(10-30-2017 04:54 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:42 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I would decry the blatant partisanship of the SCOTUS appointments, and the willingness to abuse the rules in order to gain a political advantage. But then again, I'm more worried about the health of our Republic than winning a SCOTUS seat.

If you are worried about the health of our Republic then you should be overjoyed at the blocked Garland appointment and the resulting seating of Gorsuch as Gorsuch is a Constitutional originalist instead of a judicial activist. The only thing assuring the continued life of our Republic is the very document that created it, and the only way to protect it is to purge our judicial system of the activists looking to legislate from the bench and neuter the very foundation of our nation in the process.

What rulings, specifically, would you like to see changed?

The Constitutionality of Obamacare for one. There is no executive nor legislative mandate in the articles of the Constitution to provide healthcare nor is there any Amendment making healthcare an inalienable right.

(10-30-2017 05:05 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:54 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:42 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I would decry the blatant partisanship of the SCOTUS appointments, and the willingness to abuse the rules in order to gain a political advantage. But then again, I'm more worried about the health of our Republic than winning a SCOTUS seat.

If you are worried about the health of our Republic then you should be overjoyed at the blocked Garland appointment and the resulting seating of Gorsuch as Gorsuch is a Constitutional originalist instead of a judicial activist. The only thing assuring the continued life of our Republic is the very document that created it, and the only way to protect it is to purge our judicial system of the activists looking to legislate from the bench and neuter the very foundation of our nation in the process.

What rulings, specifically, would you like to see changed?

The Constitutionality of Obamacare for one. There is no executive nor legislative mandate in the articles of the Constitution to provide healthcare nor is there any Amendment making healthcare an inalienable right.

The ACA doesn't provide healthcare, it expands healthcare coverage and subsidies for already existing healthcare programs, nor does it make it healthcare an inalienable right.

(10-30-2017 05:07 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:05 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:54 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:42 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I would decry the blatant partisanship of the SCOTUS appointments, and the willingness to abuse the rules in order to gain a political advantage. But then again, I'm more worried about the health of our Republic than winning a SCOTUS seat.

If you are worried about the health of our Republic then you should be overjoyed at the blocked Garland appointment and the resulting seating of Gorsuch as Gorsuch is a Constitutional originalist instead of a judicial activist. The only thing assuring the continued life of our Republic is the very document that created it, and the only way to protect it is to purge our judicial system of the activists looking to legislate from the bench and neuter the very foundation of our nation in the process.

What rulings, specifically, would you like to see changed?

The Constitutionality of Obamacare for one. There is no executive nor legislative mandate in the articles of the Constitution to provide healthcare nor is there any Amendment making healthcare an inalienable right.

The ACA doesn't provide healthcare, it expands healthcare coverage and subsidies for already existing healthcare programs, nor does it make it healthcare an inalienable right.

Semantics. Forgot that's all you ever have. No wonder we haven't really missed your non-contributing ass around here.

It's not the federal government's responsibility to provide funding for healthcare to anybody. Healthcare is a personal responsibility that everyone has to determine if it is a priority of theirs or not. I shouldn't have to work to pay for anybody's healthcare but my own and my family if I determine it's a priority, and if I personally choose not to purchase health insurance I shouldn't be fined by the government for doing so.

(10-30-2017 05:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:07 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:05 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:54 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  If you are worried about the health of our Republic then you should be overjoyed at the blocked Garland appointment and the resulting seating of Gorsuch as Gorsuch is a Constitutional originalist instead of a judicial activist. The only thing assuring the continued life of our Republic is the very document that created it, and the only way to protect it is to purge our judicial system of the activists looking to legislate from the bench and neuter the very foundation of our nation in the process.

What rulings, specifically, would you like to see changed?

The Constitutionality of Obamacare for one. There is no executive nor legislative mandate in the articles of the Constitution to provide healthcare nor is there any Amendment making healthcare an inalienable right.

The ACA doesn't provide healthcare, it expands healthcare coverage and subsidies for already existing healthcare programs, nor does it make it healthcare an inalienable right.

Semantics. Forgot that's all you ever have. No wonder we haven't really missed your non-contributing ass around here.

It's not the federal government's responsibility to provide funding for healthcare to anybody. Healthcare is a personal responsibility that everyone has to determine if it is a priority of theirs or not. I shouldn't have to work to pay for anybody's healthcare but my own and my family if I determine it's a priority, and if I personally choose not to purchase health insurance I shouldn't be fined by the government for doing so.

Dismissing a discussion revolving around the constitutionality of something being 'semantics' shows you don't have a good grasp of what the word actually means.

But as for your stance regarding healthcare, what about emergency medicine? Should that be covered?

(10-30-2017 05:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:07 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:05 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:54 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  If you are worried about the health of our Republic then you should be overjoyed at the blocked Garland appointment and the resulting seating of Gorsuch as Gorsuch is a Constitutional originalist instead of a judicial activist. The only thing assuring the continued life of our Republic is the very document that created it, and the only way to protect it is to purge our judicial system of the activists looking to legislate from the bench and neuter the very foundation of our nation in the process.

What rulings, specifically, would you like to see changed?

The Constitutionality of Obamacare for one. There is no executive nor legislative mandate in the articles of the Constitution to provide healthcare nor is there any Amendment making healthcare an inalienable right.

The ACA doesn't provide healthcare, it expands healthcare coverage and subsidies for already existing healthcare programs, nor does it make it healthcare an inalienable right.

Semantics. Forgot that's all you ever have. No wonder we haven't really missed your non-contributing ass around here.

It's not the federal government's responsibility to provide funding for healthcare to anybody. Healthcare is a personal responsibility that everyone has to determine if it is a priority of theirs or not. I shouldn't have to work to pay for anybody's healthcare but my own and my family if I determine it's a priority, and if I personally choose not to purchase health insurance I shouldn't be fined by the government for doing so.

they'll go to their grave with socialism/communism as the prime directive....they're ill trained, ill equipped, ill mannered, and in the abyss that depend on subsidization to survive......you can't logically argue with the dippos of 'tis day.....if possible, it's going to take decades to narrow that gap.....

it's become #hookerswithapenis for too many after decades of subsidized policy and the advancement of tech......

I'll simply continue to point out that the numbers are becoming a problem relative to how our educated are turned over to the workplace......hell, china figured that one out long ago.....now they allow two per fam vs. one per.....that's called growth.....

this country has become shitepile of spoiled little biatches.....

#simplenumbersgame

Whoa stink, not sure where that came from.

(10-30-2017 04:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:43 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:35 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Well, if you can't justify your vote based on policy then I guess you need to create a unrealistically terrible caricature of your opponent to justify it.

The irony here is so thick I am cutting it and serving it with a nice Chianti.

What have I done that's ironic?

You say this:

"Well, if you can't justify your vote (for Trump) based on policy then I guess you need to create a unrealistically terrible caricature of your opponent (Clinton) to justify it."

What's ironic is that half the country feels opposite:

"Well, if you can't justify your vote (for Clinton) based on policy then I guess you need to create a unrealistically terrible caricature of your opponent (Trump) to justify it."

(10-30-2017 05:30 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Whoa stink, not sure where that came from.

different board....different strategy....

thank eagleX for flipping me over to this one......it's comedy gold....

consistency yields value.....it doesn't matter which side.....however, contradiction is a major pet peeve.....and I carry a pitchfork when req'd.....

(10-30-2017 04:42 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I would decry the blatant partisanship of the SCOTUS appointments, and the willingness to abuse the rules in order to gain a political advantage. But then again, I'm more worried about the health of our Republic than winning a SCOTUS seat.

So you didn't like how the democrats operated over the previous 8 years of Lord Zero's administration either. Glad we could clear that up.

Are we sure this isn't Fit? He who never answers a question without asking one?

(10-30-2017 05:31 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:43 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:35 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Well, if you can't justify your vote based on policy then I guess you need to create a unrealistically terrible caricature of your opponent to justify it.

The irony here is so thick I am cutting it and serving it with a nice Chianti.

What have I done that's ironic?

You say this:

"Well, if you can't justify your vote (for Trump) based on policy then I guess you need to create a unrealistically terrible caricature of your opponent (Clinton) to justify it."

What's ironic is that half the country feels opposite:

"Well, if you can't justify your vote (for Clinton) based on policy then I guess you need to create a unrealistically terrible caricature of your opponent (Trump) to justify it."

Where have I created an unrealistic caricature of Trump?

And was that a him or a her? I think it was a her since he/she/it had to use an apparatus to pee standing up. But did you see the guns on that he/she/it?? It's biceps were as big as mine!

(10-30-2017 05:40 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Are we sure this isn't Fit? He who never answers a question without asking one?

Ding ding ding ding

(10-30-2017 05:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:07 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:05 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:54 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  What rulings, specifically, would you like to see changed?

The Constitutionality of Obamacare for one. There is no executive nor legislative mandate in the articles of the Constitution to provide healthcare nor is there any Amendment making healthcare an inalienable right.

The ACA doesn't provide healthcare, it expands healthcare coverage and subsidies for already existing healthcare programs, nor does it make it healthcare an inalienable right.

Semantics. Forgot that's all you ever have. No wonder we haven't really missed your non-contributing ass around here.

It's not the federal government's responsibility to provide funding for healthcare to anybody. Healthcare is a personal responsibility that everyone has to determine if it is a priority of theirs or not. I shouldn't have to work to pay for anybody's healthcare but my own and my family if I determine it's a priority, and if I personally choose not to purchase health insurance I shouldn't be fined by the government for doing so.

Dismissing a discussion revolving around the constitutionality of something being 'semantics' shows you don't have a good grasp of what the word actually means.

But as for your stance regarding healthcare, what about emergency medicine? Should that be covered?

There is no semantics regarding the Constitution. Everything is right there in black and white. The fact that you think there is shows you are the one who doesn't have a grasp.

As for emergency medicine to my knowledge the only emergency medical facilities and/or capabilities that the federal government has are specifically for the treatment of federal employees (military hospitals, federal fire departments at military bases and large facilities) or veterans (VA hospitals). The Constitution does not spell out the responsibilities of state and local governments except in the 10th Amendment where it specifies that all duties not described within the previous text of the documents are reserved for the states. Healthcare would obviously fall within this realm as a responsibility of the individual states rather than federal government as it does not fall either prior to or after the 10th Amendment.

(10-30-2017 05:40 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Are we sure this isn't Fit? He who never answers a question without asking one?

Nah, 08 isn't anywhere near as useful as Fit. At least Fit contributes something to this board. '08's next solid contribution will be his first. He's as vapid as Mpls.

(10-30-2017 05:41 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:31 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:43 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:35 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Well, if you can't justify your vote based on policy then I guess you need to create a unrealistically terrible caricature of your opponent to justify it.

The irony here is so thick I am cutting it and serving it with a nice Chianti.

What have I done that's ironic?

You say this:

"Well, if you can't justify your vote (for Trump) based on policy then I guess you need to create a unrealistically terrible caricature of your opponent (Clinton) to justify it."

What's ironic is that half the country feels opposite:

"Well, if you can't justify your vote (for Clinton) based on policy then I guess you need to create a unrealistically terrible caricature of your opponent (Trump) to justify it."

Where have I created an unrealistic caricature of Trump?

Really, where did he say you did that? You were the one who took that position though so maybe he's just following it to its logical conclusion. Anyway, are you familiar with the term disingenuous?

dis·in·gen·u·ous
ˌdisənˈjenyo͞oəs/
adjective
adjective: disingenuous

not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
synonyms: insincere, dishonest, untruthful, false, deceitful, duplicitous, lying, mendacious; hypocritical
"that innocent, teary-eyed look is just part of a disingenuous act"

(10-30-2017 05:44 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:11 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:07 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:05 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  The Constitutionality of Obamacare for one. There is no executive nor legislative mandate in the articles of the Constitution to provide healthcare nor is there any Amendment making healthcare an inalienable right.

The ACA doesn't provide healthcare, it expands healthcare coverage and subsidies for already existing healthcare programs, nor does it make it healthcare an inalienable right.

Semantics. Forgot that's all you ever have. No wonder we haven't really missed your non-contributing ass around here.

It's not the federal government's responsibility to provide funding for healthcare to anybody. Healthcare is a personal responsibility that everyone has to determine if it is a priority of theirs or not. I shouldn't have to work to pay for anybody's healthcare but my own and my family if I determine it's a priority, and if I personally choose not to purchase health insurance I shouldn't be fined by the government for doing so.

Dismissing a discussion revolving around the constitutionality of something being 'semantics' shows you don't have a good grasp of what the word actually means.

But as for your stance regarding healthcare, what about emergency medicine? Should that be covered?

There is no semantics regarding the Constitution. Everything is right there in black and white. The fact that you think there is shows you are the one who doesn't have a grasp.

As for emergency medicine to my knowledge the only emergency medical facilities and/or capabilities that the federal government has are specifically for the treatment of federal employees (military hospitals, federal fire departments at military bases and large facilities) or veterans (VA hospitals). The Constitution does not spell out the responsibilities of state and local governments except in the 10th Amendment where it specifies that all duties not described within the previous text of the documents are reserved for the states. Healthcare would obviously fall within this realm as a responsibility of the individual states rather than federal government as it does not fall either prior to or after the 10th Amendment.

I'm truly not trying to belabor the point, but would you mind stating what you think 'semantics' means? I don't think you have good handle on the meaning of the word itself.

As for the healthcare question, so you just want it to be the purview of the states and not the federal government? Ok, any other rulings you're really set on overturning?

(10-30-2017 05:48 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:41 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:31 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:43 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  The irony here is so thick I am cutting it and serving it with a nice Chianti.

What have I done that's ironic?

You say this:

"Well, if you can't justify your vote (for Trump) based on policy then I guess you need to create a unrealistically terrible caricature of your opponent (Clinton) to justify it."

What's ironic is that half the country feels opposite:

"Well, if you can't justify your vote (for Clinton) based on policy then I guess you need to create a unrealistically terrible caricature of your opponent (Trump) to justify it."

Where have I created an unrealistic caricature of Trump?

Really, where did he say you did that? You were the one who took that position though so maybe he's just following it to its logical conclusion. Anyway, are you familiar with the term disingenuous?

dis·in·gen·u·ous
ˌdisənˈjenyo͞oəs/
adjective
adjective: disingenuous

not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
synonyms: insincere, dishonest, untruthful, false, deceitful, duplicitous, lying, mendacious; hypocritical
"that innocent, teary-eyed look is just part of a disingenuous act"

My bad, just misread his post, it happens. I do would argue with his rough statistics on the breakup of Americans views on Trump, but he didn't say what I thought he did.

(10-30-2017 05:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:40 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Are we sure this isn't Fit? He who never answers a question without asking one?

Nah, 08 isn't anywhere near as useful as Fit. At least Fit contributes something to this board. '08's next solid contribution will be his first. He's as vapid as Mpls.

Oh, God help us. That person drove me nuts, simply trying to figure out if she really believed her shtick or if she was just trolling us was tiresome.

(10-30-2017 05:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:40 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Are we sure this isn't Fit? He who never answers a question without asking one?

Nah, 08 isn't anywhere near as useful as Fit. At least Fit contributes something to this board. '08's next solid contribution will be his first. He's as vapid as Mpls.

Do you guys really just want an echo chamber, or would you rather have dissenting voices asking for proof of your claims?