☆TRUMP '16☆

Dr. Jones wrote:Ahhhhh yes. Teddy 'The Bazooka' Cruz.  What a lovable guy.



If I were you I'd stick with Trump.  He's a better bet.  Tell me something..... Of all those candidates, how did these two losers sift to the top?

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Ahhhhh yes. Teddy 'The Bazooka' Cruz.  What a lovable guy.



If I were you I'd stick with Trump.  He's a better bet.  Tell me something..... Of all those candidates, how did these two losers sift to the top?

Hell, you and all the Libs wasted little time disparaging the entire field of Republican candidates. Carson was a flake, Cristy was corrupt, Fiorina drove HP into the ground, Bush was .. well another Bush, Walker has been universally hated by the Democrats ever since the 2011 Wisconsin budget protests, and on and on.

Not true.  I have always been a fan of Christie(at least until he started buttering Trump's balls).  It's you that's been critical of him.  I think Jeb and Rubio would have made decent candidates, in fact I think Rubio could have very likely beaten Hillary. But we all know what the GOP did to them.  I like Rand Paul, as long as he keeps in mind that individual liberty includes the right to choose to do things collectively.  I have huge issues politically with guys like Santorum and Walker, but they would have made respectable conservative candidates.  But Trump is a buffoon that has no place in American politics.  And Cruz and Fiorina are in a league of devil's spawn all their own.  And yes,  Carson was a flake.

Trump was helped not only by the Republican populist movement but also by the crowded field that diluted the opposition to him guaranteeing him numerous primary wins with only a plurality of the votes. Also the lack of Super Delegates and proportional distribution of delegates factor into the equation.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, fukcing, blah.  Trump won the Republican primary because he encompasses all that is the modern day conservative.  It's just that simple.  We should consider ourselves lucky that there are more buffoons like Trump than pagan followers of the devil incarnate, Cruz.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Ahhhhh yes. Teddy 'The Bazooka' Cruz.  What a lovable guy.



If I were you I'd stick with Trump.  He's a better bet.  Tell me something..... Of all those candidates, how did these two losers sift to the top?

Hell, you and all the Libs wasted little time disparaging the entire field of Republican candidates. Carson was a flake, Cristy was corrupt, Fiorina drove HP into the ground, Bush was .. well another Bush, Walker has been universally hated by the Democrats ever since the 2011 Wisconsin budget protests, and on and on.

Not true.  I have always been a fan of Christie(at least until he started buttering Trump's balls).  It's you that's been critical of him.  I think Jeb and Rubio would have made decent candidates, in fact I think Rubio could have very likely beaten Hillary.  But we all know what the GOP did to them.  I like Rand Paul, as long as he keeps in mind that individual liberty includes the right to choose to do things collectively.  I have huge issues politically with guys like Santorum and Walker, but they would have made respectable conservative candidates.  But Trump is a buffoon that has no place in American politics.  And Cruz and Fiorina are in a league of devil's spawn all their own.  And yes,  Carson was a flake.

Trump was helped not only by the Republican populist movement but also by the crowded field that diluted the opposition to him guaranteeing him numerous primary wins with only a plurality of the votes. Also the lack of Super Delegates and proportional distribution of delegates factor into the equation.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, fukcing, blah.  Trump won the Republican primary because he encompasses all that is the modern day conservative.  It's just that simple.  We should consider ourselves lucky that there are more buffoons like Trump than pagan followers of the devil incarnate, Cruz.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Ahhhhh yes. Teddy 'The Bazooka' Cruz.  What a lovable guy.



If I were you I'd stick with Trump.  He's a better bet.  Tell me something..... Of all those candidates, how did these two losers sift to the top?

Hell, you and all the Libs wasted little time disparaging the entire field of Republican candidates. Carson was a flake, Cristy was corrupt, Fiorina drove HP into the ground, Bush was .. well another Bush, Walker has been universally hated by the Democrats ever since the 2011 Wisconsin budget protests, and on and on.

Not true.  I have always been a fan of Christie(at least until he started buttering Trump's balls).  It's you that's been critical of him.  I think Jeb and Rubio would have made decent candidates, in fact I think Rubio could have very likely beaten Hillary.  But we all know what the GOP did to them.  I like Rand Paul, as long as he keeps in mind that individual liberty includes the right to choose to do things collectively.  I have huge issues politically with guys like Santorum and Walker, but they would have made respectable conservative candidates.  But Trump is a buffoon that has no place in American politics.  And Cruz and Fiorina are in a league of devil's spawn all their own.  And yes,  Carson was a flake.

Trump was helped not only by the Republican populist movement but also by the crowded field that diluted the opposition to him guaranteeing him numerous primary wins with only a plurality of the votes. Also the lack of Super Delegates and proportional distribution of delegates factor into the equation.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, fukcing, blah.  Trump won the Republican primary because he encompasses all that is the modern day conservative.  It's just that simple.  We should consider ourselves lucky that there are more buffoons like Trump than pagan followers of the devil incarnate, Cruz.

Jeebus. "I like Rand Paul, as long as he keeps in mind that individual liberty includes the right to choose to do things collectively." Translation: I like Rand Paul's libertarian ideas as long as he doesn't act like a libertarian. WTF? You must really enjoy climbing the Dumbass tree and falling out.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Ahhhhh yes. Teddy 'The Bazooka' Cruz.  What a lovable guy.



If I were you I'd stick with Trump.  He's a better bet.  Tell me something..... Of all those candidates, how did these two losers sift to the top?

Hell, you and all the Libs wasted little time disparaging the entire field of Republican candidates. Carson was a flake, Cristy was corrupt, Fiorina drove HP into the ground, Bush was .. well another Bush, Walker has been universally hated by the Democrats ever since the 2011 Wisconsin budget protests, and on and on.

Not true.  I have always been a fan of Christie(at least until he started buttering Trump's balls).  It's you that's been critical of him.  I think Jeb and Rubio would have made decent candidates, in fact I think Rubio could have very likely beaten Hillary.  But we all know what the GOP did to them.  I like Rand Paul, as long as he keeps in mind that individual liberty includes the right to choose to do things collectively.  I have huge issues politically with guys like Santorum and Walker, but they would have made respectable conservative candidates.  But Trump is a buffoon that has no place in American politics.  And Cruz and Fiorina are in a league of devil's spawn all their own.  And yes,  Carson was a flake.

Trump was helped not only by the Republican populist movement but also by the crowded field that diluted the opposition to him guaranteeing him numerous primary wins with only a plurality of the votes. Also the lack of Super Delegates and proportional distribution of delegates factor into the equation.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, fukcing, blah.  Trump won the Republican primary because he encompasses all that is the modern day conservative.  It's just that simple.  We should consider ourselves lucky that there are more buffoons like Trump than pagan followers of the devil incarnate, Cruz.

Jeebus. "I like Rand Paul, as long as he keeps in mind that individual liberty includes the right to choose to do things collectively." Translation: I like Rand Paul's libertarian ideas as long as he doesn't act like a libertarian. WTF? You must really enjoy climbing the Dumbass tree and falling out.

Good gawd Gomerr,  get a clue.  "Doesn't act like a Libertarian"?!?  No wonder you have such a poor grasp of the Constitution, you don't even know what liberty means. 'Liberty' refers to a person's right to choose their own destiny.  If a number of employees get together and decide that they want to demand higher wages, then so be it,  they have the liberty to do so.  If a group of individuals chooses to petition the government to offer a non-profit health insurance plan that they can pay into, they have the liberty to do that.  In a truly libertarian society, as long as you don't take from someone else to reach your goals, the sky is the limit.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Ahhhhh yes. Teddy 'The Bazooka' Cruz.  What a lovable guy.



If I were you I'd stick with Trump.  He's a better bet.  Tell me something..... Of all those candidates, how did these two losers sift to the top?

Hell, you and all the Libs wasted little time disparaging the entire field of Republican candidates. Carson was a flake, Cristy was corrupt, Fiorina drove HP into the ground, Bush was .. well another Bush, Walker has been universally hated by the Democrats ever since the 2011 Wisconsin budget protests, and on and on.

Not true.  I have always been a fan of Christie(at least until he started buttering Trump's balls).  It's you that's been critical of him.  I think Jeb and Rubio would have made decent candidates, in fact I think Rubio could have very likely beaten Hillary.  But we all know what the GOP did to them.  I like Rand Paul, as long as he keeps in mind that individual liberty includes the right to choose to do things collectively.  I have huge issues politically with guys like Santorum and Walker, but they would have made respectable conservative candidates.  But Trump is a buffoon that has no place in American politics.  And Cruz and Fiorina are in a league of devil's spawn all their own.  And yes,  Carson was a flake.

Trump was helped not only by the Republican populist movement but also by the crowded field that diluted the opposition to him guaranteeing him numerous primary wins with only a plurality of the votes. Also the lack of Super Delegates and proportional distribution of delegates factor into the equation.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, fukcing, blah.  Trump won the Republican primary because he encompasses all that is the modern day conservative.  It's just that simple.  We should consider ourselves lucky that there are more buffoons like Trump than pagan followers of the devil incarnate, Cruz.

Jeebus. "I like Rand Paul, as long as he keeps in mind that individual liberty includes the right to choose to do things collectively." Translation: I like Rand Paul's libertarian ideas as long as he doesn't act like a libertarian. WTF? You must really enjoy climbing the Dumbass tree and falling out.

Good gawd Gomerr,  get a clue.  "Doesn't act like a Libertarian"?!?  No wonder you have such a poor grasp of the Constitution, you don't even know what liberty means. 'Liberty' refers to a person's right to choose their own destiny.  If a number of employees get together and decide that they want to demand higher wages, then so be it,  they have the liberty to do so.  If a group of individuals chooses to petition the government to offer a non-profit health insurance plan that they can pay into, they have the liberty to do that.  In a truly libertarian society, as long as you don't take from someone else to reach your goals, the sky is the limit.

Does this government run "non-profit insurance plan" include a mandate masquerading as a tax for purchasing/not purchasing said plan? I didn't think there were any branches left on The Tree of Dumbazzery that you hadn't hit on your spectacular falls. I was mistaken.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Ahhhhh yes. Teddy 'The Bazooka' Cruz.  What a lovable guy.



If I were you I'd stick with Trump.  He's a better bet.  Tell me something..... Of all those candidates, how did these two losers sift to the top?

Hell, you and all the Libs wasted little time disparaging the entire field of Republican candidates. Carson was a flake, Cristy was corrupt, Fiorina drove HP into the ground, Bush was .. well another Bush, Walker has been universally hated by the Democrats ever since the 2011 Wisconsin budget protests, and on and on.

Not true.  I have always been a fan of Christie(at least until he started buttering Trump's balls).  It's you that's been critical of him.  I think Jeb and Rubio would have made decent candidates, in fact I think Rubio could have very likely beaten Hillary.  But we all know what the GOP did to them.  I like Rand Paul, as long as he keeps in mind that individual liberty includes the right to choose to do things collectively.  I have huge issues politically with guys like Santorum and Walker, but they would have made respectable conservative candidates.  But Trump is a buffoon that has no place in American politics.  And Cruz and Fiorina are in a league of devil's spawn all their own.  And yes,  Carson was a flake.

Trump was helped not only by the Republican populist movement but also by the crowded field that diluted the opposition to him guaranteeing him numerous primary wins with only a plurality of the votes. Also the lack of Super Delegates and proportional distribution of delegates factor into the equation.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, fukcing, blah.  Trump won the Republican primary because he encompasses all that is the modern day conservative.  It's just that simple.  We should consider ourselves lucky that there are more buffoons like Trump than pagan followers of the devil incarnate, Cruz.

Jeebus. "I like Rand Paul, as long as he keeps in mind that individual liberty includes the right to choose to do things collectively." Translation: I like Rand Paul's libertarian ideas as long as he doesn't act like a libertarian. WTF? You must really enjoy climbing the Dumbass tree and falling out.

Good gawd Gomerr,  get a clue.  "Doesn't act like a Libertarian"?!?  No wonder you have such a poor grasp of the Constitution, you don't even know what liberty means. 'Liberty' refers to a person's right to choose their own destiny.  If a number of employees get together and decide that they want to demand higher wages, then so be it,  they have the liberty to do so.  If a group of individuals chooses to petition the government to offer a non-profit health insurance plan that they can pay into, they have the liberty to do that.  In a truly libertarian society, as long as you don't take from someone else to reach your goals, the sky is the limit.

Does this government run "non-profit insurance plan" include a mandate masquerading as a tax for purchasing/not purchasing said plan? I didn't think there were any branches left on The Tree of Dumbazzery that you hadn't hit on your spectacular falls. I was mistaken.

No,  it would include healthcare that is half the price of the for profit rape job we are getting forced down our throats now.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Ahhhhh yes. Teddy 'The Bazooka' Cruz.  What a lovable guy.



If I were you I'd stick with Trump.  He's a better bet.  Tell me something..... Of all those candidates, how did these two losers sift to the top?

Hell, you and all the Libs wasted little time disparaging the entire field of Republican candidates. Carson was a flake, Cristy was corrupt, Fiorina drove HP into the ground, Bush was .. well another Bush, Walker has been universally hated by the Democrats ever since the 2011 Wisconsin budget protests, and on and on.

Not true.  I have always been a fan of Christie(at least until he started buttering Trump's balls).  It's you that's been critical of him.  I think Jeb and Rubio would have made decent candidates, in fact I think Rubio could have very likely beaten Hillary.  But we all know what the GOP did to them.  I like Rand Paul, as long as he keeps in mind that individual liberty includes the right to choose to do things collectively.  I have huge issues politically with guys like Santorum and Walker, but they would have made respectable conservative candidates.  But Trump is a buffoon that has no place in American politics.  And Cruz and Fiorina are in a league of devil's spawn all their own.  And yes,  Carson was a flake.

Trump was helped not only by the Republican populist movement but also by the crowded field that diluted the opposition to him guaranteeing him numerous primary wins with only a plurality of the votes. Also the lack of Super Delegates and proportional distribution of delegates factor into the equation.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, fukcing, blah.  Trump won the Republican primary because he encompasses all that is the modern day conservative.  It's just that simple.  We should consider ourselves lucky that there are more buffoons like Trump than pagan followers of the devil incarnate, Cruz.

Jeebus. "I like Rand Paul, as long as he keeps in mind that individual liberty includes the right to choose to do things collectively." Translation: I like Rand Paul's libertarian ideas as long as he doesn't act like a libertarian. WTF? You must really enjoy climbing the Dumbass tree and falling out.

Good gawd Gomerr,  get a clue.  "Doesn't act like a Libertarian"?!?  No wonder you have such a poor grasp of the Constitution, you don't even know what liberty means. 'Liberty' refers to a person's right to choose their own destiny.  If a number of employees get together and decide that they want to demand higher wages, then so be it,  they have the liberty to do so.  If a group of individuals chooses to petition the government to offer a non-profit health insurance plan that they can pay into, they have the liberty to do that.  In a truly libertarian society, as long as you don't take from someone else to reach your goals, the sky is the limit.

Does this government run "non-profit insurance plan" include a mandate masquerading as a tax for purchasing/not purchasing said plan? I didn't think there were any branches left on The Tree of Dumbazzery that you hadn't hit on your spectacular falls. I was mistaken.

No,  it would include healthcare that is half the price of the for profit rape job we are getting forced down our throats now.

It was once said, "In a truly libertarian society, as long as you don't take from someone else to reach your goals, the sky is the limit". So how do you plan to pay for this healthcare plan that's 50% off the crap we're being forced to overpay for now (Thanks Obamacare)? Shall we increase Medicare taxes, a program that's already broke, which would be a taking from someone else? Or maybe we should just borrow the billions and kick the can down the road so our grandchildren can pay for it (another taking)? Or just raise the income tax rates across the board and use tax revenues to pay for this plan of your neo-libertarian buddies (still yet another taking)? You seem to have a poor to non-existent understanding of libertarianism (political philosophy) and liberty (natural rights).

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Ahhhhh yes. Teddy 'The Bazooka' Cruz.  What a lovable guy.



If I were you I'd stick with Trump.  He's a better bet.  Tell me something..... Of all those candidates, how did these two losers sift to the top?

Hell, you and all the Libs wasted little time disparaging the entire field of Republican candidates. Carson was a flake, Cristy was corrupt, Fiorina drove HP into the ground, Bush was .. well another Bush, Walker has been universally hated by the Democrats ever since the 2011 Wisconsin budget protests, and on and on.

Not true.  I have always been a fan of Christie(at least until he started buttering Trump's balls).  It's you that's been critical of him.  I think Jeb and Rubio would have made decent candidates, in fact I think Rubio could have very likely beaten Hillary.  But we all know what the GOP did to them.  I like Rand Paul, as long as he keeps in mind that individual liberty includes the right to choose to do things collectively.  I have huge issues politically with guys like Santorum and Walker, but they would have made respectable conservative candidates.  But Trump is a buffoon that has no place in American politics.  And Cruz and Fiorina are in a league of devil's spawn all their own.  And yes,  Carson was a flake.

Trump was helped not only by the Republican populist movement but also by the crowded field that diluted the opposition to him guaranteeing him numerous primary wins with only a plurality of the votes. Also the lack of Super Delegates and proportional distribution of delegates factor into the equation.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, fukcing, blah.  Trump won the Republican primary because he encompasses all that is the modern day conservative.  It's just that simple.  We should consider ourselves lucky that there are more buffoons like Trump than pagan followers of the devil incarnate, Cruz.

Jeebus. "I like Rand Paul, as long as he keeps in mind that individual liberty includes the right to choose to do things collectively." Translation: I like Rand Paul's libertarian ideas as long as he doesn't act like a libertarian. WTF? You must really enjoy climbing the Dumbass tree and falling out.

Good gawd Gomerr,  get a clue.  "Doesn't act like a Libertarian"?!?  No wonder you have such a poor grasp of the Constitution, you don't even know what liberty means. 'Liberty' refers to a person's right to choose their own destiny.  If a number of employees get together and decide that they want to demand higher wages, then so be it,  they have the liberty to do so.  If a group of individuals chooses to petition the government to offer a non-profit health insurance plan that they can pay into, they have the liberty to do that.  In a truly libertarian society, as long as you don't take from someone else to reach your goals, the sky is the limit.

Does this government run "non-profit insurance plan" include a mandate masquerading as a tax for purchasing/not purchasing said plan? I didn't think there were any branches left on The Tree of Dumbazzery that you hadn't hit on your spectacular falls. I was mistaken.

No,  it would include healthcare that is half the price of the for profit rape job we are getting forced down our throats now.

It was once said, "In a truly libertarian society, as long as you don't take from someone else to reach your goals, the sky is the limit". So how do you plan to pay for this healthcare plan that's 50% off the crap we're being forced to overpay for now (Thanks Obamacare)? Shall we increase Medicare taxes, a program that's already broke, which would be a taking from someone else? Or maybe we should just borrow the billions and kick the can down the road so our grandchildren can pay for it (another taking)? Or just raise the income tax rates across the board and use tax revenues to pay for this plan of your neo-libertarian buddies (still yet another taking)? You seem to have a poor to non-existent understanding of libertarianism (political philosophy) and liberty (natural rights).

Maybe we should ask the folks at Christian Health Ministries for the recipe to their secret hot sauce...

Jammer wrote:Decent Americans need to understand that lying repressive liberals never ever mean what they say.  I guess that is why they are known as LYING liberals.

Yes liberty means that Americans can choose to exercise their individual liberties so long as they do not violate the Constitution or infringe on the individual rights of others.  The Constitution is structured in such a way as to protect the rights of the MINORITY.  It prevents the majority from exercising "mob rule" on the minority and denying them their God given rights.

Ask the LGBT community about your minority rule theory, you blowhard.

So when the example of a "collective" group of people getting together to form a non-profit health insurance group is given, the answer is yes they have the right to do that.  However, they do not have the right to force others to join in this group or to penalize them for not joining by charging some type of fee.  And since government is the delegation of the rights you have as an INDIVIDUAL to the government to act on your behalf, you cannot petition the government to do this for you.

Now a group such as residents of a state or county may petition the state or local government to create some type of voluntary insurance plan that individuals can freely join, however they cannot force people to join.  The other thing is that is it completely unconstitutional for the FEDERAL government to get into this type of activity as the Constitution clearly does not give them the authority and goes on to state that things such as this are left to the states (10th Amendment).

Setting aside the libertarian goggles, you are obviously referring to the individual mandate in Obamacare. That is easily explained, try to follow along. Because of our bankruptcy laws and the fact that Reagan forced hospitals to provide healthcare to people who couldn't afford it, we have a vested interest in making sure that people's healthcare needs are accounted for. Therefore we are well within our rights to mandate that everyone make some sort of arrangements.

It is quite normal for tyrannical repressive liberals to start with a premise and then twist it and stretch it to the point that their agenda of achieving a communist society controlled by an all powerful CENTRAL government is achieved.  These evil cretins have no place in a civil society and that is why good decent Americans should drive these scumbags from their cities and neighborhoods.  They are pure evil.

Jammer wrote:

COMPLETE BULLSHIT from a lying asshole.  
Believe nothing this piece of dogshit says.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

COMPLETE BULLSHIT from a lying asshole.  
Believe nothing this piece of dogshit says.

Talk is cheap azzhole..

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

COMPLETE BULLSHIT from a lying asshole.  
Believe nothing this piece of dogshit says.

Talk is cheap azzhole..

You have been proven to be a lying asshole and nothing you say has any credibility.  You are a complete asshole and a drain on society.  I pity the poor people who have to live in your neighborhood as you are a scumbag.  There is no place in a civil society for evil cretins like you.  Go pound sand asshole.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:"Therefore we are well within our rights to mandate that everyone make some sort of arrangements."


FYI, governments don't have rights; they have powers.  And of course the personal mandate of Obamacare was found to be unconstitutional which is why Chief Justice Roberts had to invent the fiction that it was a tax imposed on those who don't have an accepted form of health insurance. You must really enjoy smashing into those branches on the Tree of Dumbazzery.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:"Therefore we are well within our rights to mandate that everyone make some sort of arrangements."


FYI, governments don't have rights; they have powers.  And of course the personal mandate of Obamacare was found to be unconstitutional which is why Chief Justice Roberts had to invent the fiction that it was a tax imposed on those who don't have an accepted form of health insurance. You must really enjoy smashing into those branches on the Tree of Dumbazzery.

Save your semantics for someone who gives a shiit you fukcing idiot.  If it's constitutional for Reagan to make us pay for/or make hospitals eat the cost of treatment for those who can't afford it,  it's surely constitutional for Obama to make sure they aren't stiffing us for the bill.  Don'tchya think?!?

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

COMPLETE BULLSHIT from a lying asshole.  
Believe nothing this piece of dogshit says.

Talk is cheap azzhole..

You have been proven to be a lying asshole and nothing you say has any credibility.  You are a complete asshole and a drain on society.  I pity the poor people who have to live in your neighborhood as you are a scumbag.  There is no place in a civil society for evil cretins like you.  Go pound sand asshole.

So you're saying you still got nuthin'?

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:"Therefore we are well within our rights to mandate that everyone make some sort of arrangements."


FYI, governments don't have rights; they have powers.  And of course the personal mandate of Obamacare was found to be unconstitutional which is why Chief Justice Roberts had to invent the fiction that it was a tax imposed on those who don't have an accepted form of health insurance. You must really enjoy smashing into those branches on the Tree of Dumbazzery.

Save your semantics for someone who gives a shiit you fukcing idiot.  If it's constitutional for Reagan to make us pay for/or make hospitals eat the cost of treatment for those who can't afford it,  it's surely constitutional for Obama to make sure they aren't stiffing us for the bill.  Don'tchya think?!?

You must be referring to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986. And of course Reagan did sign the legislation but a bipartisan Congress first had to pass it as part of a budget reconciliation omnibus bill. Democrats marched hand in hand with the Republicans on this legislation.

Under the law, hospitals who receive Medicare/Medicaid funding could no longer refuse to treat patients because of an inability to pay, citizenship or legal status. However since hospitals could refuse to treat those patients if they wanted to by foregoing Federal payments, it was considered a "voluntary" program. The Eleventh Circuit Court upheld the constitutionality of the law in Baker County Medical Services vs U.S. Attorney General on the basis that voluntary participation in a regulated program defeats a takings clause challenge.

The individual mandate under Obamacare is an entirely different animal. A majority of the Supreme Court held that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and violated the Commerce Clause and/or Necessary and Proper Clause powers. Therefore the ACA constitutionality is grounded in Chief Justice Robert's fiction that it is a tax and in the taxation power of Congress.

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

COMPLETE BULLSHIT from a lying asshole.  
Believe nothing this piece of dogshit says.

Talk is cheap azzhole..

You have been proven to be a lying asshole and nothing you say has any credibility.  You are a complete asshole and a drain on society.  I pity the poor people who have to live in your neighborhood as you are a scumbag.  There is no place in a civil society for evil cretins like you.  Go pound sand asshole.

So you're saying you still got nuthin'?

I think he summed it up nicely...pound sand asshole!

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

COMPLETE BULLSHIT from a lying asshole.  
Believe nothing this piece of dogshit says.

Talk is cheap azzhole..

You have been proven to be a lying asshole and nothing you say has any credibility.  You are a complete asshole and a drain on society.  I pity the poor people who have to live in your neighborhood as you are a scumbag.  There is no place in a civil society for evil cretins like you.  Go pound sand asshole.

So you're saying you still got nuthin'?

I think he summed it up nicely...pound sand asshole!

#PartyofTrump

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

COMPLETE BULLSHIT from a lying asshole.  
Believe nothing this piece of dogshit says.

Talk is cheap azzhole..

You have been proven to be a lying asshole and nothing you say has any credibility.  You are a complete asshole and a drain on society.  I pity the poor people who have to live in your neighborhood as you are a scumbag.  There is no place in a civil society for evil cretins like you.  Go pound sand asshole.

So you're saying you still got nuthin'?

I think he summed it up nicely...pound sand asshole!

#PartyofTrump

There were 16 candidates I would have placed above Trump...unfortunately, this is all I have left and I would rather vote for Satan than that lying scumbag Killary.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:"Therefore we are well within our rights to mandate that everyone make some sort of arrangements."


FYI, governments don't have rights; they have powers.  And of course the personal mandate of Obamacare was found to be unconstitutional which is why Chief Justice Roberts had to invent the fiction that it was a tax imposed on those who don't have an accepted form of health insurance. You must really enjoy smashing into those branches on the Tree of Dumbazzery.

Save your semantics for someone who gives a shiit you fukcing idiot.  If it's constitutional for Reagan to make us pay for/or make hospitals eat the cost of treatment for those who can't afford it,  it's surely constitutional for Obama to make sure they aren't stiffing us for the bill.  Don'tchya think?!?

You must be referring to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986. And of course Reagan did sign the legislation but a bipartisan Congress first had to pass it as part of a budget reconciliation omnibus bill. Democrats marched hand in hand with the Republicans on this legislation.

Under the law, hospitals who receive Medicare/Medicaid funding could no longer refuse to treat patients because of an inability to pay, citizenship or legal status. However since hospitals could refuse to treat those patients if they wanted to by foregoing Federal payments, it was considered a "voluntary" program. The Eleventh Circuit Court upheld the constitutionality of the law in Baker County Medical Services vs U.S. Attorney General on the basis that voluntary participation in a regulated program defeats a takings clause challenge.

The individual mandate under Obamacare is an entirely different animal. A majority of the Supreme Court held that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and violated the Commerce Clause and/or Necessary and Proper Clause powers. Therefore the ACA constitutionality is grounded in Chief Justice Robert's fiction that it is a tax and in the taxation power of Congress.

I'm still missing the part where it was deemed "unconstitutional" as you're claiming.  We all know that there are a multitude of different angles that any law or mandate can be assesed from,  a tax being one of them.  A tax seems tame as compared to the bribery/extortion tactic used by Reagan to force hospitals to treat those who couldn't afford healthcare.  Where do you think that buy off money comes from?  At least Obama's tax rests on the shoulders of the individuals who are not doing their part.

As for Reagan's policy being bipartisan, Obamacare is bipartisan a well, especially the individual mandate, because conservatives were for it before they were against it.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/health/policy/health-care-mandate-was-first-backed-by-conservatives.html?_r=0

2. Chief Justice Roberts concluded in Part III–A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 16–30.

(a) The Constitution grants Congress the power to “regulate Commerce.” Art. I, §8, cl. 3 (emphasis added). The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. This Court’s precedent reflects this understanding: As expansive as this Court’s cases construing the scope of the commerce power have been, they uniformly describe the power as reaching “activity.” E.g., United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549. The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.” Pp. 16–27.

(b) Nor can the individual mandate be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an integral part of the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms. Each of this Court’s prior cases upholding laws under that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power. E.g., United States v. Comstock, 560 U. S. ___. The individual mandate, by contrast, vests Congress with the extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power and draw within its regulatory scope those who would otherwise be outside of it. Even if the individual mandate is “necessary” to the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms, such an expansion of federal power is not a “proper” means for making those reforms effective. Pp. 27–30.