Should Gov't have Limits?

[OohPooPahDoo]

Let's cut to the chase - should the gov't have the power to force you to buy something, anything, or not buy it?

Ever heard of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act? It forces you to buy retirement and disability insurance, as well as medicare.

Yep, also unconstitutional.

LOL! Sorry but everyone except lunatics disagree with you.

Most of this crap was passed under the upside down interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

Bwahh bwahh boo hoo. Guess what? Your interpretation of the Constitution does not matter. Unless you take it to the Court. Either way, don't whine to me.

 

[regent]

Interstate commerce as national government was well established with the first case, Gibbons vs. Ogden, 1824.

 

[dblack]

Bwahh bwahh boo hoo. Guess what? Your interpretation of the Constitution does not matter. Unless you take it to the Court. Either way, don't whine to me.

It's true. The bad guys won. But I can't placate your demands. I'll whine as much as I want.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Bwahh bwahh boo hoo. Guess what? Your interpretation of the Constitution does not matter. Unless you take it to the Court. Either way, don't whine to me.

It's true. The bad guys won. But I can't placate your demands. I'll whine as much as I want.

The bad guys won! LOL! And as a result seniors in this country have one of the highest standards of living in the world.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Get it yet?

Yes I do.

Clearly you don't.

So you are in this thread trying to explain WHY there CAN BE legislation regarding citizens owning guns...?

Sorry...

Posted by YOU:

I knew I didn't word that perfectly. Let me try an example.

No where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it say the Federal Government CAN pass a law to promote gun ownership or that it CAN'T pass a law to promote gun ownership. (The closest is that they can't pass a law infringing, but that's different. Obviously.)

So, in that case, since it is not expressly written that they CAN nor that they CAN'T, I believe they could pass a law to promote gun ownership. All of you seem to be arguing that the Federal Government COULDN'T pass that law, because there is no expressly written line saying it.

Explain how this shit squares with the second?

IDIOT.

Simple.

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The Government can therefore pass laws to help PROMOTE gun ownership. Those are not unconstitutional, even though they are not expressly written out.

Or are you suggesting the Government CANNOT help more people be gun owners?

 

[dblack]

Bwahh bwahh boo hoo. Guess what? Your interpretation of the Constitution does not matter. Unless you take it to the Court. Either way, don't whine to me.

It's true. The bad guys won. But I can't placate your demands. I'll whine as much as I want.

The bad guys won! LOL! And as a result seniors in this country have one of the highest standards of living in the world.

As it plummets for the rest of us.

But, honestly, I'm much more concerned about freedom, which we're pissing away at an alarming rate in exchange for dubious promises of being taken care of by government.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yes I do.

Clearly you don't.

So you are in this thread trying to explain WHY there CAN BE legislation regarding citizens owning guns...?

Sorry...

Posted by YOU:

I knew I didn't word that perfectly. Let me try an example.

No where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it say the Federal Government CAN pass a law to promote gun ownership or that it CAN'T pass a law to promote gun ownership. (The closest is that they can't pass a law infringing, but that's different. Obviously.)

So, in that case, since it is not expressly written that they CAN nor that they CAN'T, I believe they could pass a law to promote gun ownership. All of you seem to be arguing that the Federal Government COULDN'T pass that law, because there is no expressly written line saying it.

Explain how this shit squares with the second?

IDIOT.

Simple.

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The Government can therefore pass laws to help PROMOTE gun ownership. Those are not unconstitutional, even though they are not expressly written out.

Or are you suggesting the Government CANNOT help more people be gun owners?

The U.S. Congress most certainly has that power. Under Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1, they may use the People's money to purchase weapons and give them to the citizens. Under the 3rd to last clause of the same they can organize those citizens into a militia.

 

[DontBeStupid]

You're wrong.

You should read the law.

So how am I wrong? C'mon dude, we got a good debate going here, how can you possibly say that the ACA does not require the purchase of HC?

I can say it because no where in the law does it say you will pay a fine for not buying insurance. No wording exists that is even close to that.

You pay a fine if you can afford insurance don't have insurance. Period. There is nothing that says you must buy it.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

It's true. The bad guys won. But I can't placate your demands. I'll whine as much as I want.

The bad guys won! LOL! And as a result seniors in this country have one of the highest standards of living in the world.

As it plummets for the rest of us.

But, honestly, I'm much more concerned about freedom, which we're pissing away at an alarming rate in exchange for dubious promises of being taken care of by government.

Well, obviously we're too stupid and weak to take care of ourselves. Or maybe, those in power just love having power over us, and they could care less what idiotic excuse they give for said power................nah, can't be that.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

You're wrong.

You should read the law.

So how am I wrong? C'mon dude, we got a good debate going here, how can you possibly say that the ACA does not require the purchase of HC?

I can say it because no where in the law does it say you will pay a fine for not buying insurance. No wording exists that is even close to that.

You pay a fine if you can afford insurance don't have insurance. Period. There is nothing that says you must buy it.

You're arguing semantics, how dishonest.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Hell yes, it should have limits -

Like, controlling what consenting adults do together in the privacy of their own bedroom, controlling who can marry who, controlling women's reproduction, forcing them to have babies, giving employers the power to decide what health care is covered by their insurance policies what is not.

Oh, wait, you meant that you don't want to have to pay for your health care insurance and instead, want the libs to pay for you and you're looking for others to agree with you.

Sorry, I thought this was meant to be an EQUAL conversation. My mistake. Carry on.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Hell yes, it should have limits -

Like, controlling what consenting adults do together in the privacy of their own bedroom, controlling who can marry who, controlling women's reproduction, forcing them to have babies, giving employers the power to decide what health care is covered by their insurance policies what is not.

Oh, wait, you meant that you don't want to have to pay for your health care insurance and instead, want the libs to pay for you and you're looking for others to agree with you.

Sorry, I thought this was meant to be an EQUAL conversation. My mistake. Carry on.

Umm what?

 

[Katiegrrl0]

So you believe a person should be free to drive without insurance, hit and kill a pedestrian and no compensation be afforded to the victim's family?

Wow.

In fact I said it was a good idea to have auto insurance. You just what the government to tell you to do so. Now tell me you are not for big government controlling your life. You are an advocate for government controls. This is all about whether government has the right to get into your personal life and you like that. You want them to tell you everything. You want them to nursemaid you through life. Or do you think people should make decisions on their own. Auto insurance is one of the examples I used as government telling you to buy things. If you let them to to buy one thing you have opened the door for them to tell you what else you need to buy.

Government since by Article 1, Section 8 are bound to 'post roads' and therefore may demand certain things to be required for the public to use them as insurence, and to be licensed to ensure you know how to drive without killing your fellow citizens isn't an issue.

Some like to argue that Government demanding you have Auto insurance is the very same as having health insurance is the very same thing...and it isn't...Nor is using the Commerce Clause.

This is not about insurance. It was set clearly as an example with many other examples. How someone decide to make this about car insurance is beyond me.
I don't care about car insurance. This is about government be involved at a personal level. Once they are in the door in one area that many seem to be able to justify you have opened the door to everything else.
Having car insurance is a good idea as is health insurance. On one hand people are defending government for force car insurance that will protect one person from loss. On the other hand people fight about government forcing health insurance on them and saying it's not right. It protects everyone from losing.
Someone please tell me if you are for government control of your lives or not. Most do not seem to know what they want.
You say government is to big and want it limited yet you want them telling everyone to buy this that and the other thing. You seem to have a grasp on what I have been stating.

 

[The T]

Yes I do.

Clearly you don't.

So you are in this thread trying to explain WHY there CAN BE legislation regarding citizens owning guns...?

Sorry...

Posted by YOU:

I knew I didn't word that perfectly. Let me try an example.

No where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it say the Federal Government CAN pass a law to promote gun ownership or that it CAN'T pass a law to promote gun ownership. (The closest is that they can't pass a law infringing, but that's different. Obviously.)

So, in that case, since it is not expressly written that they CAN nor that they CAN'T, I believe they could pass a law to promote gun ownership. All of you seem to be arguing that the Federal Government COULDN'T pass that law, because there is no expressly written line saying it.

Explain how this shit squares with the second?

IDIOT.

Simple.

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The Government can therefore pass laws to help PROMOTE gun ownership. Those are not unconstitutional, even though they are not expressly written out.

Or are you suggesting the Government CANNOT help more people be gun owners?

What part of "shall not be infringed" did YOU not understand Gracie?

 

[Wacky Quacky]

You're wrong.

You should read the law.

So how am I wrong? C'mon dude, we got a good debate going here, how can you possibly say that the ACA does not require the purchase of HC?

I can say it because no where in the law does it say you will pay a fine for not buying insurance. No wording exists that is even close to that.

You pay a fine if you can afford insurance don't have insurance. Period. There is nothing that says you must buy it.

I'm not sure how to respond to that? There's no wording saying you'll have to pay a fine, except the wording saying you'll have to pay a fine?

And seriously, laying a fine on someone for not engaging in a certain activity is forcing them.

 

[Katiegrrl0]

If you want to drive a car... you need to buy insurance. You also have a choice of what insurance you want to purchase. No one is forcing you to drive or carry insurance.

If you want to have your small child in your car while you drive... you need to buy a car seat. No one is forcing you to bring your small child along.

The rest of what you say comes out of taxes. And even then only a portion of citizens pay federal taxes.

So far there is nothing i know of that we are forced to purchase.

You defend the infringement on your rights very nicely. Let them tell me I must have insurance. Let them tell me I must wear a seat belt. Both are very good ideas but do you really want government telling you to buy and do these things.

So you are very comfortable with government running your life? I guess some people are. What I find funny is that people call me the Socialist when I fight governments infringements every chance I get and the non Socialists love to have government run their lives.

No one is forcing you to drive a car. If you want to drive.... the rules are you have to carry insurance and or use a car seat for you child and wear your seat belt..... of which many choose not to. The choice is still yours to drive or not. No kids... no car seat. Don't drive... no need to purchase insurance.

I guess you did not read my first post. I do not want government running my life...and i do not want them telling me to purchase anything...i do not want for myself.

You still are defending big government and it's infringement. You obviously do want them running your life. You like them telling you to buy things. You support big government and their actions. You state it clearly.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I can say it because no where in the law does it say you will pay a fine for not buying insurance. No wording exists that is even close to that.

You pay a fine if you can afford insurance don't have insurance. Period. There is nothing that says you must buy it.

True. And, in addition, when it all comes out, my hope is that if you choose not to buy your insurance, you will have to prove you can afford a hospital stay because I'm sick of having to pay rw's emergency room visits.

Just like car insurance - you should be forced to be financially able to take care of yourself or show why you're not.

I suggest reading about the Mass and Hawaii systems. They're excellent, the citizens are happy with it and no one gets screwed because some choose not to pay for their own health care.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Hell yes, it should have limits -

Like, controlling what consenting adults do together in the privacy of their own bedroom, controlling who can marry who, controlling women's reproduction, forcing them to have babies, giving employers the power to decide what health care is covered by their insurance policies what is not.

Oh, wait, you meant that you don't want to have to pay for your health care insurance and instead, want the libs to pay for you and you're looking for others to agree with you.

Sorry, I thought this was meant to be an EQUAL conversation. My mistake. Carry on.

Umm what?

Read the op.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

You defend the infringement on your rights very nicely. Let them tell me I must have insurance. Let them tell me I must wear a seat belt. Both are very good ideas but do you really want government telling you to buy and do these things.

So you are very comfortable with government running your life? I guess some people are. What I find funny is that people call me the Socialist when I fight governments infringements every chance I get and the non Socialists love to have government run their lives.

No one is forcing you to drive a car. If you want to drive.... the rules are you have to carry insurance and or use a car seat for you child and wear your seat belt..... of which many choose not to. The choice is still yours to drive or not. No kids... no car seat. Don't drive... no need to purchase insurance.

I guess you did not read my first post. I do not want government running my life...and i do not want them telling me to purchase anything...i do not want for myself.

You still are defending big government and it's infringement. You obviously do want them running your life. You like them telling you to buy things. You support big government and their actions. You state it clearly.

And if you don't have auto insurance and you hit me ... ?

If it happens to you, don't look to Boehner to help you out. He's too busy sucking up to the baggers who want to control your sex life.

Why shouldn't people be responsible for their own health care?

Why is it that the rw's can never answer that simple question?

No excuses, no "what ifs?". Just answer that one question.

 

[Katiegrrl0]

If you want to drive a car... you need to buy insurance....

The insurance that is purchased is for protecting the other people you accidentally hit. Not to protect yourself. A conveniently overlooked detail in the debate.

And many choose not to purchase insurance..... another conveniently overlooked detail in the debate.

You clearly overlooked the several other examples I offered in my first post. This is not about insurance it is about government controlling your life and telling you what to buy. You clearly enjoy and support this action. You clearly support big government. You keep wanting to say you don't but when push comes to shove you will buy whatever they say. Big government syrenn is what you should rename yourself. Unless you really don't know the difference between big and small government and interference. If that's the case I feel sorry for you.