Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by SiriusDawg, Feb 11, 2013.
this would be an impeachable offense
And if My grandma had nuts she'd fuck you in the ass.
why do you post here? srs
I already said, because I need to counter the blatant falsehoods that get repeated by you.
You post here and never back up anything you say with facts. Still waiting for the not non-immigration numbers, but immigration numbers. How about a clip of Obama saying he'd like to be a dictator rather than the one you posted in which he says I am follow our countries separation of powers?
Why post in a politics debate forum if all you do if throw shit on the wall and then run away?
how can you watch a video called "holy fucking shit obama said he wished he could be a dictator! serious!" and come away with some other conclusion???
Have you ever been tested for cognitive learning disabilities?
I know in your Jesus Loves me world, the title of a youtube video is all the proof your small mind needs, but if you took the time to watch the video, which you obviously didn't, because you have no use of facts, Obama said nothing of the sort, IN FACT HE SAID THE EXACT OPPOSITE.
I'm close to putting you on ignore, I mean you fucking post the titles of video on youtube as primary source facts????
Holy shit we have passed through the looking glass.
One thing that is rarely discussed about justice Roberts and his healthcare decision. The man has a seizure disorder that he acquired in adulthood. He had his first seizure while chief justice(pretty sure anyway), lucky for him he had some of the best health insurance on the planet--Federal blue cross. If he didn't have any insurance and did not get immediate treatment after his seizure, he could have been a vegetable unable to fulfill his duty. He is now treated and can still function in the highest judicial position in the country. Maybe just maybe he believes everyone should be insured even if the pesky govt. is the one mandating it.
Nope. He does however believe the gov't has the Constitutional right to tax you if you do not buy insurance.
anything. he ruled the government has the right to tax you if you refuse to buy anything they tell you to buy.
that is not a conservative, originalist position, like, at all. and there's ample evidence that Roberts changed his position from when the court met and swapped briefs, and the final brief/vote
roberts betrayed the conservative movement/originalist justices, and he did so at the last minute. whether he did so for personal reasons, political reasons, or was coerced into doing so is apparently not yet known.
the betrayal was. i posted it. in this forum. you know, because it was so obvious that anyone but bosch76 could see it.
would anyone put it past the obama machine to blackmail the SCOTUS?
Only people with cognitive learning disabilities which result in a lack of rational reasoning skills leading to beliefs in all kinds of stupid bullshit.
Please bump the thread you posted this "evidence" in. Also, I hate to break it to you the concept of the individual mandate and personal tax for not buying healthcare was a conservative idea--back when republicans actually came up with a solution instead of "universal healthcare" or a single payor system. Once again you heard bullshit on talk radio and believed it to be true. The heritage foundation supported a nearly identical plan to obamacare in the 90's. Sorry buddy, Obamacare is a really a republican idea that got passed by a democrat.
thought i was on ignore dipshit
you have to read the briefs, and you have to read between the lines. the 4 conservative judges had to change their briefs at the last minute to reflect that they were now in the minority; roberts had to stand alone on his "penalties are just taxes" stance.
it's a little more in-depth than posting a video of obama saying he wishes he could just act on his own, and bypass congress, without actually using the word "dictator"
but you keep trying, and one day you'll be right up there with bosch76
Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court’s four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama’s health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.
Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy – believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law – led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold . . .
In the court’s private conference immediately after the arguments, he was aligned with the four conservatives to strike down the mandate . . . Over the next six weeks, as Roberts began to craft the decision striking down the mandate, the external pressure began to grow. Roberts almost certainly was aware of it.
Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As chief justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the court, and he also is sensitive to how the court is perceived by the public.
There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the court – and to Roberts’ reputation – if the court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the president himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.
Some even suggested that if Roberts struck down the mandate, it would prove he had been deceitful during his confirmation hearings, when he explained a philosophy of judicial restraint.
It was around this time that it also became clear to the conservative justices that Roberts was, as one put it, “wobbly,” the sources said.
[h=1]Did John Roberts switch his vote? [/h][h=2]Updated: The dissents suggest the court was set to overturn Obamacare -- until Roberts suddenly changed his vote[/h]
Forbes ran an article about the 11th hour switch, and Scalia's reference to the dissent as overturning obamacare, but the site keeps crashing