[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[PMZ]

Apparently you are not like most people.

Definitely not like most Texans. Clearly like most Americans.

I see, so that's why you switched from republican to democrat, to be like most Americans. ROFL

The Republican Party switched from centrist to right wing extremism. I haven't changed at all.

 

[RKMBrown]

Definitely not like most Texans. Clearly like most Americans.

I see, so that's why you switched from republican to democrat, to be like most Americans. ROFL

The Republican Party switched from centrist to right wing extremism. I haven't changed at all.

The pubs moved left you "******* moron."

 

[PMZ]

I see, so that's why you switched from republican to democrat, to be like most Americans. ROFL

The Republican Party switched from centrist to right wing extremism. I haven't changed at all.

The pubs moved left you "******* moron."

There's no evidence of that at all. Rush Limbaugh said, all of you Dittoheads goose step with me, and the blank heads said yessir, yessir, in true Dittohead fashion. They've been goose stepping to the right ever since. They're out of sight and mostly forgotten now and totally irrelevant. But Rush gets wealthier every day so he's sure not going to turn down the media evangelism.

 

[ShawnChris13]

That's because you are ignorant of how American government works.

The SCOTUS has no authority to amend the Constitution. I know you Marxians dream of one more Elena Kagan on the court, so the 1st and 2nd amendments can be ruled unconstitutional.

"The SCOTUS has no authority to amend the Constitution."

Correct. The Federal Courts authority is only to determine if challenged laws are or are not enforceable based on the Constitution.

So explain SCOTUS amending ACA in order to make it constitutional. How is that in their bounds?

PMZ I'm still waiting.

 

[JoeNormal]

Then authority is not the right term to use - because a Supreme Court ruling does not create Constitutional authority in any capacity. Only the ignorant Dumbocrats believe that!

It never ceases to be comical how Dumbocrats try the narrative that the Constitution is "open" to interpretation because they don't like how it prevents their push for fascism and they can't get the votes to legally amend it for their fascist utopia.

I once killed Oops_I_poo-poo in a thread when I first brought the "Supremacy Clause" to his attention (proving that the Constitution was not only law, but the highest law in the land) and then asked that if lower laws such as the speed limit and murder are not open to "interpretation", how could the highest law in the land possibly be open to it? As you can imagine, he absolutely had no intelligent response for that fact.

You think that most issues on Constitutionality are as straightforward as murder or speed limit infractions? I'll bet you also believe that the Constitution was divinely inspired and that the Bible should be interpreted literally.

There are no "issues" on the Constitution. It's the law, stupid. If the law is open to interpretation, there would be no way for citizens to obey it. That's why laws are written in black & white. The Constitution says exactly what it says and is as clear as 25mph posted on a speed limit.

The fact that you believe there are "issues" is a clear indication that you are an ignorant liberal desperate to pervert the law because you are desperate for your liberal fascist utopia where government controls everything and everyone.

Every law ever written has issues. Otherwise, we wouldn't need courts and verdicts could be rendered by a clerk. Of course, being a hard core right winger as you are, I'm sure you see the world in black and white.

 

[PMZ]

"The SCOTUS has no authority to amend the Constitution."

Correct. The Federal Courts authority is only to determine if challenged laws are or are not enforceable based on the Constitution.

So explain SCOTUS amending ACA in order to make it constitutional. How is that in their bounds?

PMZ I'm still waiting.

ACA is legislation. That’s the responsibility of the Legislative branch.

SCOTUS is part of the Judicial branch. They ruled, and explained why, that the legislation passed by the Legislative and Executive branches did not violate the bylaws for government in the Constitution, and therefore was enforceable.

Next time that you're in fifth grade, pay attention.

 

[ShawnChris13]

So explain SCOTUS amending ACA in order to make it constitutional. How is that in their bounds?

PMZ I'm still waiting.

ACA is legislation. That’s the responsibility of the Legislative branch.

SCOTUS is part of the Judicial branch. They ruled, and explained why, that the legislation passed by the Legislative and Executive branches did not violate the bylaws for government in the Constitution, and therefore was enforceable.

Next time that you're in fifth grade, pay attention.

No PMZ they changed the law in order to deem it constitutional. You claim their responsibility is to interpret. Yet they redefined provisions in the law. Next time you're going to place an argument pay attention.

 

[RKMBrown]

So explain SCOTUS amending ACA in order to make it constitutional. How is that in their bounds?

PMZ I'm still waiting.

ACA is legislation. That’s the responsibility of the Legislative branch.

SCOTUS is part of the Judicial branch. They ruled, and explained why, that the legislation passed by the Legislative and Executive branches did not violate the bylaws for government in the Constitution, and therefore was enforceable.

Next time that you're in fifth grade, pay attention.

ROFL

Wrong, they ruled on the taxing element of the bill. They explicitly avoided the other elements of the legislation. Those other elements are making their way through the court system.

 

[ShawnChris13]

PMZ I'm still waiting.

ACA is legislation. That’s the responsibility of the Legislative branch.



SCOTUS is part of the Judicial branch. They ruled, and explained why, that the legislation passed by the Legislative and Executive branches did not violate the bylaws for government in the Constitution, and therefore was enforceable.



Next time that you're in fifth grade, pay attention.

ROFL



Wrong, they ruled on the taxing element of the bill. They explicitly avoided the other elements of the legislation. Those other elements are making their way through the court system.

They changed the penalty into a tax. That was their written statement given. Did you read it? They amended the law. They didn't interpret it.

 

[PMZ]

PMZ I'm still waiting.

ACA is legislation. That’s the responsibility of the Legislative branch.

SCOTUS is part of the Judicial branch. They ruled, and explained why, that the legislation passed by the Legislative and Executive branches did not violate the bylaws for government in the Constitution, and therefore was enforceable.

Next time that you're in fifth grade, pay attention.

ROFL

Wrong, they ruled on the taxing element of the bill. They explicitly avoided the other elements of the legislation. Those other elements are making their way through the court system.

They ruled on what was in the complaint that the lawyers chose to argue. On the appeal of the lower court ruling.

 

[ShawnChris13]

ACA is legislation. That’s the responsibility of the Legislative branch.

SCOTUS is part of the Judicial branch. They ruled, and explained why, that the legislation passed by the Legislative and Executive branches did not violate the bylaws for government in the Constitution, and therefore was enforceable.

Next time that you're in fifth grade, pay attention.

ROFL

Wrong, they ruled on the taxing element of the bill. They explicitly avoided the other elements of the legislation. Those other elements are making their way through the court system.

They ruled on what was in the complaint that the lawyers chose to argue. On the appeal of the lower court ruling.

Which changed the law.

 

[PMZ]

ACA is legislation. That’s the responsibility of the Legislative branch.



SCOTUS is part of the Judicial branch. They ruled, and explained why, that the legislation passed by the Legislative and Executive branches did not violate the bylaws for government in the Constitution, and therefore was enforceable.



Next time that you're in fifth grade, pay attention.

ROFL



Wrong, they ruled on the taxing element of the bill. They explicitly avoided the other elements of the legislation. Those other elements are making their way through the court system.

They changed the penalty into a tax. That was their written statement given. Did you read it? They amended the law. They didn't interpret it.

They have no authority or responsibility to legislate regardless how your propaganda chose to report their actions.

Your problem is that you choose to pay attention to, and believe, Republican self serving propaganda.

 

[ShawnChris13]

ROFL



Wrong, they ruled on the taxing element of the bill. They explicitly avoided the other elements of the legislation. Those other elements are making their way through the court system.

They changed the penalty into a tax. That was their written statement given. Did you read it? They amended the law. They didn't interpret it.

They have no authority or responsibility to legislate regardless how your propaganda chose to report their actions.

Your problem is that you choose to pay attention to, and believe, Republican self serving propaganda.

Republicans never reported on this. I'm not a Republican, so why would I listen to their propaganda. You're throwing up blinders and letting CNN keep telling you that SCOTUS upheld it like there was never an issue.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I live in a people's republic.

Santa Monica, huh?

A democracy of we, the people, empowered by our Constitution.

Yet you demand all power to the state.

You'd like to change that to an aristocracy, but that's not going to happen.

The Aristocracy is our ruling federal overlords and their corporate lackeys. Those whom you promote, PMZ™.

 

[PMZ]

They changed the penalty into a tax. That was their written statement given. Did you read it? They amended the law. They didn't interpret it.

They have no authority or responsibility to legislate regardless how your propaganda chose to report their actions.

Your problem is that you choose to pay attention to, and believe, Republican self serving propaganda.

Republicans never reported on this. I'm not a Republican, so why would I listen to their propaganda. You're throwing up blinders and letting CNN keep telling you that SCOTUS upheld it like there was never an issue.

"SCOTUS upheld it like there was never an issue."

That's the truth. Anything else is Republican propaganda. Where did you get it from?

 

[PMZ]

I live in a people's republic.

Santa Monica, huh?

A democracy of we, the people, empowered by our Constitution.

Yet you demand all power to the state.

You'd like to change that to an aristocracy, but that's not going to happen.

The Aristocracy is our ruling federal overlords and their corporate lackeys. Those whom you promote, PMZ™.

The American aristocracy are the wealthy here just like everywhere and every when, else. You choose to be among their underlings and minions and you aren't even aware of it.

Pathetic.

 

[dcraelin]

Stadium subsidies are a good example of the hypocrisy of Republicans when it comes to government spending.

In Cobb Co. Georgia, the 4 republicans on the commission voted for over 300million in subsidies for a stadium, the one Democrat voted no, although she said she just wanted more time to consider terms. The Republicans were all for the subsidy.

Cobb County commissioners approve plan for Braves stadium

 

[PMZ]

Stadium subsidies are a good example of the hypocrisy of Republicans when it comes to government spending.

In Cobb Co. Georgia, the 4 republicans on the commission voted for over 300million in subsidies for a stadium, the one Democrat voted no, although she said she just wanted more time to consider terms. The Republicans were all for the subsidy.

Cobb County commissioners approve plan for Braves stadium

There is no better example of welfare for the wealthy.

 

[ShawnChris13]

3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individ- ual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.

Straight from SCOTUS PMZ. They changed the law and defined it as a tax. No matter how roundabout they did it, they didn't rule it unconstitutional and they changed it.

 

[RKMBrown]

3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individ- ual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.

Straight from SCOTUS PMZ. They changed the law and defined it as a tax. No matter how roundabout they did it, they didn't rule it unconstitutional and they changed it.

How does making the obvious statement that the chit they called a mandate is not a mandate at all? YOU ARE NOT MANDATED TO BUY INSURANCE. You are taxed if you don't. Perhaps you are just confused by the difference between use of the term mandate and use of the term mandating. This is a typical confusion of many to not get the subtle difference between the name of a thing and the actions of the thing.