Comments on: Rand Paul: Obamacare Is Not Constitutional

By: Deep_Thinker

Deep_Thinker — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 14:38:24 +0000

I'm not supporting Ron Paul…

Nice ASSumption though.

By: lambsev

lambsev — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 22:09:33 +0000

Define religion.

By: sandykramer

sandykramer — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 20:13:53 +0000

Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.

Don't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some more
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

By: Jeff Dixon

Jeff Dixon — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 14:15:17 +0000

Obama insisted it was not a tax. He is supposedly a Constitutional scholar. Is he clueless about the tax code, the Commerce Clause, or just willing to lie to suit his purposes?

By: MexseikoMexseiko

MexseikoMexseiko — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 13:23:17 +0000

The GOP is so stunned by the decision they don't know what to do. Based on the Supreme ruling, ObamaCare is constitutional ONLY if it's a Tax. If Obama continues to argue that it's not a Tax but a Penanlty, then it is Unconstitutional.

He cannot have both ways.

By: Richard Colonel

Richard Colonel — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 22:19:35 +0000

Regardless of how much the government want to spend on whatever project they have, their idea is that they can just appropriate or borrow from people's checking accounts to fund their programs. It's so simple.

By: bighoss

bighoss — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 17:11:52 +0000

A "tax" is a "tax" when it walks like a tax, quacks like a tax, etc. Roberts is an experienced judge and constitutional scholar. He read the details of the health care legislation and concluded properly that the provision at issue does indeed impose a TAX. End of story, though obviously not the end of guardhouse lawyering by ignoramuses.

By: bighoss

bighoss — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 17:08:56 +0000

Asinine–your post that is. The matter of John Roberts' adopted children surfaced briefly during his confirmation process. The right wing media came down strongly against the New York Times and others for allegedly trying to obtain access to confidential records concerning the adoption of the two Roberts children. Now you–obviously a winger yourself–are bringing up that old chestnut in a completely undocumented, unexplicatted assertion that someone used the adoption non-issue to blackmail Roberts into writing an opinion favorable to the health car act. ABSURD, Gram.

You obviously can't put up anything to substantiate this baldly ludicrous assertion. Be advised that your saying it is so does not by any means make it so. Show us the goods, Gram, or bug off! Good grief!!

By: bighoss

bighoss — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:53:53 +0000

Poor old John Roberts! He has defiled his mess kit with the birthers, the wing nuts, the libertarians, and other ultra-rightest true believers. This is the only one of his opinions that goes against their grain, but it will, in the eyes of these "my way or the highway" ideologues, forever brand him as a renegate s o c ialist traitor to the "cause."

It is, of course, very unlikely that even one percent of those ranting about Roberts' opinion have actually read even one word of it. It is not within the ambit of their investigation to consider the actual substance of the thing. They KNOW the TRUTH because they watch Fox News and follow such "experts" as Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann on that detailed analytical medium of Twitter!.

Pitiful!