Question for Liberals

Does it bother you that everyone invovled lied about Obamacare


  • Total voters
    3
  • Poll closed .

P@triot

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2011
60,915
11,384
2,060
United States
Considering the Obama Administration and every supporter of his bill insisted, on record, for over a year that this was not a tax - are liberals upset with this blatant lie or do the ends justify the means regardless?
 
Considering the Obama Administration and every supporter of his bill insisted, on record, for over a year that this was not a tax - are liberals upset with this blatant lie or do the ends justify the means regardless?

I plan on continuing to buy health insurance, so I don't quite see what tax you are talking about. Now for you freeloaders who don't want to pay for insurance and want those who do to subsidize you, well, tough fucking shit.
 
Considering the Obama Administration and every supporter of his bill insisted, on record, for over a year that this was not a tax - are liberals upset with this blatant lie or do the ends justify the means regardless?

I plan on continuing to buy health insurance, so I don't quite see what tax you are talking about. Now for you freeloaders who don't want to pay for insurance and want those who do to subsidize you, well, tough fucking shit.

It was only upheld because the SCOTUS said the federal government does have the right to impose taxes after the Obama Administration testified before them as much. However, that was after almost two years of claiming their bill was NOT a tax (so they could get it approved through Congress).

It's a pretty agregious lie - tell Congress it's not to push it through, tells SCOTUS it is to keep it from being ruled unconstitutional. The question becomes, which is it? Is the bill a tax or is it not a tax?

And this is a poll to see if the liberals have a problem with the lie or if they feel the ends justifies the means.
 
Considering the Obama Administration and every supporter of his bill insisted, on record, for over a year that this was not a tax - are liberals upset with this blatant lie or do the ends justify the means regardless?

I plan on continuing to buy health insurance, so I don't quite see what tax you are talking about. Now for you freeloaders who don't want to pay for insurance and want those who do to subsidize you, well, tough fucking shit.

It was only upheld because the SCOTUS said the federal government does have the right to impose taxes after the Obama Administration testified before them as much. However, that was after almost two years of claiming their bill was NOT a tax (so they could get it approved through Congress).

It's a pretty agregious lie - tell Congress it's not to push it through, tells SCOTUS it is to keep it from being ruled unconstitutional. The question becomes, which is it? Is the bill a tax or is it not a tax?

And this is a poll to see if the liberals have a problem with the lie or if they feel the ends justifies the means.

How could it have been a lie when SCOTUS had not yet ruled on it?
 
People who can afford insurance yet still don't get it deserve a stupidity tax. We tax other forms of stupid, self-destructive, anti-social behavior such as drinking, gambling, and smoking, our conservative friends should be used to it.
 
I must sheepishly admit I feel really stupid right now. When I posted this, it seemed like such a straight forward, simple yes or no question. But everyone is just dancing around it. Then I realized, you can't have a simple conversation with a liberal. They contradict themselves, so you can't expect them not to get confused when someone else is talking. :lol:
 
Considering the Obama Administration and every supporter of his bill insisted, on record, for over a year that this was not a tax - are liberals upset with this blatant lie or do the ends justify the means regardless?

It was never the Government’s position that the provision was not a tax:

The Government advances two theories for the proposition that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate. First, the Government argues that Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause. Under that theory, Congress may order individuals to buy health insurance because the failure to do so affects interstate commerce, and could undercut the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms. Second, the Government argues that if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nonetheless uphold it as an exercise of Congress’s power to tax. According to the Government, even if Congress lacks the power to direct individuals to buy insurance, the only effect of the individual mandate is to raise taxes on those who do not do so, and thus the law may be upheld as a tax.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

The CJ didn't just pull 'tax' out of thin air.
 
I must sheepishly admit I feel really stupid right now. When I posted this, it seemed like such a straight forward, simple yes or no question. But everyone is just dancing around it. Then I realized, you can't have a simple conversation with a liberal. They contradict themselves, so you can't expect them not to get confused when someone else is talking. :lol:

You're just getting pissy because your failed troll thread is blowing up in your face.
 
I must sheepishly admit I feel really stupid right now. When I posted this, it seemed like such a straight forward, simple yes or no question. But everyone is just dancing around it. Then I realized, you can't have a simple conversation with a liberal. They contradict themselves, so you can't expect them not to get confused when someone else is talking. :lol:

You should feel stupid offering a crappy push poll like this and expecting anything else, besides, no one even mentioned this angle before today, new-found respect for Roberts just for coming up with it.
 
Considering the Obama Administration and every supporter of his bill insisted, on record, for over a year that this was not a tax - are liberals upset with this blatant lie or do the ends justify the means regardless?

I plan on continuing to buy health insurance, so I don't quite see what tax you are talking about. Now for you freeloaders who don't want to pay for insurance and want those who do to subsidize you, well, tough fucking shit.

It was only upheld because the SCOTUS said the federal government does have the right to impose taxes after the Obama Administration testified before them as much. However, that was after almost two years of claiming their bill was NOT a tax (so they could get it approved through Congress).

It's a pretty agregious lie - tell Congress it's not to push it through, tells SCOTUS it is to keep it from being ruled unconstitutional. The question becomes, which is it? Is the bill a tax or is it not a tax?

And this is a poll to see if the liberals have a problem with the lie or if they feel the ends justifies the means.

Do you have a link or any proof that the Obama administration "testified before them as much?"

As far as I know the tax idea came strictly from Roberts.

On the one hand, he said, the law’s requirement that most Americans obtain health insurance or pay a penalty could be justified under Congress’s power to levy taxes. The four liberals agreed, though they would have preferred to sustain the law as a regulation of commerce.

But the law could not be justified in that way, the chief justice went on, and here he was joined by the court’s four more conservative members.

Chief Justice Roberts suggested that even he did not find the tax argument especially plausible. But he quoted Justice Holmes to explain why it was good enough. “As between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid,” Justice Holmes wrote, “our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the act.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/politics/a-defining-move-for-chief-justice-roberts.html
 
I must sheepishly admit I feel really stupid right now. When I posted this, it seemed like such a straight forward, simple yes or no question. But everyone is just dancing around it. Then I realized, you can't have a simple conversation with a liberal. They contradict themselves, so you can't expect them not to get confused when someone else is talking. :lol:

It's a lovely poll, along the lines of 'are you still beating your wife.' I'm not sure why nobody just jumped right in and answered the question.
 
Look at the bright side Rott, as a tax, the Senate can kill Obamacare with 50 votes (plus the VP) along with the House and the President. The Democrats can't filibuster budget reconciliation. Thus the tax "penalty" can be lowered to zero dollars.

Republicans and Independents ought to be pretty highly motivated come November.
 
Considering the Obama Administration and every supporter of his bill insisted, on record, for over a year that this was not a tax - are liberals upset with this blatant lie or do the ends justify the means regardless?

It was never the Government’s position that the provision was not a tax:

The Government advances two theories for the proposition that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate. First, the Government argues that Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause. Under that theory, Congress may order individuals to buy health insurance because the failure to do so affects interstate commerce, and could undercut the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms. Second, the Government argues that if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nonetheless uphold it as an exercise of Congress’s power to tax. According to the Government, even if Congress lacks the power to direct individuals to buy insurance, the only effect of the individual mandate is to raise taxes on those who do not do so, and thus the law may be upheld as a tax.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
The CJ didn't just pull 'tax' out of thin air.


This part of their argument only took up fifteen minutes of time and 50 lines in the transcripts.
It was an after thought
 
I like it as a tax. Opens the door for a full single payer universal health care system based on an income tax on all forms of income. Suddenly Medicare would be the whole system. And we could adjust the tax as we went along to pay the full amount spent.
 
I like it as a tax. Opens the door for a full single payer universal health care system based on an income tax on all forms of income. Suddenly Medicare would be the whole system. And we could adjust the tax as we went along to pay the full amount spent.

Finally, our tax dollars will be spent wisely, with diligent care and not be wasted due to fraud, abuse and criminal stupidity. (I hope the turnip truck came to a complete stop before you fell off)

:razz:
 
Look at the bright side Rott, as a tax, the Senate can kill Obamacare with 50 votes (plus the VP) along with the House and the President. The Democrats can't filibuster budget reconciliation. Thus the tax "penalty" can be lowered to zero dollars.

Republicans and Independents ought to be pretty highly motivated come November.

Yes, God forbid we penalize someone who chooses not to purchase health insurance and expects everyone who does to pick up the tab for them, sometimes to the tune of millions of dollars. You cons are a trip; all you talk about is self-reliance and personal responsibility, then you mooch off of everyone else who pays for their health insurance or you support the right of anyone who wants to mooch to do so. It's the hypocrisy of conservatives that made me leave the Republican Party.
 
Look at the bright side Rott, as a tax, the Senate can kill Obamacare with 50 votes (plus the VP) along with the House and the President. The Democrats can't filibuster budget reconciliation. Thus the tax "penalty" can be lowered to zero dollars.

Republicans and Independents ought to be pretty highly motivated come November.

Yes, God forbid we penalize someone who chooses not to purchase health insurance and expects everyone who does to pick up the tab for them, sometimes to the tune of millions of dollars. You cons are a trip; all you talk about is self-reliance and personal responsibility, then you mooch off of everyone else who pays for their health insurance or you support the right of anyone who wants to mooch to do so. It's the hypocrisy of conservatives that made me leave the Republican Party.

So you assume that one who does not participate in gambling, which is all that insurance is, is somehow criminal?
What a gangster you are.

Why is it that one who can take care of themselves is deemed "criminal" while those who make fortunes from human misery are legitimate?

You clearly have your morals backwards, or you have no morals at all.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top