second one who brought up government regulation of sex. Tim will ignore you too, because he can’t refute it and remain consistent.
You posted articles that say some use the ER less than others but you never found any article that found a group that NEVER uses the ER. That is my point and that is the point the judges made.
Correction, Timmeh. THIS is what you said.
How are you as a conservative championing a system that forces the public to contribute so much to cover over abuse of the emergency room network we’ve established in this country?
What I made clear is that the group that abuses the emergency room and refuses to pay its bills is NOT the uninsured; it is those like yourself who are screaming for and demanding government-paid free health insurance.
You tried the bullshit lie that the uninsured use the emergency room too much and don’t pay their bills. I provided statistics that show the people who use the emergency room the most and don’t pay their bills are those on single-payer government health insurance — which is what you and the rest of the Obamacare puppets are demanding.
Part of your problem, of course, is that you don’t understand insurance.
Typically people buy insurance to offset risks, my car insurance and house insurance is based on the presumption that there is not a 100% of usage.
Yes — to offset the risk of a major, catastrophic event happening that you do not have sufficient resources on hand to manage. However, you are expected to pay the normal costs of owning and operating a car, including oil changes, gasoline, and the like, and you are expected to pay the normal costs of owning and operating a house, including maintenance, upkeep, and utilities.
Yet somehow, Timmeh, you want to go to the doctor at will and never pay a penny. You cannot understand that basic concept — insurance is meant to cover UNUSUAL and CATASTROPHIC expenses, not ones that come about as part of normal day-to-day activity.
Based on your half-assed reasoning, car insurance should cover gasoline and oil changes and home insurance should cover utility bills and routine maintenance.
#31: “So are you saying it didn’t happen than? Or it didn’t happen because you opposed it? Really I can’t tell which you mean you broadly stated that it was democrats that created all the problems but when faced with clear evidence that republicans did exactly the same thing as you brush it off with a mere, “i opposed it”.”
Tim, it happened despite my opposition to it. It was a terrible idea for the Republicans to pass it and for Bush to sign it. It is a terrible idea for government to subsidize anything for anyone who can legitimately afford it in the absence of a government subsidy. It has contributed to the huge problem of unrestrained government over-spending.
YOU, in contrast, admit you “support the principal of what the legislation meant to correct” only qualifying that passing it “without funding it was foolish.” Yet somehow, you are fully on board with Obamacare without reservation. You make absolutely no fu*king logical sense.
To review:
I renounced something as a bad idea in the past and in the present, readily admitting I had no power to stop it and vehemently opposing more of it in the future.
You renounce something as a bad idea that “created problems” in the past because it was unfunded, but in the present, you support MORE OF IT EXPONENTIALLY, now and in the future, until kingdom come.
That makes you a numb-skull, Tim.
Perhaps you should meditate on our national motto a bit more “E pluribus unum”
Comment by Tim — July 1, 2011 @ 2:03 pm – July 1, 2011
Which means what, Timmeh?
That you have a government-mandated license to steal from whomever you want?
That you don’t have to be responsible for your own behavior?
Here’s one, Timmeh; you support and endorse having bareback sex with underage children. That is clearly dangerous and damaging to society and “unity”, yet you scream that you can’t be stopped from doing it because of “privacy” and “individual rights”.
Basically put, you’re the prick in a group who orders five martinis when everyone else is drinking water and then demands that everyone pay the same amount in the name of fairness and “unity”.
You’re a moocher, Timmeh. You don’t want to contribute and you don’t want to work, but damned if you don’t want to collect everything and more as if you do, and God help anyone who dares criticize you for doing so.
@ND30 enough, i have never endorsed bare back sex or pedophilia, nor does believing in age of consent laws in any way equal such an endorsement. No more than believing in religion should mean that you support child molestation by priests. As always you sink to the lowest level possible and show yourself to be a crude depraved person. If I ever see you again in person I’ll make sure to kick you in the nuts and that is a promise.
Tim, you are certainly welcome to comment here, but threats will not be tolerated.
Funny,
Timmy didn’t say that anyone who didn’t see an issue with 15 year olds trolling bus stops for 50 year olds needed their legal compass adjusted. To Tim, it’s a moral issue to let him bugger 15 year olds in bus stops.
And he still won’t answer the question if he’ll get all abstanent if congress outlaws ‘risky’ non vaginal sex.
Actually, Tim’s already said that congress can order abstinance.
So are you calling me a pedophile as well Livewire? Since you like to hide behind aa anonymous ID I guess you feel comfortable saying things that would get you banned from any polite company as well? You’re the one who focus’s on it every time and just like homophobes people who obsess about such things are usually practicing them. You keep acting like there aren’t consequences to your words and that is as sad as your typical dialogue.
You’re just as much a lackey bootlicker, it wouldn’t be so bad but your as thick as a stone, making arguments that prove your opponents cases. than when confronted with it you just mouth idiocies over and over. No wonder you’re religious you’ll buy any thing with a shiny cover.
You have no concept of personal responsibility, freedom of thought, or the moral responsibilities of adulthood. Get out of my face and stop talking to me.
In case you hadn’t noticed, Tim, this is an internet forum that you’ve chosen to take part in. Consequently, you have no inherent right to tell anyone not to engage you as long as you continue to post comments here.
The easiest solution to your problem, therefore, is to simply stop posting here altogether.
Of course, you know this already, although I doubt you have the fortitude to do so.
@eric if you can’t get banned for calling anyone that disagrees with you a pedophile over and over again why should I worry? There’s about three people on here with a brain the rest of you just sit around jacking each other off. No wonder the rest of the country thinks republicans are dumb, and that gay republicans are dumber for putting up with it. I like to remember people like Matt and Robbie who ran Malcontent that smart gay republicans exist and know that dogmatic ideology is the death of any movement. That don’t cream themselves every time a dumb republican candidate says something especially dumb. but since 2004 all that seems left are the ones that don’t get it, or the ones that are so die hard loyal that they can’t see how dangerous the conservative ideology has gotten.
I’m a gun lover, and I think the wholesale embrace of universal carry is ridiculous. If you went to Starbucks and noticed half the people were carrying guns would you go back? Do you need a gun at the library? at the courthouse? and the state house? Are you in constant fear for your life?
Attacking Federalism? seceding from the Union? We went to war over that once and lost an entire generation to settle that question, yet now the Texas governor who is a supposed Leader is cheered for saying such treason. I would have him impeached. Daring to dishonor the memory of 600,000 dead for a sound bite.
Why the hell is the party of my family, the party I’ve been a member of since I was 18 imploding into a mob of anti-intellectual gay haters that couldn’t be bothered with the fact that they wasted almost 4 trillion dollars on two wars and didn’t even succeed in their goals, they passed a 600 billion Medicare package without a single thought to pay for it, and they were rotten to the core with the Abramoff Scandal. I was ashamed when rabid Bush haters threatened every conceivable violence on him and his family, I was embarrassed that people couldn’t be civil. I thought there’s no way my party would ever stoop to that level, but here we are 2 years in and it’s as bad or worse than 2006.
It’s bad enough that in 2004 an entire election was centered around keeping gays like me from marrying, when 4 years earlier the LCR had made huge inroads into mainstream acceptance. I swallowed my anger and voted for Bush, I even voted for McCain. But that doesn’t matter to most of you on this site because just having a thought in my head and not assuming that anything that a democrat says is stupid is about the worst sin you can think of.
But no one here ever stops ND30 or Livewire or Helio, no they think it’s normal that they causally insult people with the worst possible crime, a crime i have had happen to close personal friends and their children. Why? because if they shout it long enough they think it will stick. We’ll
I’m past the point where a man is civil, it’s personal and it’s obscene that you put up with as a group.
Ah, and once again, Timmy gets his knickers in a bunch that it’s pointed out how he has no problems about 50 year olds buggering 15 year olds.
Funny how he gets so upset, and yet never denies he said it. Looks like his boyfriend finally taught him about hyperlinks. Hope he didn’t learn that in summer school.
Of course, Tim wants the government to silence people who point out he’s comfortable with 50 year olds buggering kids in bus stops. To Tim, that’s burning oxygen, thus it’s commerce.
Three times now, Timmy’s been confronted with a question. Do you think the government can regulate if you can have sex with men? Three times, Tim has avoided the question, prefering to, amusingly, try to slander people who point out that his own words say he would have to admit, by his rules, he can.
Best of all… accusing me of ‘hiding’ behind a nick I’ve used for 25+ years? (back to the days of CB radio when I was a kid, you might need to explain to your boyfriend what a CB is Tim, kids these days don’t know what they are.)
Like ‘Tim’ says so much about him. Of course, he’s threatened to assault someone. Maybe when his boyfriend studies for the GED, he can bring a copy on civics home from school.
Such hatred and bile, from a little bigot, hiding behind the internet.
Livewire if you’re not intellegent enough to read Lawrence vs. Texas you’re not smart enough to engage in discussion.
In other words, “if you don’t agree with me, you’re labeling me, hence I have a perfectly good reason not to talk to you anymore.”
Tim seems to be a pretty mediocre job of backing out of a discussion he doesn’t wish to have, although I must give him points for sticking to the DNC playbook.
Ah… So Timmeh avoids the question again.
Note how both times I phrased it in a way that avoids homosexual/heterosexual contrasts.
I know I know, when his boyfriend joins the high school debate club this fall, he’ll lecture Tim all about straw men and addressing points not being made.
but if, since Tim brought sexuality up, Homosexual relationships were to be shown as more risky, then couldn’t the government regulate it, as the activity increases the risk of injury and thus health costs.
(Note, this is the 5th time Tim’s been asked the question, and the first time he brought sexuality into it.)
Actually, I think Timmy is saying that as long as it was a general ban on anal sex, he’d be fine with it. After all, Tim believes in obeying the law, per his own rules.
@Eric you’re a chicken shit coward
Hmm, looks like Tim’s 15 year old got on the computer again.
@Eric if your calls for civility only apply to those who you disagree with than it means nothing. You’re afraid of facing the same personal attacks that I face for disagreeing with the bullies. Thus you are a coward.
Tim, I have encouraged you to refrain from letting your emotions get the best of you, but you seem unable to do so.
If you find my opinions so utterly offensive, the prudent and reasonable thing to do would be to either stop attempting to engage me, or to avoid this thread altogether.
With statements like the above, you’re accomplishing little else than confirming that the left has a proven tendency to resort to crass, ad hominem attacks when confronted with an argument they cannot adequately oppose.
Less than a week ago, I called ND30 out for what I saw as a needlessly harsh approach, so perhaps you might wish to check with him before making such a presumptuous assertion.
By the way, calling people you disagree with “chicken sh*t cowards” is, without a doubt, the quickest way of confirming that the following…
…is every bit the lie I suspect it of being.
You’ve pretty much lost any credibility you had here. At least Levi, for all of his faults, never felt the need to so brazenly BS anyone with the “concern troll” nonsense.
@Eric there are times for civility and times for outrage. If you side with those that find being gay inherently evil than you’re a self hater. Conservative thought holds that there are personal consequences to personal actions. If calling you’re opponent a pedophile is you’re style than you are no better than the community activists that simply stir up anger and use the momentum to enact their own agenda. But since that seems the limit of the new social conservative style maybe you just like serving a master that calls gays barbarians in need of harsh discipline to change their sexuality.
Again that makes you a coward and an idiot. You want to think that you’re above that? That you have solid ethics that you can follow in times of struggle than you’re mistaken. If you side with those that imply gays are pedophiles than you only work to make those that hate gays stronger. Being a gay republican means acknowledging the haters in this party and facing them down as they scream at you to climb back in the closet and disappear, it rejects the idea that children must be ignorant of the true nature of human sexuality and taht they must grope blindly in the dark as their church and government treat them as monsters and broken.
There are countless gays working for for republican politicians many of them in fear that their sexuality will cost them their job and family, is that the climate of fear you want to continue?
@Eric than send me your email and I’ll send you a copy of my voter registration card.
Regardless of the ridiculousness of your baseless assumptions, I see neither the need nor justification for calling me a “chicken sh*t coward.”
You’re certainly free to compose as many paragraphs as you wish in your vain attempt to somehow salvage some shred of intellectual credibility, but please know that you’ve effectively killed any interest I may have had in engaging you.
Unlike many statists I’ve come to know in my profession, I’m well aware of the “off” button, and am respectfully choosing to use it in this regard.
Best of luck to you, sir.
Finally Tim defines himself
Though it is funny, I’ve never called Tim a pedophile, he’s the one who throws ’round that charge.
Accusing him of Ephebophilia? Yeah. Since he doesn’t have a problem with 15 year olds and 50 year olds in Bathrooms, I’ll admit that with pride.
Maybe if you’re a pussy.
Do you think that folks who would find it thus just might be big pu**ies? Who has the problem and allows others to gain control of their lives?
I’d be in constant fear of the lives of others. I’d be afraid of some a-hole who resembles Bill Maher rather than Palin shooting up the joint. The more people who can stop an assailant, the better. You bet your arse I’d go back to that Starbucks.
No he didn’t.
No it wasn’t.
I call bullshit. No self-respecting Republican would pop off with the liberal lying points that you furiously throw around here. What’s more, you spell it with a lower case “R” which is a hallmark of douchebag internet liberals. Nope, not buying it. It’s time for you to quit your whining, grab your gear and grow up.
And maybe we should just chug on over to mamby pamby land where MAYBE we can find some self-confidence for Timmeh.
Sorry, Mr. Guest-Poster, but Obama and his cronies don’t need any new-found green-light. They’ve always thought they could regulate whatever they wanted. And they’ve always known their fellow travelers in the judiciary would watch their backs. Nothing has changed here. Nothing at all.
Except perhaps that the whole health-care fiasco is really waking people up to the unconstitutional power-mad monster that Uncle Sam has become — thanks to the Left.
Whether said monster can be slain without violence is the only question that remains to be answered.
Tim @ 8:
This has to be one of the most idiotic statements ever made on the comment boards at GayPatriot.net — and their have been some doozies!
Any court, any lawyer whatsoever, who ever came to such a finding must have gotten is legal degree from cloud cuckoo land. A person without health insurance is not making any such choice. He is choosing to be without health insurance, that is all. Since relying on such insurance is one of the main factors driving health care costs skyward in this country, refusing to carry any could easily be seen as an act made for the common good! (As it could simply because the individual wishes to pay his health costs himself without help.) But no! The lefties twist the matter around into an act of supreme selfishness.
And if all eventually use publicly funded health services (which is a big if) then so what? As part of the public they’re paying for them. They’re not using something that they are not already helping to fund.
Honestly, Tim, do you have a brain in your head, or only marshmallow fluff?
I am very much opposed to activism by judges — which is to say that I decry it — and I haven’t a clue about the Wisconsin race you’re mentioning here. So I didn’t cheer anything on.
Stop bringing up irrelevent nonsense, Tim, and stick to the issue: a federal court has ruled, yet again, that the interstate commerce clause allows the US government to regulate anything it wishes. So why, again, do we have a constitution in the first place? Why did the founders not simply abolish the states? Have an answer for those questions? If you don’t, then shut the fuck up.
I would also point out that Timmeh’s whining about Lawrence would only apply to state sodomy laws.
The courts that Timmeh loves have made it clear that the Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate anything it wants at any time with no restrictions. Hence, a Republican Congress and executive, under the rules of Obamacare, could ban gay sex on the basis of it interfering with commerce, causing social damage, and increasing healthcare costs.
Timmeh, like his Obama, never thinks through these things. They build laws that they have no intention of complying with, so they never bother to think through the consequences of those laws.
#66: “Timmeh, like his Obama, never thinks through these things. They build laws that they have no intention of complying with, so they never bother to think through the consequences of those laws.”
You’re right, Tim has no fear of being detrimentally affected by the enforcement of Obamacare because he only expects to benefit from it. Thus, he gives absolutely no thought to the consequences of the law on anyone else.
Ironically, Tim would rather spend his time dwelling obsessively on paranoid delusions of the consequences of new anti-sodomy laws, [edited]