Skip to main content

View Diary: The ACA ruling: What the Court will decide (168 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Said no such thing (0+ / 0-)

    and your commentary is such a transparent FAIL as to be pathetic.

    Clue - avoid the obvious rightwing squawking points.

    Both parties are beholden to their corporate sponsors. The Democratic Party deigns to throw us a few bones from the table on which to gnaw and squabble over, but it's just kabuki.

    by ozsea1 on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 11:41:37 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Of course you did, even if you do want to weenie (0+ / 0-)

      out now.

      That doesn't make me willing to stretch the Constitution to impossible limits or give the government even more power to limit my personal freedom.
      You called that right-wing hyperbole.

      Let's review:

      This is a case where the government wishes to force people into buying the products of private companies.

      That does stretch the commerce clause further than it's ever been stretched before and it does limit personal freedom.

      By your statement, you clearly find it ridiculous that anybody would object to over-intrusive government.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 11:48:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let's review some more (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        indie17, vcmvo2, Danali

        QUACK QUACK

        This is a case where the government wishes to force people into buying the products of private companies.
        Ever hear of plenary power? States do this "mandate stuff" all the time. Oh noes, the abuse!!! See, I'm being oppressed! I have to do something I don't wanna !!!

        Yet, why is it only now that you crawl out from under your rock to squeal about this?

        QUACK QUACK

        That does stretch the commerce clause further than it's ever been stretched before and it does limit personal freedom.
        QUACK QUACK
        By your statement, you clearly find it ridiculous that anybody would object to over-intrusive government.
        No, I object to anyone that would troll this site with rightwing squawking points.

        So please....

        Both parties are beholden to their corporate sponsors. The Democratic Party deigns to throw us a few bones from the table on which to gnaw and squabble over, but it's just kabuki.

        by ozsea1 on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 12:31:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ignorance really is bliss, isn't it? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jerry J

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 12:35:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, I don't know of an (0+ / 0-)

          example where States do this.  I know of plenty of examples where they say if you choose to do A, then you must do B.

          You still have a choice.

          •  Mandatory auto insurance (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            vcmvo2, Danali, Solarian

            You choose to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways, then you must purchase auto insurance and carry proof of same in your car.

            Both parties are beholden to their corporate sponsors. The Democratic Party deigns to throw us a few bones from the table on which to gnaw and squabble over, but it's just kabuki.

            by ozsea1 on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 03:05:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site