obamacare

[B-Man]

A quick reminder as to why the present administration wants us talking about birth control and hoodies...............................

 

The Obama Jobs Gap is up to 15 million missing jobs

 

 

.

 

Obama said he was confident the Supreme Court "will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law" passed by Congress.

 

As a supposed “law professor” shouldn’t he know how the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution works?

 

He also says Obamacare passed with a “strong majority,” which we all know is a crock of ****, they had to resort to reconciliation to ram it through Congress.

Edited April 2, 2012 by B-Man

[Doc]

A quick reminder as to why the present administration wants us talking about birth control and hoodies...............................

 

The Obama Jobs Gap is up to 15 million missing jobs

 

 

.

 

 

 

As a supposed “law professor” shouldn’t he know how the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution works?

 

He also says Obamacare passed with a “strong majority,” which we all know is a crock of ****, they had to resort to reconciliation to ram it through Congress.

Actually Obamacare passed without reconciliation, after several Senators received kickbacks for their states to secure their votes. However Mitt is committed to repealing Obamacare through reconciliation.

[dayman]

Actually Obamacare passed without reconciliation, after several Senators received kickbacks for their states to secure their votes. However Mitt is committed to repealing Obamacare through reconciliation.

 

But even if CBO continues to play along with the Obamacare-as-deficit-cutter fairy tale, that still doesn’t preclude Congress from repealing it in reconciliation. All the House and Senate would have to do is couple repeal with some strategic cuts in spending (including, perhaps, retention of some cuts that were enacted in Obamacare itself). The total package would then be estimated to cut the deficit and therefore fall well within the normal boundaries of a reconciliation bill.

 

From one of the links at the end of that article.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/280274/reconciliation-option-james-c-capretta?pg=2

 

If Romney wins and all this repeal through reconciliation starts up **** is going to get absolutely brutal. Far more brutal than it has been at the most brutal moments as of late.

Edited April 3, 2012 by dayman

[3rdnlng]

But even if CBO continues to play along with the Obamacare-as-deficit-cutter fairy tale, that still doesn’t preclude Congress from repealing it in reconciliation. All the House and Senate would have to do is couple repeal with some strategic cuts in spending (including, perhaps, retention of some cuts that were enacted in Obamacare itself). The total package would then be estimated to cut the deficit and therefore fall well within the normal boundaries of a reconciliation bill.

 

From one of the links at the end of that article.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/280274/reconciliation-option-james-c-capretta?pg=2

 

If Romney wins and all this repeal through reconciliation starts up **** is going to get absolutely brutal. Far more brutal than it has been at the most brutal moments as of late.

 

 

Out of curiosity, what does **** stand for? You do know why I am asking, don't you?

[dayman]

Out of curiosity, what does **** stand for? You do know why I am asking, don't you?

 

Now that was definitely your most creative post. (seriously made me laugh)

Edited April 3, 2012 by dayman

[3rdnlng]

Now that was definitely your most creative post. (seriously made me laugh)

 

Why don't you answer the question?

[dayman]

Why don't you answer the question?

 

Uh, food? Is that what you want to here?

[ieatcrayonz]

Obama said he was confident the Supreme Court "will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law" passed by Congress.

 

Is that true? They have never overturned a law?

[3rdnlng]

Uh, food? Is that what you want to here?

 

 

So, "food" is now censored on this board? You said you wanted to put something in my mouth and described it as ****. I was just wondering what kind of a person you are. I don't want to "here" anything but what you meant.

Edited April 3, 2012 by 3rdnlng

[dayman]

So, "food" is now censored on this board? You said you wanted to put something in my mouth and described it as ****. I was just wondering what kind of a person you are. I don't want to "here" anything but what you meant.

 

Well if I eat crap and poop food as you suggested before I offered to place food in your mouth by ****ing, then the confusion over the censor becomes apparent. My apologies for being unclear I have confused myself.

[Doc]

But even if CBO continues to play along with the Obamacare-as-deficit-cutter fairy tale, that still doesn’t preclude Congress from repealing it in reconciliation. All the House and Senate would have to do is couple repeal with some strategic cuts in spending (including, perhaps, retention of some cuts that were enacted in Obamacare itself). The total package would then be estimated to cut the deficit and therefore fall well within the normal boundaries of a reconciliation bill.

 

From one of the links at the end of that article.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/280274/reconciliation-option-james-c-capretta?pg=2

 

If Romney wins and all this repeal through reconciliation starts up **** is going to get absolutely brutal. Far more brutal than it has been at the most brutal moments as of late.

The die was cast 2 years ago, dayman. Ain't no turning back now.

[3rdnlng]

Well if I eat crap and poop food as you suggested before I offered to place food in your mouth by ****ing, then the confusion over the censor becomes apparent. My apologies for being unclear I have confused myself.

 

 

I "here" you, you are confused. I don't need you to feed me the schit that comes out of your mouth. Just please, quit being such a whiney little B word. That position is well covered "hear" already. It's difficult when someone claims they are "Dayman" (still could be a typo) and appears devoid of anything connected to a man to think of you as anything but a ****.

Edited April 3, 2012 by 3rdnlng

[dayman]

I "here" you, you are confused. I don't need you to feed me the schit that comes out of your mouth. Just please, quit being such a whiney little B word. That position is well covered "hear" already. It's difficult when someone claims they are "Dayman" (still could be a typo) and appears devoid of anything connected to a man to think of you as anything but a ****.

 

Lighten up for Christ's sake. My God. lol and here I thought you had a sense of humor

[3rdnlng]

Lighten up for Christ's sake. My God. lol and here I thought you had a sense of humor

 

 

You sucked the worm off the hook without even seeing the hook. Congratulations, you are now a 99%er victim, or just used to sucking. Either way, I'm not suggesting putting anything in your mouth.

[B-Man]

“SCOTUS struck down 53 federal statutes from 1981-2005."

 

 

For a guy who graduated from Harvard Law, Barack Obama is not really very well versed on his law or his legal history. Speaking out today about the Supreme Court’s review of Obamacare, Obama offered this stunning and completely ahistorical nugget:

 

[

i]Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress[/i].

 

 

Look, I’m not here to debate the finer points of Marbury v. Madison with anyone, but the fact remains that since that decision was handed down over 200 years ago, it has not exactly been “unprecedented and extraordinary” for the Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by Congress (no matter the size of the majority). In fact, it happens all the time. That is the entire point of the doctrine of judicial review, first announced in Marbury and affirmed without serious challenge ever since.

 

I would seriously like to know, and I hope the press gets Obama on the record on this – is it President Obama’s contention that the Supreme Court’s only role in reviewing legislation is to double-check the count on the roll call vote to make sure that a majority in fact voted for the law and to check the President’s signature for possible forgery? Because, I mean, if that’s what we’re going to go back to, I’m open to having that discussion but we are going to have to figure out what to do with several hundred SCOTUS decisions that have taken a decidedly different view.

 

Of course, in making these comments Obama is exposing himself yet again as a cynical hack who is devoid of anything resembling shame. In 2003, the United States Congress passed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 by substantially larger margins than Obamacare. When the Supreme Court refused to strike down this law, which was passed by a “democratically elected Congress,” then-Senator Obama threw an absolute hissy fit about the fact that the Supreme Court had upheld the clear will of Congress (and the vast majority of the American people).

 

However, when it’s his own legislation at stake, Obama seems suddenly ready to go back and undo pretty much every Supreme Court precedent over the last 200 years in order to strip the Court of their power to rule on any question other than whether the roll call was tallied properly. The most galling thing of all is that if any Republican had said this, the media would be busily trying to paint them as an uneducated rube who was unaware of Marbury v. Madison - when Obama says it, it’s presented as a thoughtful defense of his brilliant law

 

RedState

 

Obama’s remark is the kind of bullying tactic we’ve come to expect from him — the only way he knows how to react to any real or potential discomfiture.

 

And that’s because this is a man who has never heard the word “no.” All along his glide path to power, as he was handed off from one enabler to another, he’s been told he’s the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being anyone has ever known, and he erupts in petulant frustration when reality intrudes upon his narcissistic fantasy.

 

.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

If the court strikes down mandates, does that mean the mandate for buying auto insurance is also unconstitutional?

[GG]

If the court strikes down mandates, does that mean the mandate for buying auto insurance is also unconstitutional?

 

No you moron, because there's no mandate in you buying a car.

 

Idiot.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

No you moron, because there's no mandate in you buying a car.

 

Idiot.

Wow, I thought you stupid tools would already have something of an intelligent answer for this. No one has obvioulsy told you what to say yet. No, its the same thing, stupid, the government is forcing you to buy something if you simply want to own a certain type of property. Tyranny!

 

GG, you are really dumb

[GG]

Wow, I thought you stupid tools would already have something of an intelligent answer for this. No one has obvioulsy told you what to say yet. No, its the same thing, stupid, the government is forcing you to buy something if you simply want to own a certain type of property. Tyranny!

 

GG, you are really dumb

 

Your trolling is weakening. You can't even play stupid right anymore.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Your trolling is weakening. You can't even play stupid right anymore.

You've been checkmated. So easy. You better hope help arrives soon. You could never stand on your own and argue, you are just a pathetic little tag along. Tom, come bail this jerk out!