|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
 Posted - 02/09/2011 : 14:42:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
On another note, anyone else get annoyed when someone (I'm looking at you, Robb) says they want something discussed, but then vanish when you try to discuss it with them?
|
I guess you really don't care why I haven't had time to respond before you call me out. Does it make you feel good Dave W.? |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
 |
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2011 : 14:45:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Robb watches too much Glenn Beck. When you call mandatory insurance "tyranny" and in the same paragraph say that other mandatory insurance is just fine... you are not thinking rationally.
|
The difference is taxes are lawful and constitutional, forcing a citizen to use the servics those taxes provide is tyranny. I do not watch Glenn Beck. But go ahead a perpetuate that lie if you like. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2011 : 14:51:23 [Permalink]
|
The stories I have read claim a 2 and 2 result.
Major differences in the two won vs the 2 lost.
Lost:
Provider suing the government calling the taxes levied on the industry unConstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate. (Article I, Section 7, Clause 1)
Religious group asking for overturn due to funding for abortion
Won:
Both cases cited an overreach of the commerce clause. This one requiring the purchase of health insurance from a third party. I agree that it is an overreach of the commerce clause.
Medicare/SS does not fall under this because it only impacts working individuals and it pays into a federal program.
Auto insurance doesn't fall under this because it requires insurance to exercise a privledge.
This isn't tyranny. It is overstepping Congressional powers as enumerated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. It allows for regulation of commerce, not the power to compel commerce. Any reference to refunds and tax breaks does not address this basic failure. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2011 : 14:51:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Are you aware of our successful state run health care plan for the poor?Read about it!
My mother, who was laid off almost two years ago, is on this plan and it is great for her. She has access to super low cost health care (like $4 a visit)
Maybe J.B. Vanhollen doesn't want the Fed to come in and fuck it all up on us!
|
Yes, my question is, why can't we just fix the problem. Get reasonable health care for the people that can't get it. Why change everybody's health care? Is the Wisconsin government forcing people to take advantage of this service? |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2011 : 14:53:14 [Permalink]
|
| Hey Dave W. I may not be back for 10 minutes to go to the bathroom, feel free to bash me for not being responsive during that time. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2011 : 15:37:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Are you aware of our successful state run health care plan for the poor?Read about it!
My mother, who was laid off almost two years ago, is on this plan and it is great for her. She has access to super low cost health care (like $4 a visit)
Maybe J.B. Vanhollen doesn't want the Fed to come in and fuck it all up on us!
|
Yes, my question is, why can't we just fix the problem. Get reasonable health care for the people that can't get it. Why change everybody's health care? Is the Wisconsin government forcing people to take advantage of this service? |
bolding mine
Why can't we fix the problem? Because there is too much money flowing between the insurance companies and the hospitals. I say get rid of the middle man so the hospitals can charge reasonable prices directly to the patients. Insurance should only be for high cost procedures (IMHO).
Of course the Wisconsin government is not forcing people to use Badgercare. That would be unconstitutional!
|
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2011 : 15:49:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Hey Dave W. I may not be back for 10 minutes to go to the bathroom, feel free to bash me for not being responsive during that time. |
Expressing my annoyance at your vanishing act is "bashing" now?
Hyperbole much? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2011 : 16:04:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
I am trying to be consistent here. I am for governing our country by the constitution. The constitution says that it is legal to tax people for services, it does not allow the government to force us to use these services. |
Since you cannot set up your own court system and use it to send people to Federal prisons, you'll have to be more specific.| I do believe that it is tyranny to forcibly take people’s money away under penalty but the fact is it’s the law. I really don’t think I have much chance in changing that fact. |
So all taxation is tyranny, to you?Have to look at that later...| Sure, but the judge did issue an injunction for the government to stop implementing the law. President Obama has seemed to ignore this. |
Seriously: what did you expect him to do? Publish full-page lists of detailed orders to his Department heads in the paper? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2011 : 18:53:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Robb
Hey Dave W. I may not be back for 10 minutes to go to the bathroom, feel free to bash me for not being responsive during that time. |
Expressing my annoyance at your vanishing act is "bashing" now?
Hyperbole much?
|
You can play your little games Dave W. Play your little games. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2011 : 19:00:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Since you cannot set up your own court system and use it to send people to Federal prisons, you'll have to be more specific. |
???
| So all taxation is tyranny, to you? |
No. Just taxes I have to pay under a penalty of some kind. I am not saying that we are living under a full tyranical government, only that some aspects are. Basically, income tax I believe to be tyranical, but the constitution does allow for income taxes.
Seriously: what did you expect him to do? Publish full-page lists of detailed orders to his Department heads in the paper?
|
I don't know what the President should do, but I don't think he should ignore it. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2011 : 19:35:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by Dave W.
So all taxation is tyranny, to you?
|
No. Just taxes I have to pay under a penalty of some kind. I am not saying that we are living under a full tyranical government, only that some aspects are. Basically, income tax I believe to be tyranical, but the constitution does allow for income taxes.
Seriously: what did you expect him to do? Publish full-page lists of detailed orders to his Department heads in the paper?
|
I don't know what the President should do, but I don't think he should ignore it.
|
Do you ever think about what you write?
1. Taxes are tyranny if you are forced to pay or face some kind of penalty for not paying them.
2. The constitution allows for tyranny.
3. You don't know what the president should do, but you know what he shouldn't do. Still you don't know what he is doing. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2011 : 20:17:09 [Permalink]
|
| Actually, the judge in the case did not issue an injunction. |
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
| Edited by - podcat on 02/09/2011 20:19:45 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2011 : 21:22:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
You can play your little games Dave W. Play your little games. |
You're the one playing games, here. I didn't "bash" you, you were just playing for sympathy. Especially with the "ten minutes" comment. After 24 hours (much less six days), I usually think that someone who's gone to the john either isn't coming out again under their own power, or has fled out the window.
Besides, this seems to be a pattern with you. I can't count the times I was hoping for a substantive response from you, only to see a thread just die. The idea that you'd just buggered off because you didn't want to discuss what you said needed discussion is nowhere close to being unreasonable given the evidence at hand.| Since you cannot set up your own court system and use it to send people to Federal prisons, you'll have to be more specific. |
??? |
The government can and does force you to both pay for and use the Federal judiciary system if your goal is to lock criminals up in Federal prison. That's just one example of how your blanket claim that the government cannot force you to use government services is wrong.| No. Just taxes I have to pay under a penalty of some kind. |
That would be all of them. Or can you name a tax which is voluntary?| I am not saying that we are living under a full tyranical government, only that some aspects are. Basically, income tax I believe to be tyranical, but the constitution does allow for income taxes. |
Yes, you're saying that the Constitution itself imposes a tyranny, yet you wish people would abide by the Constitution (even though you got the whole rights thing backwards and so clearly don't fully comprehend the Constitution).
Through the Constitution, We, the People, gave Congress the power to levy taxes. Appropriate majority votes were passed to enact a whole boatload of different taxes, but one of the things the Constitution is intended to do is to protect minorities from "the tyranny of the majority," and so the Constitution also demands "checks and balances" on the power of the different branches of government. Taxes, especially income taxes, and especially progressive income taxes, have passed such tests many times.
So, in an era of historically low taxes (thanks in no small part to Reagan's idiocy), you're saying that constitutionally enacted taxes which have been repeatedly legally determined to impose no undue burden are tyrannical. I certainly don't get it, unless you think, in general, that laws you just don't like are tyrannical, a standard that'd be nothing but hyperbolic.
And think about it this way: ultra-leftists think that "the minority" the Constitution is designed to protect is "the rich and the privileged." Most conservatives aren't anywhere close to "rich," but vote in favor of tax policy that does, indeed, protect the rich at the expense of their own welfare. Hell, in 2004, the average per-capita income of the "Red States" was 20% less than that of the "Blue States," yet conservatives voted to let the rich get richer by keeping taxes low. Either it's a bizarre form of economic and social suicide, or Republicans in general think that they're a hairs'-breadth away from becoming billionaires (much like inner-city kids have been deluded into thinking they've all got realistic chances to play in the NBA).
Actually, think about it this way: the people who make fewer charitable contributions than you do pay for you to be able to do so, Robb. The people with fewer kids than you pay more for your (and you kids') access to public services, including schooling. This liberal certainly doesn't mind, but with your "tyranny" talk, you're essentially saying that you'd prefer to experience more personal economic hardships in order to do nothing more than claim freedom from "tyranny." Is it just a matter of pride?| Seriously: what did you expect him to do? Publish full-page lists of detailed orders to his Department heads in the paper? |
I don't know what the President should do, but I don't think he should ignore it. |
There's been no evidence presented by anyone, anywhere, that Obama will simply ignore the ruling. He might be waiting for the legal questions to be resolved by the appropriate judicial bodies, but that's not nearly the same as "ignoring," now is it? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2011 : 13:01:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by podcat
Actually, the judge in the case did not issue an injunction.
|
Do you agree or not that this is an injunction?
http://www.marklevinshow.com/goout.asp?u=http://citadelcc.vo.llnwd.net/o29/network/Levin/MP3/ShowAudio/Florida-Healthcare-Summary-Judgment.pdf page 75
(5) Injunction
The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief
enjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly.
Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456
U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], and “drastic” remedy
[Aaron v. S.E.C., 446 U.S. 680, 703, 100 S. Ct. 1945, 64 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1980)
(Burger, J., concurring)]. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the
federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the
Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the
declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” See Comm. on
Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir.
2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir.
1985) (“declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers
are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . .
since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared
by the court”) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added).
There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here.
Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is
not necessary. |
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
“Obamacare” unconstitutional?
