dayman

Can't argue w/ ignorance.

LOL calm down man. You are on the internet first and foremost, and also can you imagine if I had the attitude you do? If people so much as say an "Obama neutral" comment on this board they're roasted yet you don't see me crying every time someone disagrees with me (often in snarky ways). Take a breath, it's ok, I don't mean to attack you personally or anything take it all w/ a grain of salt. Anyway, the presumption that legislation is constitutional is actually a form of judicial restraint and is important to the "checks and balances" that you think is so blown to hell. Basically your problem (as I see it) is our society isn't functioning according to the way you thing the constitution says it should. That's fine. You are probably wrong, but that's fine anyway. Either way the truth is most people running around waiving a constitution in people's faces at Tea Party rallies could use a nice crash course in constitutional law. Especially since many hot button issues prompt the far right to go off about federalism, First Amendment, and separation of powers principles....you would think they would take time to educate themselves on what those things really mean over the course of American history.

Haha, no. Not the same, and not what I was talking about. Gingrich is wrong (even though he knows he's wrong b/c he knows how it works he's just running his mouth to mislead the people), as those procedures (repealing law) are explicitly laid out in the Constitution. As for commerce clause jurisprudence, it's another story.

Believe that they didn't foresee it. The administration and drafting member of congress surely foresaw these problems, had counsel, and decided to go forward with it anyway because they obviously felt that politically/legally they could withstand said challenges. Haha, I didn't coin that. That is true. You can remain ignorant to blatantly simple and true aspects of law though. Feel free. A simple google search will do you good.

I feel bad for you if you honestly believe that. Also, you do realize Obama doesn't sit down at night and write the Bill himself right?

Fair point. But if there's one thing Obama & Co. will know/be ready for it's the healthcare plan. So I wouldn't go waltzing around making claims I can't back up in that arena if I were Romney. That's one area where the Obama camp will actively seek to clarify, explain, and debunk any and all claims. The real truth though is if gets by the SC then what is Romney going to do? Nobody expects the Dems to lose the Senate. It's the law. Contrary to what would-be Emperor Gingrich claims, no Repub President can just "sign an executive order day 1 repealing Obama care."

Bunch of geniuses crowding our state prisons.

Shall I **** in your mouth?

Did not realize the elderly were so split last election. Either way if he can't put forth concrete examples of what Medicare benefits will be destroyed then I don't see how he's going to turn this into anything significant.

Yes very good 3rdnlng. And food goes in mouth, poop comes out butt.

Well Federal Authority actually exists. So maybe the "liberal zealots" worshiping it are misguided but at least they aren't insane.

So what's the point here? That he'll stir up a bunch of scare tactics concerning Medicare just to secure the Medicare vote that would rather die than vote Obama anyway?

I was just being facetious w/ that post

True farm team would turn my interest from 0% to 100%. That would be exciting.

Haha. If there's one thing Palin can do it's generate a little ratings.

I did an independent analysis and confirmed the study has proven beyond a doubt that the conservative ideas are the primordial default in our lizard brains and all the liberal ideas are heightened, evolved thinking that should rule society.

The Obama guy?

You won't. Can't be predicted honestly. At least if one guy says one thing there is another saying the opposite. My uninformed opinion.

I'm real concerned about that. Thanks for the heads up.

I support this article. haha...if for nothing else than to see the most conservative of conservative flip out

The additional obligations, when combined with existing Medicare and Medicaid funding shortfalls, leaves taxpayers on the hook for an extra $82 trillion over the next 75 years. LOL Talk about a useful article.

Let's go BOOZE! LET'S GO BOOZE!

Based on the questioning you would think that this court would have opposed income tax, social security, etc. I'm sure if they want to they'll ignore Wickard.

rooster sizes?

It's just bad for the average person there's a veil of propaganda over the eyes of the voting body that votes for tort reform. When you are injured you get a day in court to make your case and an arbitrary cap won't provide justice (and isn't constitutional) when every case is different. This is how the court's work, this is a question of fact for the jury to decide. Tort reform is not the answer. "It'll save costs though!"...well ya...save costs in what manner? Taking money away from an injured plaintiff who made their case and a jury of their peers awarded them a set amount they found compensated them for their injury. That isn't the way we want to save on costs. People before profits. People's rights before corporate lobbying. If that makes me a leftist nut to you then I'm ok with that. EDIT: Also most studies show the impact damage awards actually have on medical costs in negligible. It's more the pay-for-service system and patients higher service expectations than defensive medicine. Also, the concept of "frivolous lawsuits" being out of control is complete propaganda. Tort reform is simply an industry trying to limit individuals ability to obtain fair compensation for their injuries.