Ted Cruz born in Canada; Hilarious!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe you are right. I was confusing "intellectual" with an "intelligent" person. It is clear that YOU are an intellectual. So sorry.

nice deflection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, Obamacare was ruled constitutional based on TAX-which the Dems insisted was not in the bill.

So it is constitutional

#moveon

Actually, the Supreme Court has no legal right to change a term to make something constitutional. It was a huge over-reach of power. The forefathers rolled over in their graves.

Oh dear. Someone needs to brush up on their Marbury v. Madison.

[Anonymous]

I like how conservatives pound it into us that we must not question the validity of court decisions when they like the outcome (ie Zimmerman), then they say "overreach" when its something they disagree with.

Such hypocrites. Bonus points for parroting the language given to them by their conservative puppet masters. Twenty years ago they would have said "activist".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, Obamacare was ruled constitutional based on TAX-which the Dems insisted was not in the bill.

So it is constitutional

#moveon

Actually, the Supreme Court has no legal right to change a term to make something constitutional. It was a huge over-reach of power. The forefathers rolled over in their graves.

Oh dear. Someone needs to brush up on their Marbury v. Madison.

The judges said 'we think Obama meant tax, not fine after Obama said over and over it wasn't a tax. That's not interpretation, that's over-reach. They should have ruled it unconstitutional and made Obama change it. See the difference? There's a reason Obama said it was not a tax

[Anonymous]

Obama said it wasn't a tax because you people act like "taxes" are "cop killer bullets" aimed at your head, rather than a civil society's means of paying for collective services.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, Obamacare was ruled constitutional based on TAX-which the Dems insisted was not in the bill.

So it is constitutional

#moveon

Actually, the Supreme Court has no legal right to change a term to make something constitutional. It was a huge over-reach of power. The forefathers rolled over in their graves.

Oh dear. Someone needs to brush up on their Marbury v. Madison.

The judges said 'we think Obama meant tax, not fine after Obama said over and over it wasn't a tax. That's not interpretation, that's over-reach. They should have ruled it unconstitutional and made Obama change it. See the difference? There's a reason Obama said it was not a tax

Really? Chief Justice Roberts said, "we think Obama meant tax"? No, he didn't. First, the federal government did assert that the ACA was a constitutional exercise of the government's taxing power. Second, the Court held that regardless of what the fine was called, it operated as a tax. Third, it's not at all overreach - the Court looked at how the mandate/fine operated (not what it was called) and determined that it was constitutional. It doesn't matter what it is called - it's not in the power of the Executive to try to impact the Court's decision with with labels, much like the signing statements Bush was so fond of don't control and are not binding on the Court.

[takoma]

Just as a corporation can be considered enough like a person to get First Amendment rights, but you still can't marry one, the Obamacare fee can be enough like a tax for SCOTUS to declare it contitutional without Obama recognizing it as a tax for political purposes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obama said it wasn't a tax because you people act like "taxes" are "cop killer bullets" aimed at your head, rather than a civil society's means of paying for collective services.

So now, it's a tax and the bill originated in the senate, not the house...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, Obamacare was ruled constitutional based on TAX-which the Dems insisted was not in the bill.

So it is constitutional

#moveon

Actually, the Supreme Court has no legal right to change a term to make something constitutional. It was a huge over-reach of power. The forefathers rolled over in their graves.

Oh dear. Someone needs to brush up on their Marbury v. Madison.

The judges said 'we think Obama meant tax, not fine after Obama said over and over it wasn't a tax. That's not interpretation, that's over-reach. They should have ruled it unconstitutional and made Obama change it. See the difference? There's a reason Obama said it was not a tax

Really? Chief Justice Roberts said, "we think Obama meant tax"? No, he didn't. First, the federal government did assert that the ACA was a constitutional exercise of the government's taxing power. Second, the Court held that regardless of what the fine was called, it operated as a tax. Third, it's not at all overreach - the Court looked at how the mandate/fine operated (not what it was called) and determined that it was constitutional. It doesn't matter what it is called - it's not in the power of the Executive to try to impact the Court's decision with with labels, much like the signing statements Bush was so fond of don't control and are not binding on the Court.

And the bill originated where?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, Obamacare was ruled constitutional based on TAX-which the Dems insisted was not in the bill.

So it is constitutional

#moveon

Actually, the Supreme Court has no legal right to change a term to make something constitutional. It was a huge over-reach of power. The forefathers rolled over in their graves.

Oh dear. Someone needs to brush up on their Marbury v. Madison.

The judges said 'we think Obama meant tax, not fine after Obama said over and over it wasn't a tax. That's not interpretation, that's over-reach. They should have ruled it unconstitutional and made Obama change it. See the difference? There's a reason Obama said it was not a tax

Really? Chief Justice Roberts said, "we think Obama meant tax"? No, he didn't. First, the federal government did assert that the ACA was a constitutional exercise of the government's taxing power. Second, the Court held that regardless of what the fine was called, it operated as a tax. Third, it's not at all overreach - the Court looked at how the mandate/fine operated (not what it was called) and determined that it was constitutional. It doesn't matter what it is called - it's not in the power of the Executive to try to impact the Court's decision with with labels, much like the signing statements Bush was so fond of don't control and are not binding on the Court.

And the bill originated where?

If I offer incontrovertible proof that the point you are trying to make is wrong, will you admit it? Of course not. Nevertheless, since you keep bringing this up, let me set you straight.

The act that Obama eventually signed into law began life in the House of Representatives as HR. 3590, introduced by Charles Rangel and named the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009". The purpose of the bill was to "amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986...". So, in other words, this bill was a tax bill. In the Senate, the bill was amended so that it no longer had anything to do with service members home ownership, but rather dealt with health care. At that time, it was renamed the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act".

Here you can find it as introduced:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3590/text/ih

And, here you can find it as passed by the Senate:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3590/text

So, right-wingers, rest assured. You are not in possession of a little-know fact that would completely discredit Obamacare. Rather, as usual, you are simply misinformed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, Obamacare was ruled constitutional based on TAX-which the Dems insisted was not in the bill.

So it is constitutional

#moveon

Actually, the Supreme Court has no legal right to change a term to make something constitutional. It was a huge over-reach of power. The forefathers rolled over in their graves.

Oh dear. Someone needs to brush up on their Marbury v. Madison.

The judges said 'we think Obama meant tax, not fine after Obama said over and over it wasn't a tax. That's not interpretation, that's over-reach. They should have ruled it unconstitutional and made Obama change it. See the difference? There's a reason Obama said it was not a tax

Really? Chief Justice Roberts said, "we think Obama meant tax"? No, he didn't. First, the federal government did assert that the ACA was a constitutional exercise of the government's taxing power. Second, the Court held that regardless of what the fine was called, it operated as a tax. Third, it's not at all overreach - the Court looked at how the mandate/fine operated (not what it was called) and determined that it was constitutional. It doesn't matter what it is called - it's not in the power of the Executive to try to impact the Court's decision with with labels, much like the signing statements Bush was so fond of don't control and are not binding on the Court.

That's not actually what the Supreme Court said, so we can stop reading you now.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, Obamacare was ruled constitutional based on TAX-which the Dems insisted was not in the bill.

So it is constitutional

#moveon

Actually, the Supreme Court has no legal right to change a term to make something constitutional. It was a huge over-reach of power. The forefathers rolled over in their graves.

Oh dear. Someone needs to brush up on their Marbury v. Madison.

The judges said 'we think Obama meant tax, not fine after Obama said over and over it wasn't a tax. That's not interpretation, that's over-reach. They should have ruled it unconstitutional and made Obama change it. See the difference? There's a reason Obama said it was not a tax

Really? Chief Justice Roberts said, "we think Obama meant tax"? No, he didn't. First, the federal government did assert that the ACA was a constitutional exercise of the government's taxing power. Second, the Court held that regardless of what the fine was called, it operated as a tax. Third, it's not at all overreach - the Court looked at how the mandate/fine operated (not what it was called) and determined that it was constitutional. It doesn't matter what it is called - it's not in the power of the Executive to try to impact the Court's decision with with labels, much like the signing statements Bush was so fond of don't control and are not binding on the Court.

And the bill originated where?

If I offer incontrovertible proof that the point you are trying to make is wrong, will you admit it? Of course not. Nevertheless, since you keep bringing this up, let me set you straight.

The act that Obama eventually signed into law began life in the House of Representatives as HR. 3590, introduced by Charles Rangel and named the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009". The purpose of the bill was to "amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986...". So, in other words, this bill was a tax bill. In the Senate, the bill was amended so that it no longer had anything to do with service members home ownership, but rather dealt with health care. At that time, it was renamed the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act".

Here you can find it as introduced:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3590/text/ih

And, here you can find it as passed by the Senate:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3590/text

So, right-wingers, rest assured. You are not in possession of a little-know fact that would completely discredit Obamacare. Rather, as usual, you are simply misinformed.

Changed to health care and then introduced by the Senate. Yep, exactly...

[Anonymous]

As I wrote in my book, Covenant of Liberty:

On September 17, 2009, Congressman Charlie Rangel introduced a bill in the House, H.R. 3590, the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009," whose purpose was "to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees." The bill passed the House on October 8 by a 416-0 vote.

On November 19, Harry Reid introduced his own version of H.R. 3590 in the Senate. He took the bill that had been unanimously passed by the House, renamed it the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," deleted all its contents after the first sentence, and replaced it with totally different content. What followed was the first pass of the Senate version of ObamaCare.

Me: That's a black dog

Jeff: There are three white hairs on that dog. You are a liar!

LOLOL

[Anonymous]

Referenced article for above:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/29/Justice-Roberts

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:As I wrote in my book, Covenant of Liberty:

On September 17, 2009, Congressman Charlie Rangel introduced a bill in the House, H.R. 3590, the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009," whose purpose was "to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees." The bill passed the House on October 8 by a 416-0 vote.

On November 19, Harry Reid introduced his own version of H.R. 3590 in the Senate. He took the bill that had been unanimously passed by the House, renamed it the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," deleted all its contents after the first sentence, and replaced it with totally different content. What followed was the first pass of the Senate version of ObamaCare.

Me: That's a black dog

Jeff: There are three white hairs on that dog. You are a liar!

LOLOL

Biggest LOL is that you don't know what an amendment is. Reid, like a number of Senators before him, used a perfectly legal procedure to ensure that the bill met the letter of the law. But, I guess you still will keep complaining that the bill started in the Senate despite that you yourself have just provided a citation that agrees with me that the bill started in the House.