Isn't it awesome to be ruled over?

[SuperDemocrat]

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.

 

[gipper]

Of course, you are being factious. But you are right about the USA being controlled by a small elite/oligarchy.

We might as well get rid of Congress and the Supreme Court and just allow a dictator to dictate, since they are meaningless anyway.

The Land of the Free...has become the Land of the Serf.

Funny thing is many Americans are so clueless they don't know they are serfs.

 

[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.

These are people who would happily give up any number of freedoms to a centralized bureaucracy for comfort. We just need to submit and we'll be fine.

It is what it is.

.

 

[Sonny Clark]

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.

Oh shit. Here we go again. It's definitely Friday at the zoo. This should be fun.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Wouldn't it be easier just to nominate people who can make up rules for as they go?

These people are known as "Super Democrats".

 

[Freewill]

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.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Guy, the only national referendum we had on ObamaCare was the 2012 election.

Obama won that.

You guys couldn't win at the ballot box (no, sorry, 2014 doesn't count, because most of the country didn't have an election that day) so you tried to win on a technicality, and the court said, "no".

Including two guys YOUR presidents put on there.

You want to get rid of ObamaCare, then run a president who will offer an alternative, and get a majority to vote for you. It's pretty simple.

 

[gipper]

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.

 

[gipper]

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.

Guy, the only national referendum we had on ObamaCare was the 2012 election.

Obama won that.

You guys couldn't win at the ballot box (no, sorry, 2014 doesn't count, because most of the country didn't have an election that day) so you tried to win on a technicality, and the court said, "no".

Including two guys YOUR presidents put on there.

You want to get rid of ObamaCare, then run a president who will offer an alternative, and get a majority to vote for you. It's pretty simple.

You missed a very big point Lil' Joe and I do not expect you will ever comprehend it...but you are not alone.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Guy, the only national referendum we had on ObamaCare was the 2012 election.

Obama won that.

You guys couldn't win at the ballot box (no, sorry, 2014 doesn't count, because most of the country didn't have an election that day) so you tried to win on a technicality, and the court said, "no".

Including two guys YOUR presidents put on there.

You want to get rid of ObamaCare, then run a president who will offer an alternative, and get a majority to vote for you. It's pretty simple.

Once again you totally missed the point.

Justice Roberts rewrote the law on his own initiative.

THAT is the problem here

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Oh shit. Here we go again. It's definitely Friday at the zoo. This should be fun.

Looks like the outpatients are out in force this weekend.

(thank you Tom Lehrer)

 

[JoeB131]

You missed a very big point Lil' Joe and I do not expect you will ever comprehend it...but you are not alone.

No, i get the point exactly.

The reality is, the GOP Secretly is GLAD ObamaCare was saved.

And when 2016 rolls around, people will be so used to it.... that the GOP won't talk about it that much.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

 

[gipper]

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 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.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

 

[Freewill]

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.

Guy, the only national referendum we had on ObamaCare was the 2012 election.

Obama won that.

You guys couldn't win at the ballot box (no, sorry, 2014 doesn't count, because most of the country didn't have an election that day) so you tried to win on a technicality, and the court said, "no".

Including two guys YOUR presidents put on there.

You want to get rid of ObamaCare, then run a president who will offer an alternative, and get a majority to vote for you. It's pretty simple.

Guy the referendum was in 2014 where Obama lost bigger then any president before. I would like to say America won but in reality there is little difference. You know, after the law was actually implemented.

 

[Freewill]

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.

How does one know intent especially when the words and the actual intent are clear as a bell? There is absolutely nothing ambiguous in the wording which I have provided in other threads and will not waste my time doing here. Did they poll Congress and get the will of the governed?
No, that is what they SHOULD have done but they did not. The intent of the ruling was to preserve SCOTUSCARE and that is what they did.

But did they have to do that? In my opinion no. They could have kicked it back to Congress for them to change the wording, or leave the wording knowing the consequences. With an election next year it would have been changed in a heart beat. But no Roberts used his power to once again change the law, except this time he apparently just deleted part of it.

So, God forbid, I ever get pulled over for speeding I am going to use the excuse that the intent of the law is that I drive safely and obviously I was because I didn't come close to an accident. Thus the intent of the law is preserved even though I didn't follow the letter of the law. Same with stopping at stop sign or any other law that the intent is safety.

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.

BS piled on BS, the consequence of a different, proper, ruling by the SCOTUS was not people losing their health care. All they had to do was kick it back to congress and put them on the spot to change it.

 

[JoeB131]

Guy the referendum was in 2014 where Obama lost bigger then any president before. I

No, it wasn't. 2014 wasn't a "national" election. there were only nine senate seats and 30 house seats that were in play. and 2014 had the lowest voter turnout since 1942. So the winner in 2014 was "Apathy".

I would like to say America won but in reality there is little difference. You know, after the law was actually implemented.

Actually, because you are kind of fucking stupid, you don't get this.

THE RICH WANT OBAMACARE!!!

I want to explain this to you again, because you Republican Shitheads never seem to get this-

THE RICH WANT OBAMACARE!!!

The rich want to stop paying for poor people showing up at the emergency room for sniffles.

The rich know that private insurance is unsustainable without a major government subsidy.

The rich had no problem with ObamaCare under its original title, "RomneyCare".

But they also know the only way to keep stupid people like you voting against your own economic interests is to play on your racism. So they put on this big show for your benefit about how they are going to stop ObamaCare because the Black Guy Did It.

But push came to shove, REPUBLICAN appointees saved ObamaCare.

Not that any of this will sink in with you... you'll just mutter... "but, but, but, we won Senate races in flyover country!"

And you 'll mutter when these same Republicans went ahead and helped shove through another bullshit trade deal that is going to give away your jobs.

 

[JoeB131]

How does one know intent especially when the words and the actual intent are clear as a bell? There is absolutely nothing ambiguous in the wording which I have provided in other threads and will not waste my time doing here. Did they poll Congress and get the will of the governed?
No, that is what they SHOULD have done but they did not. The intent of the ruling was to preserve SCOTUSCARE and that is what they did.

The intent was to protect you guys from yourselves. WHich is what they did. The GOP didn't want this case to be won. They knew if it had been, they'd be screwed when 10 million people lost their insurance.

BS piled on BS, the consequence of a different, proper, ruling by the SCOTUS was not people losing their health care. All they had to do was kick it back to congress and put them on the spot to change it.

except Congress could have changed it without it ever getting to the court. But they are still pandering to people like you. So SCOTUS saved them from themselves.

Again.

 

[Freewill]

How does one know intent especially when the words and the actual intent are clear as a bell? There is absolutely nothing ambiguous in the wording which I have provided in other threads and will not waste my time doing here. Did they poll Congress and get the will of the governed?
No, that is what they SHOULD have done but they did not. The intent of the ruling was to preserve SCOTUSCARE and that is what they did.

The intent was to protect you guys from yourselves. WHich is what they did. The GOP didn't want this case to be won. They knew if it had been, they'd be screwed when 10 million people lost their insurance.

BS piled on BS, the consequence of a different, proper, ruling by the SCOTUS was not people losing their health care. All they had to do was kick it back to congress and put them on the spot to change it.

except Congress could have changed it without it ever getting to the court. But they are still pandering to people like you. So SCOTUS saved them from themselves.

Again.

If that be there reasoning then they were wrong, besides I thought you just told me they ruled on the intent of the law. Which is it, were the 3 liberal judges really trying to protect the Republicans? Really?

A couple of ways to look at this. One of the most important aspects of the bill was written very poorly if what it says is not their intent. Of all things in the bill one would think funding and expenditures would get a lot of scrutiny. Then there is a self professed architect of the bill saying that the intent was EXACTLY what was written in the law and he said it more then once. OR the intent changed which is really what did happen when Gruber's plan to force the states to set up exchanges didn't work and they were stuck with what they had written. So instead of getting it amended, as per process, they decided to let the SCOTUS change the law, which isn't suppose to happen.

What I think would have taken balls is to let it go to the SCOTUS with the very clear wording and Gruber's statements on why it was stated that way. But I am also thinking they knew that the SCOTUS was going to do their duty they would save SCOTUSCARE.