If universal health care is so great...

[JakeStarkey]

What do I not understand? What is there in it that supports your position? What is your position weasel? Why is it so difficult for you to answer these questions when you claim it is so crystal clear?

You are cut when you get angry, Little Weasel. We all know what your opinion is. We all know that it is just your opinion. All of the necessary questions have been answered. What don't you understand?

You know what weasel? I get it now. Your problem is a fundamental lack of understanding of the english language. The one part of the constitution you did attempt to cite way back had ZERO to do with what we we're talking about. You can't explain what my opinion is or why it is actually an opinion. I'm dealing with an intellectual neophyte on top of being a weasel that won't provide evidence or have the integrity to answer direct questions.

Oh, Little Weasel, you truly don't understand your opinion is only your opinion, binding on no one. Of course you can have your opinion on the Constitution, but that means nothing here whatsoever.

You have not been able to formulate an argument here that merits rebuttal. It fails on summary examination. You are not expert, thus . . .

 

[Bern80]

You have not been able to formulate an argument here that merits rebuttal. It fails on summary examination. You are not expert, thus . . .

You will have to pardon me if, coming from you, I don't put much credence in that. You've been a broken record for a few pages now. The evidence of those pages shows that YOU are the one that can't back up shit. The only one here projecting an opinion with zero backing is you. This entire thread is proof of that. I've provided plenty of evidence backing my position. You have provided ZERO for yours and you have provided ZERO explaining why I am wrong. You're wracking up the accurate labels quite quickly now weasel. You can officially add hypocrite.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have proved that you mistake your opinion as substantive evidence. You have fail here from the beginning. The interp is what SCOTUS say it is, and you can say, "I disagree", and the reply of the world is, "No one cares, kiddo."

 

[Bern80]

You have proved that you mistake your opinion as substantive evidence. You have fail here from the beginning. The interp is what SCOTUS say it is, and you can say, "I disagree", and the reply of the world is, "No one cares, kiddo."

The FACT is weasel the only person here who as presented an unsubstatiated opinion here is YOU. YOU are the one of the opinion that it is okay to ignore the constitution and that framers intent is irrelevant. As far as ther SCOTUS goes Problem is I haven't said I disagree with them on anything in this thread. I certainly haven't said I disagree with them on ruling on what we are talking about. Why? Because they haven't rendered an opinion on it one way or the other. This is just another diversion of yours to avoid having to actually come up with a credible argument. We're not even on the same wavelength at this point. I'm arguing one subject and you are making counter arguments to something else entirely as if it actually means something. I will help you.......again.

The argument is:

The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to provide health care or require people to purchase it under threat of taxation.

Now let's ruile out what you've tried so far:

Article VI has ZERO to do with this.

citing that SCOTUS interprets the constitution has zero to do with this because they haven't rendered an opinion on it yet.

Stop being a weasel and come up with some original argument that actually pertains to the subject.