s/people/“signers of the Norquist Pledge (of idiocy in government)” and that’s actually pretty close. I don’t mind ANYONE pulling “a fast one” on Congresspeople who have no intention of either reading a bill or of giving it any consideration whatsoever before their reflex party-line “no” vote.
“Same thing”?!?!?! :eek: Wow. So, you’re saying that the distinctions made in the Constitution—between the People and the federal government (and even possibly the states(?))—are meaningless? They’re the “same thing”?! Because that is what you’re arguing.
And that is completely absurd. But perhaps you can point to some Constitutional authority or someone not in an insane asylum who holds such a view. I wait with bated breadth.
I’m having a hard time understanding the phrasing here. Care to rephrase?
And you don’t mind a President, then, intentionally misleading the citizens?
Oh, so the smart people knew the President was a liar and misleading the people? And the smart people are fine with this. If yes, can you support your assertion by citing one of these “smart” people?
I thought that was all part of the “freedom” of the marketplace of ideas? If you don’t like being misled, don’t vote for him.
I’ll take that into account. Thanks. But the interesting thing is that people that have voted for him seem to be fine with him intentionally lying and misleading the American people. I can’t tell you how shocked I am that ElvisL1ves might be one of these oh-so-principled people. You too, it seems. Is that right?
No point trying, is there?
Your claim that calling a payment to the government, well, whatever ACA calls it something other than a “tax” makes it not a tax at all comes from a person who thinks that gays should have all the legal rights that marriage entails, but gets upset at the thought of calling it “marriage”. Perhaps the problem there will become apparent to you over time, perhaps not.
False dilemma. I am one of those people who doesn’t think I was misled.
You really don’t understand the point at all, do you? It is what it is, no matter what you call it. Picking a different name for the payments to soothe the less-thoughtful faction of We the People, those who think it isn’t a tax unless you call it one, is hardly lying. Don’t be so silly.
Ah, the old change the subject schtick. Can’t say that I blame you. Also, my apologies for politely letting you know that I didn’t understand one of your sentences and asking you to rephrase it. I’ll try not to make that mistake again.
Now, in your rush to change the subject and deflect answering you seemed to have missed the main point of the post. Let me copy and paste it here to give you the opportunity to either own your position more fully or distance yourself from it:
Which shall it be?
And any luck with that cite?
Yet another thing you don’t understand. The “schtick” I’m using is “Don’t beat your head against a brick wall”.
See above.
So, you believed him when he argued vehemently that the mandate was not a tax?
I was not misled.
Thus my original question. I believe this phrasing is inaccurate; it’s as inaccurate as suggesting the obverse, i.e., “you are breaking the law when you don’t pay the government. Which is why you are then required to obtain insurance.”
Both choices are offered by the law, as far as I can tell. Are you CERTAIN that someone choosing the penalty rather than choosing insurance has broken the law? If so, what kind of crime have they committed–a misdemeanor? A felony? A civil matter? Are they entitled to a trial?
I don’t think someone who chooses to pay the penalty has broken any sort of law at all. I think they’ve chosen option B under the law.
Nor I. We both knew he had to say that in order to get the thing passed, but that the choice of terminology meant nothing in reality, only in terms of taking a weapon away from his oppositionists.
Anybody who got upset by that was just looking for something to be upset with him over, of course. Unfortunately that’s a damn huge amount of people.
Tsk, tsk I thought you were made of tougher stuff. That;s me…wrong again!
Now, you’ve shared with me (and others) this startling position that the distinction made in the Constitution between the federal government and the people is really a meaningless one. That’s new ground, Elvis! You might be at the vanguard of a whole new view of the Constitution, one that could change all U.S. lawmaking from here on out. If there was ever something worthy of a Great Debate it is that. So, please, do expand on your thesis. I think most people in this thread will have to do some serious rethinking of their positions if you have even a half-way convincing argument.
Is that a “yes”?
It is what it is.
I’m not a lawyer, so I won’t attempt to categorize the type of infraction. That said, I do believe that there was a crime/infraction/etc. If not, how there could a penalty be imposed?
Using your logic, if I understand you correctly, someone who gets a speeding ticket could claim to not have broken any law, in that he could claim that he chose Option B) to speed and pay the penalty, as opposed to Option A) not speeding.
Can you think of any government-imposed penalty that does not result from not following a law/regulation/rule/etc.?
Just another thought for you, jtgain:
You shouldn’t find it odd if you look at the number of people who think the framers didn’t intend for the first half of the Second Amendment to have any meaning at all.
magellan01, please, bro. Do yourself a huge favor and *read *the thing sometime. Start with the first three words, written big and bright for everyone to see. Then stop there and reflect for a moment on what they mean and who wrote them and who chose them to write them.
That’s enough for the first day of lessons. For future ones, you’re on your own, though.