The battle for the "Big Fuckin Deal" begins tomorrow!

[Synthaholic]

I told you I had a Masters- can you get ANYTHING right?

Can't keep your story line intact. MY how thw worm has turned.

If he can't get his story straight, then you should have no problem linking to where he said he was a PhD. Right?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I told you I had a Masters- can you get ANYTHING right?

Can't keep your story line intact. MY how thw worm has turned.

If he can't get his story straight, then you should have no problem linking to where he said he was a PhD. Right?

One retard troll defending another, color me shocked.

 

[Synthaholic]

So, Syn, are you for ACA? These polls that show 70% against ACA are 30% those who are for single payer...Well Holland and Switz are mainly private, and are just as good.....arrrgh...lol.

Go to the 8:35 mark and watch just a minute of this:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBrLzPgqwfA]Bill Maher but i am not wrong Country First - YouTube[/ame]


He's right. The people are idiots. So I could care less what the polls say when it comes to fact-based, data-driven issues.

 

[Synthaholic]

Can't keep your story line intact. MY how thw worm has turned.

If he can't get his story straight, then you should have no problem linking to where he said he was a PhD. Right?

One retard troll defending another, color me shocked.

So you are pussying out again, Rebecca?

Holy shit, you really are a coward.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The problem is, if struck down or repealed, it won’t be replaced with anything, not in this hostile political climate.

And millions will go without health insurance, just as planned by the GOP.

In addition, the Act’s more popular and beneficial components – such as guaranteed coverage for pre-existing conditions and coverage for adult children up to age 26 – will also be lost.

Millions will go without insurance even with Ocare.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

So, Syn, are you for ACA? These polls that show 70% against ACA are 30% those who are for single payer...Well Holland and Switz are mainly private, and are just as good.....arrrgh...lol.

Go to the 8:35 mark and watch just a minute of this:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBrLzPgqwfA]Bill Maher but i am not wrong Country First - YouTube[/ame]


He's right. The people are idiots. So I could care less what the polls say when it comes to fact-based, data-driven issues.

And Bill Maher is the leader of the idiots. Feel sorry for that guy.

 

[Conservative]

I told you I had a Masters- can you get ANYTHING right?

A Masters in fucktardery, maybe, nothing else.

 

[Dragon]

As I'm sure you're aware, Madison is replying here to anti-federalist claims that the general welfare clause might be interpreted as a broad general power to spend, and not just a constraint on the power to tax. They were having exactly the same argument we are.

No, that's not true. Look again. Madison is arguing, not that the first clause doesn't grant a general power to spend, but that it doesn't grant a general power to "legislate in all possible cases'." And of course he is correct in this.

Madison points out that, IF there were no enumeration of specific congressional powers present, then there might be some cause to assume that the allowable reasons for taxation amounted to 'implied powers', "though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases."

Exactly. And that is what he was talking about. A general power to spend is not a power to "legislate in all possible cases." A power to "promote the general welfare" would be such a power, but a power to "lay and collect taxes . . . to promote the general welfare" is not. But your contention that the power to tax does not imply the power to spend is NOT addressed in this article. It simply does not come up. When he lists specific abuses of the power, in all cases (destroying freedom of the press, destroying the right of trial by jury, regulating the "course of descents" which I judge to mean inheritance, regulating the forms of conveyances) he is not talking about the government going overboard with spending money. He is talking about it exercising a general power to legislate in all possible cases.

Those who have taken this article of the Federalist as a defense of a restricted view of the federal government's spending power have clearly misunderstood Madison's words. That is simply not what he was talking about.

I'm not calling into question your integrity in making the argument, but I do doubt Hamilton's, given that he essentially argued it both ways.

Not sure what you're talking about here, but I'm also not inclined to defend Alexander Hamilton, who is not exactly one of my favorite historical figures. Be that as it may, I stand by what I said above regarding Mr. Madison's words at this time.

 

[Conservative]

I'm a retired teacher, numbnuts.

gym teacher, maybe.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If he can't get his story straight, then you should have no problem linking to where he said he was a PhD. Right?

One retard troll defending another, color me shocked.

So you are pussying out again, Rebecca?

Holy shit, you really are a coward.

You see there's a difference. he never made that claim to me so I don't know

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If God forbid but Allah willing it's upheld, next time our side wins we will use it to make Liberals buy and read a Bible

 

[Synthaholic]

I'm a retired teacher, numbnuts.

gym teacher, maybe.

What a dumbfuck you are.

 

[Synthaholic]

One retard troll defending another, color me shocked.

So you are pussying out again, Rebecca?

Holy shit, you really are a coward.

You see there's a difference. he never made that claim to me so I don't know

A difference between a Masters degree and a PhD? Yes. There is a difference.


Dumbass.

 

[dblack]

As I'm sure you're aware, Madison is replying here to anti-federalist claims that the general welfare clause might be interpreted as a broad general power to spend, and not just a constraint on the power to tax. They were having exactly the same argument we are.

No, that's not true. Look again. Madison is arguing, not that the first clause doesn't grant a general power to spend, but that it doesn't grant a general power to "legislate in all possible cases'." And of course he is correct in this.

I realize that you're convinced that a broad general power to spend is not the same thing as the power to "legislate in all possible cases", but the anti-federalists weren't. They were worried that the exact same argument you're making here would be used to expand federal power. Madison was addressing those concerns by insisting that such an interpretation was an obvious 'misconstruction'.

And that is what he was talking about. A general power to spend is not a power to "legislate in all possible cases."

Well, this is the core of our disagreement. The power to spend (if not limited to the scope of an enumerated power) amounts to a broad general power and that's exactly how its been used. You've made the case yourself: by applying the necessary and proper clause recursively onto the supposed "implied power to spend" you can justify passing any and all laws required to effect that spending. As nonsensical as this sounds (to me), it's the prevailing precedent, and just as the anti-federalists feared it's resulted in a radical expansion of federal power.

 

[francoHFW]

Mandate? We don't need no stinking mandate! Obama didn't want- thought people would want it anyway.... But Kennedy is NOT a bought off ASSHOLE, so it'll pass.

Loss of insurance requirement would complicate, but not kill Obama's health care overhaul

 

[francoHFW]

Time to call the Kannapolis PD and tell them about the tax evading plumber!! Brig.

 

[francoHFW]

French, Spanish, and History teacher, numbnuts.

 

[The T]

If God forbid but Allah willing it's upheld, next time our side wins we will use it to make Liberals buy and read a Bible

And force them to BURN any Koran they find...to do so will result in a fine or jailtime.

 

[francoHFW]

Our crappe media only cares about controversey and ratings, information NOT!

Loss of insurance requirement would complicate, but not kill Obama's health care overhaul

 

[Listening]

Sounds like the SCOTUS is concerned about the implications of the bill.

Not looking so good for Team Obama.