Cite?
Regards,
Shodan
The fact that they watch Fox News, and the fact that the number of people self identifying as Republicans has declined significantly in the last year.
I’ve been searching for an actual text of the resolution, to no avail. Then, it occurs to me that, Shirley, those persons most loudly opposed to this resolution must have it at their fingertips, since they know what it says for sure, for sure. Clearly, they would not be here tearing their hair and shrieking if they didn’t. Certainly they wouldn’t be throwing such a fit without actually reading the thing.
So,** intention,** bring… And while you’re about it, you can explain why “non-biding” apparently means something entirely different from “non-binding”.
Sp, there you go, problem solved! Post the exact wording. Point out the relevant passages. Show us the mechanism whereby a “non-binding” resolution carries the force of law. Declare victory.
Or, you pour yourself a big ol’ cup of STFU.
Do you have a real cite? Nothing of what you said establishes what was alleged.
Regards,
Shodan
I think it’s a fairly logical assumption that some significant number of people who withdraw from the Republican Party and watch Fox News will continue to do so.
So, then, what is the difference between paying police officers, teachers, professors, administraters etc. with tax money and paying doctors with tax money?
Nothing, of course, but that’s not what you asked.
Well, then why is UHC against the constitution? Just pay it through taxes and raise them. It does’t matter what you call the money you pay for health care.
I think the argument is that it’s OK to collect taxes via the 16[sup]th[/sup] Amendment. It’s OK to spend them on, say, the military, because that is a Constitutionally authorized institution. But since the Constitution does not explicitly say it’s OK for the Federal government to spend on healthcare, then UHC is therefore unconstitutional. It stems from the rationale that the only powers that the Federal government has are those explicitly granted in the Constitution, and all others are reserved for the states. This makes not only UHC unconstitutional but also a whole host of other expenditures (and entire agencies).
It’s an absurd proposition, generally taken by those who have a sophomoric understanding of Constitutional law or hear Rush talk about textualism and treat it as if it were a workable judicial philosophy and not a slick, empty talking point. I’m sure there are some who understand – and desire – that we take a mulligan all the way back to the early 1800s, but by and large the “it’s unconstitutional” argument is pretty weak.
(Oh, and no, just because it’s easy to poke and laugh at textualists doesn’t mean that the poker/laugher advocates complete relativism.)
Well, since I don’t watch Fox, and have said so repeatedly, not only are you wrong, you’re not paying attention.
Cite? I don’t know if it is unconstitutional, and I doubt that I said it was. I think you are mistaking me for someone else.
I do suspect people will challenge it in the courts, though, because it doesn’t seem to me that the question is clear. Given the litigious nature of American society, that guarantees a lawsuit.
Being forced to pay taxes means I have to give money to the government. Seems to me the Gov’t can do that no problem, it’s well established. That’s clearly constitutional.
Being forced to give money to Blue Shield, simply because I’m alive, on the other hand … not so much. Might be constitutional, might not, IANAL.
Well, since I’m neither tearing my hair nor shrieking, I suspect you must have mistaken me for someone else.
And since I didn’t say anywhere that a “non-binding” resolution carries the force of law, you definitely must be mistaking me for somebody else.
So there you go, problem solved. Bring on the cite, point out the relevant passages, show us where I said that a non-binding resolution carries the force of law.
Or, you pour yourself a big ol’ cup of STFU.
So, you admit at least that Government run health care cannot be against the constitution?
Who is the “you” in this referring to? Who admitted that government health care “cannot” be against the constitution?
Actually, the logical assumption is that this is something he pulled out of his ass.
What you posted has almost nothing to do with what was alleged. Would you care to back it up, or are we in agreement that Diogenes made a false allegation with no evidence to back it up?
Regards,
Shodan
Gosh, Dio, perhaps a citation might help there … oh, wait, here’s a plan.
I already gave a citation for my percentages. Go read my citation and come back and tell us what Pew Research says about which way the independents lean, you know, the ones that watch Fox, the ones you are blindly blathering on about …
If you learned to actually read the citations people put up for your edification, you’d be dangerous. Which is why I feel perfectly safe …
Are you suggesting that any assertion made without an empirical factual basis is automatically faulty?
If you’re referring simply to the idea that “a lot” of those independents are “ultra-conservatives”, yes, he probably pulled that out of his ass, if for no other reason than I doubt ultraconservative types watch broadcast news at all.
“you”, is you, intention. You said, forcing to pay taxes is legal. Logical deduction -> if the government runs health care from tax money, that’s legal.
I myself find this question ridiculous. If you call it taxes, it’s legal, if you call it different it’s against the constitution.
No, that’s quite all right, my only point worth pursuing is that this resolution has no actual effect, being “nonbinding” and all that. So any hue and cry over it is, essentially, meaningless and an excercise in outrage for its own sake. It might as well be a resolution from the Berkeley City Council condemning the war in Iraq for all the actual effect it has, and that’s really all that needs be said.
Do continue in your artistic endeavors, I find your cartooning style vastly superior to your rhetorical skills.
Well, I guess my writing isn’t as clear as I thought. What I wrote was that forcing us to pay taxes is legal. If the taxes go to health care, that’s legal … which as you point out is logical. But it seems you stopped reading there.
I followed that by saying that the legality of forcing us to pay money to Blue Cross, on the other hand, is still an open question.
Why? Because it has not been tested in the courts. I don’t know the answer, nor do you, nor does anyone until it is actually ruled on by the courts.
Yes, it is legal for the government to require us to buy insurance to participate in the privilege of driving. But is it legal to require us to buy insurance to participate in being alive? I don’t know.
I can guarantee you one thing, however. If the final health care bill contains this provision, somebody will test it in the courts.
It is. If you drive a car, you might have noticed that you’re already forced to by auto insurance.