WHO are the REAL Constitutionalists?

All of your arguments have been easily dismissed, Spoon. You know that and I know that. You are unable to make a consistent, coherent argument. When you do, when we can deal with that. In the meantime, you will simply keep getting slapped down very hard. Deal with it.
 
daveman still has not made his argument, and Spoonman can't argue his clearly. And he is simply unhappy because he got slapped down very hard recently, so I understand that. .

I got slapped down? Where? care to explain this lie?


waiting? but then I'm always waiting for starkey becasue he nebver explains anything

Too bad, jakey: don't be stupid again.

starkey, until you can give concrete reasons for your points: you have not done that
hell, more than half the time he doesnt even have the gonads to actually quote the one he is responding to

Starkey is nothing more than a pathetic troll. I'm fully aware of that. he doesn't get to me at all. I totally know his game. It's been played by thousands before him, only better. Nothing of substance ever comes from him. watch, his response will be inane nothing.
 
Spoonman continues to growl under the bridge. That's where he will remain until discusses the OP.
 
I got slapped down? Where? care to explain this lie?


waiting? but then I'm always waiting for starkey becasue he nebver explains anything

Too bad, jakey: don't be stupid again.

starkey, until you can give concrete reasons for your points: you have not done that
hell, more than half the time he doesnt even have the gonads to actually quote the one he is responding to

Starkey is nothing more than a pathetic troll. I'm fully aware of that. he doesn't get to me at all. I totally know his game. It's been played by thousands before him, only better. Nothing of substance ever comes from him. watch, his response will be inane nothing.
you know him so well
;)
that's almost scary
:lol:
 
All of your arguments have been easily dismissed, Spoon. You know that and I know that. You are unable to make a consistent, coherent argument. When you do, when we can deal with that. In the meantime, you will simply keep getting slapped down very hard. Deal with it.

See what I mean? nothing. Sorry jakey, you are an island here. looks like everyone has your game. I see no support coming your way

LMAO.gif


lmao.gif


smiley_signpitythefool.gif
 
:lol:
hell, more than half the time he doesnt even have the gonads to actually quote the one he is responding to

Starkey is nothing more than a pathetic troll. I'm fully aware of that. he doesn't get to me at all. I totally know his game. It's been played by thousands before him, only better. Nothing of substance ever comes from him. watch, his response will be inane nothing.
you know him so well
;)
that's almost scary
:lol:

yea, and it took me all of two posts to figure him out. :lol:
 
Spoonman, you continue to be the fool here, and there is nothing you can do about it.
 
i didnt read any replies, but i want to address the OP.

Proposing amendments is constitutional.
Passing laws that violate the constitution is unconstitutional.

not rocket science.
 
I'm waiting for Bf to finally admit that, in his own world view, Republicans are all evil who shouldn't even be allowed to vote, or maybe even exist. Democrats, on the other hand, well each and every one of them is just the personification of perfection.

I'm sure that's what MLK would think. And JFK. And maybe even Gandhi.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

Oh my fucking god you are so fucking retarded, bfgrn. Classical LIBERALISM IS THE EQUIVALENT OF MODERN CONSERVATISM. You are so fucking retarded its not even fun to point it out anymore.

on top of that, gladstone was a brit, and the british had different definitions. back then conservatism was loyalty to the crown, same as it was when john locke spoke of it. ITS IS KNOWN TODAY AS CLASSICAL LIBERALSM. modern liberalism's birth was during the new deal.

oh my god if i saw you in real life i'd punch you in your fat face so hard and it'd be worth it.
 
Last edited:
You have to purchase those from the government. Obamacare forces you to buy a product from a company.

Short term memory loss? It was the republicans that scuttled the public option. Aside from that, one has ALWAYS had to purchase health care from a company. AND we have always(in recent history) had to pay for others less fortunate medical care in taxes.

Talk about short term memory.

The Health Care Law passed without any Republican support. The Democrats in the Senate scuttled the Public Option because they did not like it. The Republicans would have scuttled the whole thing if they had any power to influence it, but thanks for giving them credit they do not deserve.


Short term memory loss? WOW!

The Health Care Law passed without any Republican support is almost IDENTICAL to the health care plan REPUBLICANS proposed in 1993, INCLUDING the individual mandate.

Republicans would have scuttled the whole thing, even though they KNEW our health care system was broken and bankrupting American families, but they were MORE concerned about defeating our president, than helping the American people.

Waterloo | FrumForum
 
daveman wants to socialize his risk and maximize his profit.

He keeps the money he would spend for insurance while society has to assume the risk.
Astoundingly wrong. Just another day at the office for Statist Jakey.

I pay for my family's insurance coverage. Once I retire, I'll pay for my insurance as well. I have no problem with that.

You should try to understand this, Statist Jakey: Just because you're so incompetent you need the government to take care of you cradle to grave doesn't mean everyone else is.

Jake wrong? Hmm that seems to be a pattern around here.

Wait till he gets out of Jr high and get's out in the real world. he'll wisen up a bit.

My girfriend got a real kick out of his feebleness the other night. She had tears coming out of her eyes she was laughing so hard.
Uh-oh.

tumblr_kuewdjOvkw1qz4f2zo1_500.jpg
 
daveman still has not made his argument, and Spoonman can't argue his clearly. And he is simply unhappy because he got slapped down very hard recently, so I understand that. Too bad, Spoon: don't be stupid again.

Guys, until you can give concrete reasons for your points: you have not done that.
Have you considered applying the same rules to yourself? No, I don't think you have. You made these ridiculous declarative statements:
daveman wants to socialize his risk and maximize his profit.

He keeps the money he would spend for insurance while society has to assume the risk.​
...and treated them as fact. You have not made a clear argument; you have once again confused opinion with fact -- a common leftist failing.

It past time you realized that just because you say something, that doesn't mean it's true.
 
Medicare is in the health care business.

Social Security is in the financial planning business.

The Dept of Agriculture is in the farming business.

I presume you find all of those + oil royalties unconstitutional, right?
Yup.
OK, but we were discussing a line being drawn between Medicare and the Health Care reform bill. Someone was trying to draw a distinction between the two.

Wasn't me. :)
 

Forum List

Back
Top