|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Oct 6, 2013 11:45:47 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 6, 2013 11:58:12 GMT -8
It is amusing how it is said that Civil Rights is settled law, yet the same folks how oppose ACA are busy making it more difficult for minoritys to vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Oct 6, 2013 12:15:49 GMT -8
It is amusing how it is said that Civil Rights is settled law, yet the same folks how oppose ACA are busy making it more difficult for minoritys to vote. That's Dem-Spin. I have yet to hear of any law that actually makes it harder to vote. With photo ID needed to do just about anything big in society already, asking that voters prove who they are seems very reasonable. Oh, yes, you do know, don't you, that Canada and the Netherlands require photo ID in order to vote? The big thing about ObamaCare, in my opinion, is not the issue of legality. It's the issue of how badly this law is going to affect the American people. More expensive, with access to health care increasingly available in a timely manner only for the rich who can afford "concierge" medicine. If the ACA works out as badly as I believe it will, the Democrats will have to admit, if only tacitly, that it was a stinker from day one. Of course, they will, if they are smart, champion legislation to "perfect" the system, when in fact it will be major surgery designed to save ObamaCare from complete collapese. And if it does collapse and there is a major uprising, pitchforks and all, whom will the average American blame? Not the party who voted 100% against the thing. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 6, 2013 12:24:18 GMT -8
It is amusing how it is said that Civil Rights is settled law, yet the same folks how oppose ACA are busy making it more difficult for minoritys to vote. That's Dem-Spin. I have yet to hear of any law that actually makes it harder to vote. With photo ID needed to do just about anything big in society already, asking that voters prove who they are seems very reasonable. Oh, yes, you do know, don't you, that Canada and the Netherlands require photo ID in order to vote? The big thing about ObamaCare, in my opinion, is not the issue of legality. It's the issue of how badly this law is going to affect the American people. More expensive, with access to health care increasingly available in a timely manner only for the rich who can afford "concierge" medicine. If the ACA works out as badly as I believe it will, the Democrats will have to admit, if only tacitly, that it was a stinker from day one. Of course, they will, if they are smart, champion legisgtlatioln to "perfect" the system, when in fact it will be major surgery designed to save ObamaCare from complete collapese. And if it does collapse and there is a major uprising, pitchforks and all, whom will the average American blame? Not the party who voted 100% against the thing. AzWm Major uprising, pitchforks and all? What are you smoking? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Oct 6, 2013 13:15:26 GMT -8
That's Dem-Spin. I have yet to hear of any law that actually makes it harder to vote. With photo ID needed to do just about anything big in society already, asking that voters prove who they are seems very reasonable. Oh, yes, you do know, don't you, that Canada and the Netherlands require photo ID in order to vote? The big thing about ObamaCare, in my opinion, is not the issue of legality. It's the issue of how badly this law is going to affect the American people. More expensive, with access to health care increasingly available in a timely manner only for the rich who can afford "concierge" medicine. If the ACA works out as badly as I believe it will, the Democrats will have to admit, if only tacitly, that it was a stinker from day one. Of course, they will, if they are smart, champion legisgtlatioln to "perfect" the system, when in fact it will be major surgery designed to save ObamaCare from complete collapese. And if it does collapse and there is a major uprising, pitchforks and all, whom will the average American blame? Not the party who voted 100% against the thing. AzWm Major uprising, pitchforks and all? What are you smoking? It was just a colorful figure of speech; not meant to be taken literally. By the way, I do not now smoke, nor have I ever even once in my life smoked anything. And that's a fact. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Oct 6, 2013 13:26:06 GMT -8
By the way, I do not now smoke, nor have I ever even once in my life smoked anything. And that's a fact. AzWm Then you definitely shouldn't get an opinion on marijuana legislation.  |
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Oct 6, 2013 13:28:34 GMT -8
From the second paragraph of the article:
Umm, okay, so for the rest of the post you're going to argue against what you just said. Got it.
--
More importantly, it is hilarious to me that the GOP has taken to nitpicking the phrase "settled law". If you pick a definition of "settled law" other than the above quoted, there is no such thing as settled law. Fine. It is the law. How about that?
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 6, 2013 19:04:16 GMT -8
Major uprising, pitchforks and all? What are you smoking? It was just a colorful figure of speech; not meant to be taken literally. By the way, I do not now smoke, nor have I ever even once in my life smoked anything. And that's a fact. AzWm All right. What is in those brownies you have been eating? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Oct 6, 2013 22:57:01 GMT -8
It was just a colorful figure of speech; not meant to be taken literally. By the way, I do not now smoke, nor have I ever even once in my life smoked anything. And that's a fact. AzWm All right. What is in those brownies you have been eating? I will reveal all in my autobiography. Your name has been added to the list of those who will receive advanced copies. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 22, 2013 12:25:02 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Oct 22, 2013 12:55:12 GMT -8
The birther judge, perhaps? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 22, 2013 15:48:27 GMT -8
The birther judge, perhaps? He is a Clinton appointee and his ruling does nothing to stop the law, only challenges the way subsidies are given in the States that did not set up exchanges. It would result in the law falling apart not by his ruling should he decide that those subsidies are not legal, but by prohibitive costs in those States. At any rate, not good news no matter which side of the issue you come down on. |
|
|
|
Post by jmarshall on Oct 24, 2013 22:03:45 GMT -8
Alice B. Toklas Brownies?
|
|
