A giant setback for the left...Actually, the scheme will be done in by the court. What makes this vote interesting is two things. Pretty much everyone knows the left will take a drubbing in November. The last Rasmussen poll in Missouri has the measure passing 58% to about 38%....The actual vote was 71% to 29%, a route. The second issue of note was that in a state that is about 50/50 dem/republican, the turnout was 2 to one republican...

I think the left vastly underestimates the anger out there. They could see their biggest loss since 1946 and it is all because folk are simply angry beyond belief with a Congress that keeps cramming stuff down their throat regardless of what the citizens demand.

I'm surprised Jan is worried about Missouri when a male homosexual judge ruled that the majority in California are full shit.

God has already started to express his disapproval of the vote:

As Pat Robertson would insist, God is punishing Missouri.

Hope all those people have good health insurance.

LOL! Where the fuck have you been? Jail?

Quote:
God has already started to express his disapproval of the vote:

As Pat Robertson would insist, God is punishing Missouri.

Hope all those people have good health insurance.

Pat Robertson....another fraudulent T.V. preacher looking to turn a buck.

This is also the fruitcake that blamed the citizens of Haiti for the earthquake because of their so-called "pact" with the devil they supposedly made in the 1800's.

Susan Sarandon takes it up the ass by teenage boys but I don't give a shit.

Quote:
Why any Consitutional challenge to the health care "mandate" will fail. Case Law;

Quote:
JACOBSEN v. MASSACHUSETTS (1905)
In 1796, a British doctor discovered a vaccine for smallpox, which was a deadly disease. In 1902, Cambridge, Massachusetts, passed a law forcing everyone in the city to receive a smallpox vaccination. Henning Jacobsen refused to be vaccinated and was charged with violating the law. At his trial, Jacobsen offered evidence that the vaccination did not really protect people against smallpox. He also offered evidence that he and his son experienced harmful reactions to vaccinations. The trial court rejected Jacobsen's evidence and convicted him.

Jacobsen appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. He argued that forcing him to be injected with a vaccine violated his liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment. Jacobsen said it violated the "right of every freeman to care for his own body and health" and was "nothing short of an assault upon his person." The Supreme Court rejected these arguments and affirmed Jacobsen's conviction. The Court said liberty does not prevent the government from deciding how people should take care of their health.
http://www.enotes.com/supreme-court-drama/whalen-v-roe

"Herd immunity"; http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/1...ssachusetts.pdf

So where is this conclusive? Since this is the first time in american history that the U.S. Government will 'force' its citizens to buy a product (in this case, a health insurance policy) from another citizen. There is no constitutional provision to mandate this. And the commerce clause does not meet the criteria either.

This is whats being argued. And the argument has to be proven under Constitutional law. The Obama administration knows this and thats why Obama, just like F.D.R. is trying to stack the courts with leftists like Kagan and Sotomayor.

Mark Evans

Quote:
Why any Consitutional challenge to the health care "mandate" will fail. Case Law;

Quote:
JACOBSEN v. MASSACHUSETTS (1905)
In 1796, a British doctor discovered a vaccine for smallpox, which was a deadly disease. In 1902, Cambridge, Massachusetts, passed a law forcing everyone in the city to receive a smallpox vaccination. Henning Jacobsen refused to be vaccinated and was charged with violating the law. At his trial, Jacobsen offered evidence that the vaccination did not really protect people against smallpox. He also offered evidence that he and his son experienced harmful reactions to vaccinations. The trial court rejected Jacobsen's evidence and convicted him.

Jacobsen appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. He argued that forcing him to be injected with a vaccine violated his liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment. Jacobsen said it violated the "right of every freeman to care for his own body and health" and was "nothing short of an assault upon his person." The Supreme Court rejected these arguments and affirmed Jacobsen's conviction. The Court said liberty does not prevent the government from deciding how people should take care of their health.
http://www.enotes.com/supreme-court-drama/whalen-v-roe

"Herd immunity"; http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/1...ssachusetts.pdf

The court was just considering incorporating the BOR's under the 14th amendment in 1905...the state of the law today is vastly different.

Quote:
Andrew Napolitano (a Fox News contributor to be found somewhere far to the right of Clarence Thomas) has discussed the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Lopez as a wedge to break the Health Reform provisions. Ever since that time the far right echo machine has been shouting "Commerce Clause, Commerce Clause, Commerce Clause" like little parrots who have nothing else in the empty vessel they call their "head" but what they've been told to repeat senselessly and endlessly. Napolitano employed extremely bizzare logic which claims the Court ruled in United States v. Lopez that the Commerce Clause may only be used by Congress to regulate human activity that is truly commercial at its core and that has not traditionally been regulated by the states. A health insurance mandate certainly falls into that category whether Napolitano or any Fox News bootlicker wishes to believe it or not. While the specific case cited dealt with guns it has been widely accepted by the Courts since the 1930's that Congress has broad authority to regulate the actions of an American citizen for the protection of all concerned using the powers of the Federal Commerce Clause. Keep in mind those were (paraphrased) Napolitano's words, which I'm sure stuck in his craw. You could (and I'm sure any right winger would) say this verdict was a defeat for the liberals upholding the Commerce Clause since the NRA and the Cato Institute invested heavily in the final judgement which claimed laws determining a "gun-free" school zone should not be regulated by the Federal Government - even in the case of Federally funded schools. (But we all know the far right wants desperately to do away with Federally funded schools and the Department of Education so they can better indoctrinate the youth of all to the ongoing predilections of the most conservative and most prejudiced few. Only those who can no longer afford to attend school at all will be spared their deprivations - and leaving the least among us out of their equation suits the far right to a "T".)

As was the custom of the Rehnquist court at the time and going forward into the Robert's Court, the decision was divided along ideological lines 5-4 for striking down the ability of the Federal Government to make it a Federal crime to carry a weapon in a "gun-free" school in a Federally funded school. The logic of the decision is tortured to say the least but, to your advantage, many of those who agreed with the (wacko) majority opinion still sit on the Court. (Of course, they wouldn't if the right wingnuts had their way and the Supreme Court was not a lifetime appointment - other than for the fact, like every other Constitutional upending they wish to enact, the right would only apply their new reading of the Constitution to anyone they deemed to be a "leftist/activist" Justice, in other words anyone they disliked.) The 1995 decision dealt with a specific crime and not with the ability of Congress to regulate individual activity for the good of the whole. The Commerce Clause had been chipped at its farthest edge but not damaged beyond all repair.

Since the 1930's the far right has screamed about the use of the Commerce Clause to regulate human activity in just about any and all cases where it wants to obstruct progress. Just enter "Glenn Beck/Commerce Clause" into any search engine to see the loudest, least informed nutjobs at work. Just now I came up with 139,000 results in 0.24 seconds. In the end this is just another far right wingnut fantasy that the Commerce Clause will be overturned or amended to suit the loudest of the populace vs the most reasonable.

As Mark Twain wrote, "Patriot: the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about.

Quote:
The argument is all about the Federal Government, for the first time in American history, forcing private citizens to buy a product (in this case a health care policy)from another private citizen and the imposed penalties for not doing so.

He's right, Jan. The argument is whether or not it is constitutional to force the American public to purchase something you may or may not need. I doubt you are going find anything in-between the lines since the whole premise was to get away from a tyranny that was forcing that sort of shit on its people. The closest thing to this I have seen is the unions forcing employees to pay at least a fair share union due whether they want the union or not. Don't pay the dues, lose your job.

I also find it a little weird that you are obsessed with the debate that is going on in the public to the point you have to spam the Open Bar forum with commentary written by other people that just happen to coincide with your own opinions. If your side is doing such a great job why aren't you doing something productive and enjoyable? Where are all your butt-buddies? What the big deal? You're getting your way. That isn't enough?

You bitched and moaned throughout the Bush Administration and now you are doing it again during the Obama Administration. If you are so unhappy why don't you just shoot yourself in the head and get it over with? Nothing will ever make you happy. Why go on? It worked for Hunter Thompson.

Quote:
Oh, ... well, ... yeah, that makes it all the more convincing.

Convincing you got nothing just as I said. And you know nothing other than what some talking head spouting distortions has placed in your head this week. Did you really have to "copy/paste" my entire post just to make it look like you actually had something to say? Don't think about it, it'll give you a headache. The answer is no, little parrot, you did not. This is how it works, you "re:" my post and everyone - including you in case you forget halfway through - knows who you are responding to. Since there are only a couple of you little jabberboxes who come flocking around anyone who rattles your cage, it's not difficult to figure out who's who here. I'm the one with facts and you are the one without.

When you actually have an argument, I'll listen. I don't bother with parrots who cannot think for themself.

You "digress" alright! It and hollering are about the only things you do well.

Well, I'll take that as your concession statement since you missed my point. Have a nice day

Mark Evans

Quote:
Andrew Napolitano (a Fox News contributor to be found somewhere far to the right of Clarence Thomas) has discussed the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Lopez as a wedge to break the Health Reform provisions. Ever since that time the far right echo machine has been shouting "Commerce Clause, Commerce Clause, Commerce Clause" like little parrots who have nothing else in the empty vessel they call their "head" but what they've been told to repeat senselessly and endlessly. Napolitano employed extremely bizzare logic which claims the Court ruled in United States v. Lopez that the Commerce Clause may only be used by Congress to regulate human activity that is truly commercial at its core and that has not traditionally been regulated by the states. A health insurance mandate certainly falls into that category whether Napolitano or any Fox News bootlicker wishes to believe it or not. While the specific case cited dealt with guns it has been widely accepted by the Courts since the 1930's that Congress has broad authority to regulate the actions of an American citizen for the protection of all concerned using the powers of the Federal Commerce Clause. Keep in mind those were (paraphrased) Napolitano's words, which I'm sure stuck in his craw. You could (and I'm sure any right winger would) say this verdict was a defeat for the liberals upholding the Commerce Clause since the NRA and the Cato Institute invested heavily in the final judgement which claimed laws determining a "gun-free" school zone should not be regulated by the Federal Government - even in the case of Federally funded schools. (But we all know the far right wants desperately to do away with Federally funded schools and the Department of Education so they can better indoctrinate the youth of all to the ongoing predilections of the most conservative and most prejudiced few. Only those who can no longer afford to attend school at all will be spared their deprivations - and leaving the least among us out of their equation suits the far right to a "T".)

As was the custom of the Rehnquist court at the time and going forward into the Robert's Court, the decision was divided along ideological lines 5-4 for striking down the ability of the Federal Government to make it a Federal crime to carry a weapon in a "gun-free" school in a Federally funded school. The logic of the decision is tortured to say the least but, to your advantage, many of those who agreed with the (wacko) majority opinion still sit on the Court. (Of course, they wouldn't if the right wingnuts had their way and the Supreme Court was not a lifetime appointment - other than for the fact, like every other Constitutional upending they wish to enact, the right would only apply their new reading of the Constitution to anyone they deemed to be a "leftist/activist" Justice, in other words anyone they disliked.) The 1995 decision dealt with a specific crime and not with the ability of Congress to regulate individual activity for the good of the whole. The Commerce Clause had been chipped at its farthest edge but not damaged beyond all repair.

Since the 1930's the far right has screamed about the use of the Commerce Clause to regulate human activity in just about any and all cases where it wants to obstruct progress. Just enter "Glenn Beck/Commerce Clause" into any search engine to see the loudest, least informed nutjobs at work. Just now I came up with 139,000 results in 0.24 seconds. In the end this is just another far right wingnut fantasy that the Commerce Clause will be overturned or amended to suit the loudest of the populace vs the most reasonable.

As Mark Twain wrote, "Patriot: the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about.

It's so easy to be condescending, isn't it?

Quote:

Quote:
Why any Consitutional challenge to the health care "mandate" will fail. Case Law;

Quote:
JACOBSEN v. MASSACHUSETTS (1905)
In 1796, a British doctor discovered a vaccine for smallpox, which was a deadly disease. In 1902, Cambridge, Massachusetts, passed a law forcing everyone in the city to receive a smallpox vaccination. Henning Jacobsen refused to be vaccinated and was charged with violating the law. At his trial, Jacobsen offered evidence that the vaccination did not really protect people against smallpox. He also offered evidence that he and his son experienced harmful reactions to vaccinations. The trial court rejected Jacobsen's evidence and convicted him.

Jacobsen appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. He argued that forcing him to be injected with a vaccine violated his liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment. Jacobsen said it violated the "right of every freeman to care for his own body and health" and was "nothing short of an assault upon his person." The Supreme Court rejected these arguments and affirmed Jacobsen's conviction. The Court said liberty does not prevent the government from deciding how people should take care of their health.
http://www.enotes.com/supreme-court-drama/whalen-v-roe

"Herd immunity"; http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/1...ssachusetts.pdf

So where is this conclusive? Since this is the first time in american history that the U.S. Government will 'force' its citizens to buy a product (in this case, a health insurance policy) from another citizen. There is no constitutional provision to mandate this. And the commerce clause does not meet the criteria either.

This is whats being argued. And the argument has to be proven under Constitutional law. The Obama administration knows this and thats why Obama, just like F.D.R. is trying to stack the courts with leftists like Kagan and Sotomayor.

Mark Evans

Goodness gracious.

Just out of curiousity, what type of "stacking" did the President prior to Obama do?

That kind of dumb ass Dittohead stuff is ridiculous.

Every President leans in his party's philosophical direction for his nominess, so if you think Obama is the first since F.D.R. to think of this, you should be drummed off the internet for gross stupidity.

As to the health care thing...it should be an interesting fight.

Who here isn't accustomed to paying for the following government mandated services:

I have to smog my damn car before I can re-register it, feeding the scam smog check industry.

I am legally required to buy auto insurance from the scam auto insurance industry.

So far, government mandated programs like those have been 'driven' by state governments....for which you stupid fuck tea bag types have not found the gumption to protest...and this heath care stiuff is the first big example of the switch from how the states bend us over being taken to the federal level.

Lots of room for figthing the fight, whichever side one is on!

I think Obama would have been on firmer ground had he tried to "universalize" Medicare, as we already have an example of federally required health care for those 65 and over....which you tea bag dumb-shit-dolts also don't seem to mind, other than kvetching about the donut hole in their unfunded-Bush-created Medicare Part D benefit. Where were you teabag fucks when Bush created a trillion dollar unfunded health care mandate, you philsophical sluts?

Anyway, from looking at the auto insurance industry history....I expect to get it good from the new fed mandates.

My prediction:

All you bitches who are whining now are going to love this "free health care" shit and will be spending all time you could have been using to be productive to bother your health care providers for every little hangnail or indirect-PMS complaint once you perceive a chance to take advantage of pooled costs.

Quote:
All you bitches who are whining now are going to love this "free health care" shit and will be spending all time you could have been using to be productive to bother your health care providers for every little hangnail or indirect-PMS complaint once you perceive a chance to take advantage of pooled costs.

That's right all you motherfuckers! Gator say his bitches better wear a jimmy!

The government is going to make you buy health care. A car smog thing is voluntary. You don't have to drive. But you have to buy health care.

Quote:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Man, that sounds like a bunch of stupid right-wing Christians trying to squeeze their way out of paying an arm and leg for shit they don't want.

Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Quote:
the rest of us who have been responsible and have done the right thing with the burden of caring for their diaper clad life as a vegetable for decades.

First of all, You do not know me, nor I you.

I have been a Firefighter for over 21 years.

How many lives have you saved?

From this point forward I will not continue in any political format with you. You are not tolerant of diversity of thought by the which Liberals always espouse as one of thier values.

Mark Evans, Sgt.
Station 5, Battalion 46
Montgomery, Alabama

Quote:

Quote:
I expect to see a lot of the mess be rejected by the courts and other bits defunded after January when the new congress sits.

On 01/21/09 you also expected the Dow Jones to never rise above 7949 as long as Obama was in office. You said so right here. And you once told me you guys have no need for facts, you just go with whatever sounds good and keep repeating it.

Does the term 'irrational exuberance' ring any bells? I still believe the DOW is a good 30% higher than it rates, propped up with tax dollars and propaganda...

If/when the crash comes, the mess will make today's problems seem trivial.

Quote:
You'll understand why I consider your opinion to be bullshit on a stick. Of course I know most of my post "has little to do with case law and lot to do with your opinion". But the amount of facts I do have about case law is more than enough to stop anything the three of you have come up with since you joined the forum and started hollering.

Just because you used to live in a tiny bubble of undisputed liberal pap and pablum does not mean that today's forum with...shudder...differing views, is in some way less.

I began with a simple idea...that a magazine dedicated to audio/musical excellence did not need to spout leftist drivel to make audio points and that such comments debased the work and served to do little more than piss off a good many readers while letting the pampered leftist elites feel superior.

The forum decided the constant complaints by readers on the political comment was perhaps best served with an political opinion section of this forum, and so it is.

Quote:
The opinions are free, they're there just to piss you guys off because even they have enough fact at their core that you can't deny them. You guys got nothing and you keep repeating it like repeating something a dozen times an hour is going to make anyone but another dolt like you three believe any of it. No wonder Fox News has you guys hanging on every lie they tell a dozen times an hour.

And yet we are looking at the biggest route a party has seen in a half century because tens of millions of us 'dolts' are tired of pseudo intellectuals pretense that they know what is best for us. Come November, there will be a lot fewer lefties in office to damage us or the country.

I would say the 'lies' of FOX news are going to trump pretty soundly the BS that passes for 'facts' from the alphabet soup dinosaur media the left controls. You folk simply had it too easy for too long...no real opposition from when the left seized the media during and after Vietnam till today's real free press and the internet.

Quote:
You other two ... ROTFLMF'ingAO at you. What a bunch of Bozos you three are. Not one of you has a fact to back up anything you say, you are three little jabbering, hollerin' parrots spouting dittos.

So you say, with nothing more than opinion

Quote:
" ... until your side can cease "hollering" about "the Commerce Clause, the Commerce Clause, the Commerce Clause, the Commerce Clause, the Commerce Clause" and give good reason how it can be used effectively against another SC precedent, you got nothing and you're just trying to jump higher and get louder than anyone else with common sense and reason."

After the abuse of Wickurd v Filburn anything is commerce from actual interstate traffic in goods to passing gas in front of a passing liberal. I expect the Health Care mess to fall on 10th Amendment grounds and simple politics. The public hates the scheme and will insist it change or go away.

Quote:
So far, you three ain't shown nothing but you know how to "copy/paste" the really good stuff I post just to make it look like you have more than a few talking points to repeat. You are not only pathetic, the fact you would even be associated with LS and his disgusting crap means you have the standards of a turd.

Ah, your envy warms me...for your edification, another view on the issue

""If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1802. ME 10:342

A bit more for our political betters and self styled holders of elite views to consider...

Quote:
Now cut to today, where moralizing about the ugly motives of the American people has become common. Whether it's a federal judge declaring there exists no rational opposition to same-sex marriage, a mayor railing against those who would like a mosque moved a few blocks from Ground Zero, a Speaker of the House effectively likening the majority of her countrymen who did not want her health-care bill to Nazis, or a State Department official who brings up the Arizona law on immigration in a human-rights discussion with a Chinese delegation, the chorus is the same: You can't trust ordinary Americans.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704388504575419521812183154.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

And the latest stupidity from those elites in Congress...

Quote:
It appears that our friendly Senators were in such a rush to get this bill through that they forgot to name it. Jim Harper noticed this when the bill showed up as the oddly named The XXXXXXAct ofXXXX on his always excellent WashingtonWatch site. Apparently, the Library of Congress' Thomas reporting system converted the underscores into X's. And, yes, even The Congressional Record (pdf) notes that "This Act may be cited as the "_______Act of______".

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100808/22161110540.shtml

But heck, our liberal elites assure us it is crucial....

Quote:
bullshit on a stick

That's what your last boyfriend said. First date. Last date.

Quote:
You'll understand why I consider your opinion to be bullshit on a stick.

Of course..You cannot counter it. Your opinion allows you to pretend the argument does not exist, though I do bow to your expertise in BS

You are an amusing little fellow...we will see if my view or yours wins the day...

You possessed a fact? Isn't that what you've been doing all along. Plagiarizing if not down right copy/paste bullshit editorials over and over and over again.