If universal health care is so great...

[MaggieMae]

I'll gladly charter a bus for you to go now. (But my friends and relatives in Canada don't really take kindly to right-wing ideologues from the U.S., so fair warning. I won't pay for a return trip.) Oh, and by the way, Canada has strict gun control laws (and penalties) that you might want to check out first.

OK, fine....Can we all chip in and send people like you to China, North Korea, China or Venezuela?

You even get to choose.

I'm sure the Coyotes would be happy to make money on their shipping containers going back to Mexico et all instead of deadheading. I hear we can pack 40-60 in to one.

 

[Big Fitz]

I know you think you've got the greatest mind in the world, but mere mortals can't yet read minds, including yours O Great One.

Oh thank God! You're safe from your head exploding.

I find it funnier still you still haven't gotten the joke. Anyone else missing it? Can we have that many people who don't get it?

 

[Bern80]

Stay on track, please, bern. Who said anything about the Government "providing health care." Stupid reactionary who knee jerks instead of really thinking!!

I'll give you this, weasel. It is hard keeping up with someone who back pedals as much as you do.....First you claim I have position X, when I never stated what it was. Then you not so subtly back track to saying 'it was earlier said......' and even though I never said required me to argue that position anyway.....NOW you're backpedaling again to say that you didn't mean government providing health care, you meant reform (when you actually never stated this yourself) Here for the record, is what you claimed the opposing position was and I guess, de facto my position because I just happened to not think what you do

the claim was earlier made that HC was unconstitutional.

Doesn't get much vaguer than that. How very convenient for the weasel. Can't wait to see how you weasel your way into telling us what you really meant.

However, the government does provide medical assistance through VA, through DoD, through many other programs. Of course, it can provide health care, imbecile.

Sure it does, where it gets the constitutional authority to do so is the question.

Yes, the government has the constitutional authority to reform the health insurance industry, and no one has shown one compelling constitutional reason it can't.

Do some degree yes. No one has argued it can't. YOU keep up, weasel.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bern, please don't back track. You don't only look stupid, you look disingenuous.

Not one person has been able to post why, other than their own opinions (which are not evidence), the government can't reform HC. Not one stinking reason.

 

[Oddball]

Look who's calling someone else disingenuous and stupid looking!

Reason #1: It's not their role.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And this from Dud, the #1 disingenuous dud on the board.

 

[Oddball]

*snert*

 

[Bern80]

Bern, please don't back track. You don't only look stupid, you look disingenuous.

Not one person has been able to post why, other than their own opinions (which are not evidence), the government can't reform HC. Not one stinking reason.

Because no one has ever argued they couldn't The thread was never about reform. YOU made it about that because it's the only argument you can win.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then you have lost the discussion, because the government is not trying to socialize and deliver health care to America. There is no discussion then. Thank you.

 

[Bern80]

Then you have lost the discussion, because the government is not trying to socialize and deliver health care to America. There is no discussion then. Thank you.

I can't lose an argument I never made, weasel. You're the one that told me what I was required to argue, remember? The ONLY person who EVER brought up the concept of the constitutionality of reform was you. You did that because you saw it was the only argument you could win and couldn't even explain the one attempt you made at citing the consitition. Still waiting to hear what you think Article VI has to do with this at all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, I see. You still want to argue the Articles of the Constitution. The VI trumps whatever you have. Throw in the general welfare clause as well. Then you will, "What about . . .?" Haven't you caught on, we are not experts on this? We can have opinions, but so what: we both have toes and elbows. So what.

 

[Big Fitz]

*snert*

Ahhh that's a flashback to an era of AOL.

Snot Nosed Egotistical Rude Teenager

 

[Oddball]

Meh...That's just me giggling my ass off at the fake republican.

 

[Bern80]

Oh, I see. You still want to argue the Articles of the Constitution. The VI trumps whatever you have. Throw in the general welfare clause as well. Then you will, "What about . . .?" Haven't you caught on, we are not experts on this? We can have opinions, but so what: we both have toes and elbows. So what.

I want to know what you thought Article VI was evidence of. You took time out to bold part of it. You must have thought it did something for you. You claim you were arguing that it was constitutional for congress to reform health care. How is Article VI evidence of that? In fact let's not stop there tell us the word you left out of this partial sentence.

No, the claim was earlier made that HC was unconstitutional. That is where we begin, or you fail out of the blocks.

Your post verbatim So it was claimed that Health care ______ (what exactly?) was unconstitutional? Or was it just the U you left out (not that you can afford to admit that now)? You are forced to fill in that blank with reform because you have told that's really what we've beein debating all along. This was on page 8, so where/who before that claimed health care reform was unconstitutional?

For the record you know well I was not talking about reform at all because this was my second post of the thread

So what's the argument? That the constitution is NOT clear on whether or not the federal government has the power to provide healthcare?

to which you replied....

The Constitution is absolutely clear on this matter, and has been ever since it was written.

It's crystal clear about what EXACTLEY and where? Or are you telling me even though you replied to this immediately after my post which it seemed to reference you actually were talking about the constitutionality of reform even though my post quite clearly says 'provide'? If so that kind of begs the question how you got so confused when the concept of the the constitutionality of of trying to reform health care NEVER came up prior to you claiming that's what was being argued by 'my side" until a couple page later? Liberty the OP may have something to say about that since he specifically questioned governments authority to provide UHC.

 

[Big Fitz]

well shit. way to ruin the mood.

Here I was, having a Grandma Addams' moment going "An axe.... sigh... that takes me back!" and you just had to ruin it!

Thanks Dewd.

And Bern... don't bother talking to Joke. The kid is obviously looking for attention and hasn't made the distinction between good and bad yet. Maybe it's to cover up his whinging homoerotic urges at school for all I know for log cabin republicans. But just let it alone and ultimately it will go away.

Nothing good will come of talking to him.

 

[Bern80]

well shit. way to ruin the mood.

Here I was, having a Grandma Addams' moment going "An axe.... sigh... that takes me back!" and you just had to ruin it!

Thanks Dewd.

And Bern... don't bother talking to Joke. The kid is obviously looking for attention and hasn't made the distinction between good and bad yet. Maybe it's to cover up his whinging homoerotic urges at school for all I know for log cabin republicans. But just let it alone and ultimately it will go away.

Nothing good will come of talking to him.

Oh I know I can't win a debate with a cheat. I'm just trying to make it as plain as humanly possible for all to see what a slimy weasel he really is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is nothing that the Constitution says about denying health care. I don't have to prove a negative, Bern, that is why Big Fitz ran away, he could not argue intelligently with me.

The far right must make a case using evidence that interprets the Constitution to your point of view. Your own interpretation does not count, never has, never will, except of yourself.

 

[Bern80]

There is nothing that the Constitution says about denying health care. I don't have to prove a negative, Bern, that is why Big Fitz ran away, he could not argue intelligently with me.

Nothing in the constitution says anything about denying health care? You can't prove a negative? What a cop out weasel. No one is arguing that either. What has been debated in this entire thread, the whole time, contrary to what you like to tell me my position has to be, is whether or not the constitution grants the fed the authority to PROVIDE universal health care. You dont get any points for winning your own made up, strawman arguments that no one else even ever mentioned. YOU are the one that has to prove the positive weasel. YOU have to show they DO have the authority to provide health care? That is an AFFIRMATIVE idiot. You are the one that has been telling me the whole time to prove a negative, that they DON'T have the authority. And of course the constitution doesn't say anything about denying people health care. The document lays how are government is to be set up and what it has the authority to do. It doesn't have anything to do with what it can provide or deny people. That doesn't mean they CAN provide health care because the document was written in such a manner as to delineate the powers the government has with the understanding that if it isn't there the government can't do it, not a laundry list of all the things it CAN'T do.

I notice you didn't address my post blatantly pointing out all of your weaseling in this thread (see below in case you missed it), weasel. Are we still arguing your strawman reform or are we on to this new ridiculous concept that the constiution doesn't say anything about denying health care. Until such time as you come clean, you will remain The Weasel.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, I see. You still want to argue the Articles of the Constitution. The VI trumps whatever you have. Throw in the general welfare clause as well. Then you will, "What about . . .?" Haven't you caught on, we are not experts on this? We can have opinions, but so what: we both have toes and elbows. So what.

I want to know what you thought Article VI was evidence of. You took time out to bold part of it. You must have thought it did something for you. You claim you were arguing that it was constitutional for congress to reform health care. How is Article VI evidence of that? In fact let's not stop there tell us the word you left out of this partial sentence.

No, the claim was earlier made that HC was unconstitutional. That is where we begin, or you fail out of the blocks.

Your post verbatim So it was claimed that Health care ______ (what exactly?) was unconstitutional? Or was it just the U you left out (not that you can afford to admit that now)? You are forced to fill in that blank with reform because you have told that's really what we've beein debating all along. This was on page 8, so where/who before that claimed health care reform was unconstitutional?

For the record you know well I was not talking about reform at all because this was my second post of the thread

So what's the argument? That the constitution is NOT clear on whether or not the federal government has the power to provide healthcare?

to which you replied....

The Constitution is absolutely clear on this matter, and has been ever since it was written.

It's crystal clear about what EXACTLEY and where? Or are you telling me even though you replied to this immediately after my post which it seemed to reference you actually were talking about the constitutionality of reform even though my post quite clearly says 'provide'? If so that kind of begs the question how you got so confused when the concept of the the constitutionality of of trying to reform health care NEVER came up prior to you claiming that's what was being argued by 'my side" until a couple page later? Liberty the OP may have something to say about that since he specifically questioned governments authority to provide UHC.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bern, you are the one who has to prove the positive, that the government can't do it, because (psst . . . come a little closer so you can hear clearly) the government has done it, and it is not listening to you.

 

[Bern80]

bern, you are the one who has to prove the positive, that the government can't do it, because (psst . . . Come a little closer so you can hear clearly) the government has done it, and it is not listening to you.

can't is not a positive word you weasely dumbass. So you know what it means to say you can't prove a negative? Asking someone to prove a negative means asking them to prove that somethn can NOT be, or the something did NOT happen. Grow a brain weasel.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, I see. You still want to argue the Articles of the Constitution. The VI trumps whatever you have. Throw in the general welfare clause as well. Then you will, "What about . . .?" Haven't you caught on, we are not experts on this? We can have opinions, but so what: we both have toes and elbows. So what.

I want to know what you thought Article VI was evidence of. You took time out to bold part of it. You must have thought it did something for you. You claim you were arguing that it was constitutional for congress to reform health care. How is Article VI evidence of that? In fact let's not stop there tell us the word you left out of this partial sentence.

No, the claim was earlier made that HC was unconstitutional. That is where we begin, or you fail out of the blocks.

Your post verbatim So it was claimed that Health care ______ (what exactly?) was unconstitutional? Or was it just the U you left out (not that you can afford to admit that now)? You are forced to fill in that blank with reform because you have told that's really what we've beein debating all along. This was on page 8, so where/who before that claimed health care reform was unconstitutional?

For the record you know well I was not talking about reform at all because this was my second post of the thread

So what's the argument? That the constitution is NOT clear on whether or not the federal government has the power to provide healthcare?

to which you replied....

The Constitution is absolutely clear on this matter, and has been ever since it was written.

It's crystal clear about what EXACTLEY and where? Or are you telling me even though you replied to this immediately after my post which it seemed to reference you actually were talking about the constitutionality of reform even though my post quite clearly says 'provide'? If so that kind of begs the question how you got so confused when the concept of the the constitutionality of of trying to reform health care NEVER came up prior to you claiming that's what was being argued by 'my side" until a couple page later? Liberty the OP may have something to say about that since he specifically questioned governments authority to provide UHC.