No. See? That's the point. You just regurgitate pablum. And you want to be taken seriously. There's the disconnect. It's hard to "argue" with mere radio static.
When have I EVER asked YOU to take me seriously? and as far as content, I have never seen you post anything but ad hominems and shallow commentary. So then don't 'argue' as you call it, but I would not elevate your shit to even that level.
Well gee thanks for letting me choose brand at least... If Storm windows make us stronger then why not a mandate like the healthcare law? I can think of other things that can make us 'stronger' such as alcohol prohibition. Do you favor that?
that wasn't an offer RCG, that was a statement, know the difference? Funny how you guys talk shit, but everytime I do start an actual one on one you can't come up with anything but this sort of glibness. Pretend all you want, don't care.
Thank God for no voter ID laws because I plan on voting multiple times this November! Also, if you know of any dead people please send me their names.
Au contraire, you are the one who did not get it. My post had to do with the Courts rejection of the idea that the requirement to buy insurance was an illegal mandate. My post had nothing to do with storm windows, other then to mention them as part of a common example of a tax incentive just like the incentive feature of the ACA. I offered no opinion as to whether the government should be in the business of offering tax incentives to install storm windows, or for that matter to buy health insurance. Perhaps you should re-read my post. Whether a politician calls something a mandate, a penalty, or a tax, doesn't necessarily make it so. The Court very correctly made its ruling based on what things really are, and not what they are called by politicians. You, just like many others, assume the Court's ruling is wrong because you are opposed to the ACA. The Court, in fact, took no position on the issue of whether the ACA was good or bad law. Justice Roberts made that abundantly clear. They were asked to rule on the constitutionality of one aspect of the ACA. They did that, and correctly so.
========== Good question.Sara [FOX] Palin said thank God.Because not only did the Supreme court rule its a tax-. Senator Barack promised not to raise taxes on people making $250,00 per year/or less than 250k.Thats why Sara said thank God. When the judges rules it a tax-thats a cowtow bow to the bookeepers /CPA lobby Many poor dont make enough to pay taxes; many rich hire a good CPA................... Now to answer your question,'' who is going to pay for all of this??''Well, I like the Eodus solution, same as the 10 commandments movie. Charleston Heston[NRA President], got cornered@ the Red Sea.The king of Egypt paid for it with his political career- King of Egypt & his generals get drowned in the Red Sea
Your post below is one of the few here showing any incite whatsoever. Although you've clearly gone non-objective when you say "Roberts" is an idiot." I'm going to give you the benefit of a doubt and assume that is your charming way of letting us know you don't agree with him. FWIW I often don't agree with him either, but he is definitely not an idiot. You've come close to the crux of the matter to realize that the power to tax does give the government some considerable coercive power. It's a bit unnerving, isn't it? But consider where the Court would, or should, draw the line. That would be in the case where the government tried to used their taxing authority to get you to do something illegal, such as violate common law or someone else's constitutional rights. Presumably, for example, the government could not offer you a tax incentive to kill your neighbor. If the government really did attempt to tax overweight persons more then the slender in a well-meaning effort to reduce the incidence of obesity, such a tax would not likely pass muster (5/4 vote no doubt ) as the incentive it offered would likely trample on the Bill of Rights. But, on the other hand, we have done a fair amount of nasty trampling in the past (Sedition Act of 1918 which Wilson used to throw a political rival in prison, or the "Patriot" Act, to use an example closer to home.) So who is to say it absolutely could not happen? Nevertheless, the situation is probably not so dire as it might at first seem, assuming the constitution still means something...
Your memory is self-servingly selective. I have given up treating guys like you as thinking adults a while ago. Even so, it pains me to see that Ricter offering you a free education with ever post he writes but you're just to stupid to take notice, let alone notes. You want to be treated like an adult but you spew crap. And then more crap. Expect to be judged by the crap "ideas" that you keep. You demanded "proof" from Ricter regarding an earlier comment he made that was so blatantly obvious and accepted the world over by every thinking adult and government. Are you fucking serious?! And you expect to be taken seriously? Get a clue. You only have credibility in your small insular world of like-minded troglodytes. Beyond that, you're a bad joke.