Romney, Obama, Scalia all agree: They say Individual Mandate not a tax

and yet Obama argued it was a tax to keep it from being overturned.

See if it's not a tax then we all have to agree that the Supreme Court decision was wrong and Obamacare should have been overturned. If you are going to argue it wasnt a tax then you have to concede that the Court got it wrong.

The words we choose to describe things are far more important than the things themselves.
 
Nothing worse in football than watching your team score a touchdown only to have it taken back because of a stupid tax

IMG-referee-flag.jpg
 
It's not a tax__ Mandate, levy, penalty are all more fitting words. However, an economist would argue that it effectively is a tax.
 
In hockey if you get caught holding you get sent off for a 2 minute tax, to the tax box

penalty-box.jpg
 
In hockey if you get caught holding you get sent off for a 2 minute tax, to the tax box

penalty-box.jpg

What if you get caught saying you support a national individual mandate - and then changing your mind when your political opponents take up the idea? Is there a box for that or are you just a plain hypocrite?
 
Sorry bout that,


1. This will blow up in *The Faggots* face.
2. You know, Roberts.
3. He and they know this is no tax.
4. They have white washed this whole ruling in order to see if Romney will repeal it, doing their collective jobs for them.
5. What a bunch of ******** Faggots* the supreme court has become.
6. I'm done, *rant off*.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
 
Sorry bout that,


1. Because he won't disagree with the ******** Faggots* on the supreme court.
2. Only *CWN* is man enough to disagree with the ******** Faggots on the Supreme Court*.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
 
So they all agree it's not constitutional then? Weird but OK.
 
Back
Top Bottom