Isn't it awesome to be ruled over?

[Mac1958]

There are many in America who would be fine with being "ruled".

There is a lefty poster here who admits that he'd like to see a "benevolent dictator". Which, of course, seems like a fairly obvious contradiction in terms.

Not in the slightest, you were raised by one, who set the rules and spanked you when you broke them...

So you equate/compare a head of state with a parent.

Wow, okay. This place is always fascinating.

.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There are many in America who would be fine with being "ruled".

There is a lefty poster here who admits that he'd like to see a "benevolent dictator". Which, of course, seems like a fairly obvious contradiction in terms.

Not in the slightest, you were raised by one, who set the rules and spanked you when you broke them...

So you equate/compare a head of state with a parent.

Wow, okay. This place is always fascinating.

.

In a nation such as ours, a national of literal fucking stupid children, that is what is called for.

See the morons who think it's You reap what you Sew, and that the only normal sex is Tab A in Slot B. Makes my head hurt just to think about it.

 

[Mac1958]

There are many in America who would be fine with being "ruled".

There is a lefty poster here who admits that he'd like to see a "benevolent dictator". Which, of course, seems like a fairly obvious contradiction in terms.

Not in the slightest, you were raised by one, who set the rules and spanked you when you broke them...

So you equate/compare a head of state with a parent.

Wow, okay. This place is always fascinating.

.

In a nation such as ours, a national of literal fucking stupid children, that is what is called for...

Any examples of people you'd like to see as a dictator here?

.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There are many in America who would be fine with being "ruled".

There is a lefty poster here who admits that he'd like to see a "benevolent dictator". Which, of course, seems like a fairly obvious contradiction in terms.

Not in the slightest, you were raised by one, who set the rules and spanked you when you broke them...

So you equate/compare a head of state with a parent.

Wow, okay. This place is always fascinating.

.

In a nation such as ours, a national of literal fucking stupid children, that is what is called for...

Any examples of people you'd like to see as a dictator here?

.

The guy who coined the phrase "No good deed left unpunished" and Noam Chomsky for starters. Obama and either Clinton would do in a pinch. All you have to be is sane with a decent head and a decent heart. It's not a difficult job since people who get in the way get sent off to the farm...

 

[IsaacNewton]

Lots of arm flailing the last couple days.

The Constitution is still in place and the checks and balances are still in place. The Congress can impeach and remove Supreme Court justices just as they can impeach a president. The conduct has to rise to the same level of 'high crimes and misdemeanors'.

Its up to the people to pressure Congress to take such action. So if there aren't enough people to demand it then it won't happen.

By far the decisions that corporations are people and money is speech are much more damaging to the democracy. The Republican Party had no problem with these rulings and in fact welcomed them because they get huge money from Adelson and the Koch Brothers.

 

[Nosmo King]

Where were the constantly irritated Conservatives when the Citizens United decision came down?

You agree with the decision in CU or in this latest decision? I am not sure of your point. What difference does any other bill make on whether or not the SCOTUS acted wrongly in this decision?

SCOTUS acted wrongly in Citizens United. SCOTUS rightly upheld the exchange subsidies in the ACA case. But the howling coming from the Right Wing smacks of petulance at best, and a conspiracy to commit treason at worst.

 

[HenryBHough]

So we have this "president" who "rules" us.

Now one might only wish that he, like the person honored below, might wind up his act by snatching up his suitcase and departing:



Oh, wait, THAT clown is white......

 

[gallantwarrior]

Of course you are referring to the SCOTUS ruling. Not a whole lot different then a dictator. They made law without the consent of the governed. Now congress is giving even more of their power to the POTUS, So we have the SCOTUS rubber stamping whatever the government wants and the government is now being run by the executive branch so really it seems to be getting not that far from a dictatorship except in name only. Bush was right, it is easier being a dictator.

So much for "separation of powers" or "checks and balances." Nice idea, but they are dead and have been for some time.

There seems to be an effort afoot to consolidate as much power as possible to the executive branch. So, I say let's just eliminate the legislative and judicial branches, since they have become superfluous.

Just think of the budget cuts!

 

[IsaacNewton]

So we have this "president" who "rules" us.

Now one might only wish that he, like the person honored below, might wind up his act by snatching up his suitcase and departing:



Oh, wait, THAT clown is white......

Hey, cool song and video.

I don't think it applies to politics but very cool.

 

[gallantwarrior]

That is not how things are supposed to work Lil' Joe. You likely know nothing about the Constitution and your post appears to prove it, but again you are not alone.

Seems to me it worked just the way it was supposed to. A law got passed with a certain intent. The court upheld the law as it was intended.

You want to yank health insurance from 10 million people, then go ahead and run a candidate who promises to do that. See how far you get.

You miss the point. The Court is charged with determining whether the law is Constitutional, not what they feel was intended. Of course, I await your lame-assed "welfare clause" strawman. I have never found one damned thing in the Constitution that mandates the Federal government must provide an profit for insurance companies or should force some people to pay for others' benefits.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Once again you totally missed the point.

Justice Roberts rewrote the law on his own initiative.

THAT is the problem here

Well, no, he didn't. Clearly, the intent of the people who wrote it was to have exchanges.

He simply ruled on what the intent was.

He's not supposed t rule on intent.

 

[auditor0007]

Of course you are referring to the SCOTUS ruling. Not a whole lot different then a dictator. They made law without the consent of the governed. Now congress is giving even more of their power to the POTUS, So we have the SCOTUS rubber stamping whatever the government wants and the government is now being run by the executive branch so really it seems to be getting not that far from a dictatorship except in name only. Bush was right, it is easier being a dictator.

If everything were left up to mob rule, then we would still have segregated schools and Blacks would not be permitted to eat in the same restaurants as whites or even use the same bathrooms.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There are all kinds of Prog web sites by the sheep at Moveon.org and their ilk calling for the impeachment of Roberts.

They're too fucking stupid to realize he's their greatest secret weapon

 

[Stephanie]

That's EXACTLY what has happened in the last two days.

first with OdicatorCare and now this

and the people are so stupid they don't EVEN realize what they HAVE GIVEN UP

 

[kwc57]

Once again you totally missed the point.

Justice Roberts rewrote the law on his own initiative.

THAT is the problem here

Well, no, he didn't. Clearly, the intent of the people who wrote it was to have exchanges.

He simply ruled on what the intent was.

That isn't their job. Did you flunk your civics class?

 

[Freewill]

That's EXACTLY what has happened in the last two days.

first with OdicatorCare and now this

and the people are so stupid they don't EVEN realize what they HAVE GIVEN UP

I haven't given up anything, it was stolen.

 

[JoeB131]

So you freely admit the court acted as an activist court and ruled not on the letter of the law but some bogus claim of intent. The intent of the law when passed was that the states set up exchanges or suffer monetary loss JUST AS YOU SAID. If the situation were reversed you would be swallowing your tongue in outrage. If they rule against gay marriage, don't worry they won't, I am quite sure your view of the SCOTUS will change quickly.

You were perfectly fine with SCOTUS on Citizen's United and Heller, two truly AWFUL rulings that overruled the will of the people.

Congress could have fixed this. They didn't so someone else had to.

Done.

 

[JoeB131]

That isn't their job. Did you flunk your civics class?

No, did you? The Supreme Court makes law all the time. Deal with it.

 

[JoeB131]

You miss the point. The Court is charged with determining whether the law is Constitutional, not what they feel was intended. Of course, I await your lame-assed "welfare clause" strawman. I have never found one damned thing in the Constitution that mandates the Federal government must provide an profit for insurance companies or should force some people to pay for others' benefits.

Who cares what is in the "best a bunch of slave rapists could come up with" document? I don't.

Point is, YOU LOSE!!!!!

Really, all I care about.

Oh, yeah. Gay Marriage.

YOU LOSE AGAIN!!!

And we're banning the Confederate Flag. This is truly an AWESOME week.

 

[Unedited]

Wouldn't it be easier just to nominate people who can make up rules for as they go? This way we won't have to mess with that sticky quagmire thing known as democracy. In democracy people have control over their government and that is a bad thing because the masses are to stupid to know how to run something as complicated as a country. We should only let the select run it without any regards for the people's opinion. These people will get replaced but wait....hold on...the replacement process itseldpf will become tainted with the people's input. We should just have their heirs inherit their position of power so that their genius will live on. I know this sounds like a monarchy but it's not...oh...who am I kidding...we should just be ruled forever by the oligarchy. As long as we have good kings who don't infringe on our liberties to much then I am ok with that. I will bow and show them that I have elevated their social status by addressing them with titles because it is their right to subjugate me in every way. I don't know who gave them that right but if it is their right then so be it. I don't mind being someone else's surf anyways.

The Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves.