Here we go: Trump now ready to work with Democrats on health-care fix

[DiogenesLamp]

Is it still Constitutional, and therefore immovable and permanent and unable to be done away with as our resident Leftist would like us to believe ObamaCare is?

Dred Scott was overturned by the 13th amendment.   

[DiogenesLamp]

According to the US Constitution at the time (as interpreted by SCOTUS), Obamacare was as correctly decided as Dred Scott.

This is an accurate statement,   but since we can all read,  we know that Obamacare is not constitutional despite what the Kooks on the Court claimed.   

[Cyber Liberty]

This is an accurate statement,   but since we can all read,  we know that Obamacare is not constitutional despite what the Kooks on the Court claimed.

The jazz one says that if the SCOTUS says it's so, then it's so. Because Roe V Wade.  40 years of unrestricted murder.  You gotcher ipsos, you gotcher factos, you gotcher QEDs.

[INVAR]

The jazz one says that if the SCOTUS says it's so, then it's so. Because Roe V Wade.  40 years of unrestricted murder.  You gotcher ipsos, you gotcher factos, you gotcher QEDs.

Thanks.  Exactly why I mentioned Dredd Scott.

Just because some nitwits in black robes declare tyranny to be Constitutional - or 535 moron Statists decide to impose tyranny "legally" does not negate our duty to resist it by every means possible.

[musiclady]

Thanks.  Exactly why I mentioned Dredd Scott.

Just because some nitwits in black robes declare tyranny to be Constitutional - or 535 moron Statists decide to impose tyranny "legally" does not negate our duty to resist it by every means possible.

I haven't scrolled back to see, but did Jazz defend Dred Scott?

To be consistent, he should.

[Bigun]

The system has  a supply bottleneck because it suits the interests of certain groups of people who make more money because there is a supply bottleneck.   

Allow nurses to go further in their practice,   expand what Physician's assistants can do,  and make getting a medical license easier and cheaper for people. 

I would become a doctor if it wasn't so damned expensive and restricted.   So would many others I would wager.

Yep!  It was recognized a LONG time ago!

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."

 Frederick Bastiat

[bigheadfred]

Hey @Cyber Liberty. I'm doing so much better. So much better in fact I can stand to be in the same room with other people for a pace. Even if they are vampires or zombies. You remember "Three Days of the Condor"?

Higgins: It's simple economics. Today it's oil, right? In ten or fifteen years, food. Plutonium. Maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?

Joe Turner: Ask them?

Higgins: Not now - then! Ask 'em when they're running out. Ask 'em when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask 'em when their engines stop. Ask 'em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won't want us to ask 'em. They'll just want us to get it for 'em!

The government cultures fear. Breeding it in the halls of Congress, the courtrooms. Where ever they can. And whether people, even people on this board, think they aren't afraid of something, I would say they are lying to themselves.

I see a ton of debate going on here. Some good. Some reminds me of two imams arguing about when you can drink from a well after a dog pissed in it.

People are afraid of losing their insurance. Why? I don't have any and I am not afraid.

Take obamacare out back, tie it to a fence, and blow it to bits. Same with medicare/medicaid.

Then see how many people really become interested in who the responsible parties are. How they are going to fix it. When...

[INVAR]

I haven't scrolled back to see, but did Jazz defend Dred Scott?

To be consistent, he should.

He keeps throwing out that ObamaCare was Constitutional (same as Abortion as a Right and Homosexual marriage) - and I'm making the comparison that just because black robed tyrants decide to make despotism "Constitutional" does not make it any less tyrannical, nor as untouchable as he tries to insist his sacraments are.

[Axeslinger]

I do not care how I come across to people like you who are pushing an agenda anathema to everything I believe in.

I'm not interested in being applauded by men, or people like you.

I state the truth, and I refuse to massage it to make it easier to swallow by snowflakes who hate the truth for their own versions of it anyway.

@INVAR

Preach it!  This 3%er couldn't agree more.  As for JH et al, may their chains set lightly upon them and may posterity forget they were our countrymen.

[Hoodat]

Dred Scott was overturned by the 13th amendment.

Just as Roe was overturned by the Tenth Amendment as well as Article III.  .  .  .  .  oh wait.

If the Constitution is already being ignored, then future amendments will be ignored as well.

[Hoodat]

This is an accurate statement,   but since we can all read,  we know that Obamacare is not constitutional despite what the Kooks on the Court claimed.

The Court did not rule Obamacare itself 'Constitutional'.  They simply ruled that Congress did have the right to tax, and that Obamacare is a tax.  As for the constitutionality of that tax, they did not rule since that tax had not yet taken effect.  If it is brought up again, I am confident that Roberts would strike it down.  Yet it won't be brought up again because Republicans actually support it.

[INVAR]

If the Constitution is already being ignored, then future amendments will be ignored as well.

Makes the point that we are a post-Constitutional ... whatever.  We suffer under a rogue government no longer constrained by the Constitution or the Rule of Law.

Which, renders anything coming out of this government in the last 10 years (or longer) illegitimate.

The only authority this government now has over us, is the guns their agents will put to our heads for refusing to comply and the wealth and property they will seize.

We used to call that tyranny.

Today we have grown accustomed to it, because evils are sufferable - even after a long train of abuses and usurpations that evinces a design to reduce us under absolute Despotism.

Despotism we lie to ourselves does not exist here, because hey man, I can still buy beer and porn.

Now we are being told we must compromise with Despotism in order to hope for a small step back towards liberty - because the majority want Despotism, sold to them as fairness, equality and bribed via provision and welfare handouts stolen from producers in ever-increasing amounts.

[Smokin Joe]

But from your perspective, I am sinning against Liberal Statism and daring to be arrogant against your intellectual superiority.

Whoa...Them's biggies.  How many 'salami, salami, baloneys' are you going to have to say to atone for such egregious sins against the Statismists?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ptv3NUjBXyw

[INVAR]

Whoa...Them's biggies.  How many 'salami, salami, baloneys' are you going to have to say to atone for such egregious sins against the Statismists?

I imagine I will be required to say 10 Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen's, and 5 Social Justice mantras or serve 5 weeks in a re-edcuation camp to acquire penance for my egregious sins against the state.

[Smokin Joe]

@INVAR You guys have nailed it. I want my water free of harmful bacteria and parasites, (about the way I want government to be), compromise isn't on the table in either case.

At least I can boil my water, can't do that with Congress.

[Jazzhead]

The jazz one says that if the SCOTUS says it's so, then it's so. Because Roe V Wade.  40 years of unrestricted murder.  You gotcher ipsos, you gotcher factos, you gotcher QEDs.

I've never suggested that a Supreme Court decision cannot be overturned.   But a woman's right to decide for herself whether to reproduce is just as real under the Constitution as your right to own a gun.   

Now let the record show that I didn't raise the issue of abortion on this thread!

I agree with the arguments of the pro-life movement in all respects except one -  the demand that the liberty of American women be denied.   And that's that noxious demand that poisons the rest of the nation against pro-lifers.

Could Roe v. Wade be theoretically be overturned as Dredd Scott was?    Yes - but it'll never happen.   The choice has existed for too long and the principles of stare decisis will prevent any responsible conservative jurist from trashing the rights of millions.   The notion that underpinned Dredd Scott - that slaves were the property of their masters - led to a civil war.   What responsible conservative jurist would unleash a second civil war by declaring that the state can force women to be incubators?   

Again - the way forward is persuasion, not coercion.   

 

[Smokin Joe]

I've never suggested that a Supreme Court decision cannot be overturned.   But a woman's right to decide for herself whether to reproduce is just as real under the Constitution as your right to own a gun.   

She has the right to decide whether to reproduce, just as I have the right to decide to own a gun. Yep. But that doesn't give either of us the right to kill someone for being inconvenient.

I agree with the arguments of the pro-life movement in all respects except one -  the demand that the liberty of American women be denied.   And that's that noxious demand that poisons the rest of the nation against pro-lifers.

Nonsense. See above. Those rights don't give someone the right to summarily kill anyone anytime.

Could Roe v. Wade be theoretically be overturned as Dredd Scott was?    Yes - but it'll never happen.   The choice has existed for too long and the principles of stare decisis will prevent any responsible conservative jurist from trashing the rights of millions.   

Oh, horse manure! Slavery has existed for a lot longer than Roe, and it was thrown out, so, nonsense!

The notion that underpinned Dredd Scott - that slaves were the property of their masters - led to a civil war.

Nope, there was a lot more involved. Slavery was just the final straw in a series of economic sanctions carried out by northern states against southern ones.

  What responsible conservative jurist would unleash a second civil war by declaring that the state can force women to be incubators?   

Well, if womyn want to fight for the right to murder their children, at least they would have the option of suffering the same fate as their kids. I really don't think that is the hill to die on, nor the cause to die for, especially with so many different ways to prevent pregnancy.

Again - the way forward is persuasion, not coercion.   

Like health 'care'?

[Jazzhead]

You put the rabbit in the hat when you declare, as if it's self-evident, that abortion of a non-viable fetus is "murder".   It's not.

I understand your moral objection to abortion.  I share that objection.  But I am not prepared to use the government to force my moral views on others.  You are.   

[Sanguine]

You put the rabbit in the hat when you declare, as if it's self-evident, that abortion of a non-viable fetus is "murder".   It's not.

I understand your moral objection to abortion.  I share that objection.  But I am not prepared to use the government to force my moral views on others.  You are.

But, the abortion is the thing that makes the fetus "non-viable".

[txradioguy]

I understand your moral objection to abortion.  I share that objection.

No you do not.  Otherwise you wouldn't defend it so vehemently

 

But I am not prepared to use the government to force my moral views on others.  You are.

That is an utter and outright lie.  I would find it very hard to believe that you even typed it with a straight face.

Roe v Wade is the ultimate case of the Government forcing people to do things they don't agree with.  That ruling basically told people your moral view on this issue doesn't matter. They took away the right of each individual state to decide whether they wanted abortion to be legal in their state or not.

You have no problem using the government to force your moral views on gay "marriage" and gun control on people.  You're quite happy for the Federal government to force people to do things they don't want to or find morally objectionable as long as it fits your Liberal world view.

Stop trying to have it both way s on this issue...you just come off looking like a hypocrite.

[Cyber Liberty]

No you do not.  Otherwise you wouldn't defend it so vehemently

 
That is an utter and outright lie.  I would find it very hard to believe that you even typed it with a straight face.

Roe v Wade is the ultimate case of the Government forcing people to do things they don't agree with.  That ruling basically told people your moral view on this issue doesn't matter. They took away the right of each individual state to decide whether they wanted abortion to be legal in their state or not.

You have no problem using the government to force your moral views on gay "marriage" and gun control on people.  You're quite happy for the Federal government to force people to do things they don't want to or find morally objectionable as long as it fits your Liberal world view.

Stop trying to have it both way s on this issue...you just come off looking like a hypocrite.

This from a guy who thinks it's a grand idea to use the full power of the government to destroy anybody who chooses not to participate in "marriage" (Quotes on purpose) between two or more people of the same sex.  He doesn't look like a hypocrite, he defines one.

[Smokin Joe]

You put the rabbit in the hat when you declare, as if it's self-evident, that abortion of a non-viable fetus is "murder".   It's not.

I understand your moral objection to abortion.  I share that objection.  But I am not prepared to use the government to force my moral views on others.  You are.

A non viable fetus will self-abort. We call that a miscarriage. No one is talking about the removal of an ectopic pregnancy, here, we're talking about elective abortion.
As I said, a woman retains her right to decide whether or not to reproduce, just as I retain my Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but neither of us has the right to take a life because that life is inconvenient to us.

There are more ways than ever to prevent procreation without killing anyone. Use them.

[Jazzhead]

No you do not.  Otherwise you wouldn't defend it so vehemently 

I do not defend abortion.  I defend human liberty.   That's what conservatives are supposed to do. 

 

That is an utter and outright lie.  I would find it very hard to believe that you even typed it with a straight face.

Roe v Wade is the ultimate case of the Government forcing people to do things they don't agree with.  That ruling basically told people your moral view on this issue doesn't matter. They took away the right of each individual state to decide whether they wanted abortion to be legal in their state or not. 

States don't have moral consciences.  Individuals do.  And individuals  - yes, that includes women - have natural rights, acknowledged under the Constitution, to privacy and self-determination. Why do you keep pushing back regarding the power of persuasion?   Don't you have confidence in the strength of your argument that abortion is wrong?   

You have no problem using the government to force your moral views on gay "marriage" and gun control on people.  You're quite happy for the Federal government to force people to do things they don't want to or find morally objectionable as long as it fits your Liberal world view.

Stop trying to have it both way s on this issue...you just come off looking like a hypocrite.

WTF are you talking about?   If you don't want to marry a guy, then don't.   Gay marriage is a matter of the equal protection of the law.  My neighbors' marriage doesn't affect yours in the slightest.   You're no conservative if you insist on forcing your morality on others through the police power of the state.   

As for guns,  I support the Second Amendment and have said so repeatedly.  But every Constitutional right - including the abortion right - is susceptible to reasonable regulation.   

[corbe]

   @Jazzhead only a simpleton (I'm being nice)  would think Abortion is an acceptable form of Birth Control, particularly when there are no many other options available, some as cheap as $10/month.

[txradioguy]

I do not defend abortion.  I defend human liberty.   That's what conservatives are supposed to do.

You don't defend ALL human Liberty.  You pick and choose and nibble at the edges of Liberty.

As long as it fits your Liberal agenda you defend it...the minute something contradicts Liberal dogma...you're severely and extremely against Liberty and people's right to choose.

States don't have moral consciences.  Individuals do.  And individuals  - yes, that includes women - have natural rights, acknowledged under the Constitution, to privacy and self-determination. Why do you keep pushing back regarding the power of persuasion?   Don't you have confidence in the strength of your argument that abortion is wrong?

Thank you for demonstrating you have no clue about States rights.

WTF are you talking about?   If you don't want to marry a guy, then don't.   Gay marriage is a matter of the equal protection of the law.  My neighbors' marriage doesn't affect yours in the slightest.   

I'll ask the question again that you never want to answer...why should gays have a government protected right that straight people don't?

Marriage is not a right.  It's not guaranteed in the Constitution. 

You're no conservative if you insist on .

So what do you call the Federal government forcing states to accept abortion on demand as the law of the land?  What about forcing states to recognize gay "marriage"?  Isn't forcing a Christian backer to go against his beliefs and bake a cake for a gay "wedding" the definition of "forcing your morality on others through the police power of the state"?

You have no problem with the Federal government using the power of the police state to force people to buy expensive and unaffordable health insurance.

Like I said...you're all for the police state and judges creating rights where there are none in the Constitution as long as it supports your far left agenda.

As for guns,  I support the Second Amendment and have said so repeatedly.  But every Constitutional right - including the abortion right - is susceptible to reasonable regulation.

You don't like the concealed or open carry laws.  You'd be perfectly happy if the Heller decision in D.C. was overturned.

Abortion is not a right.  There is not a "right" to abortion anywhere in the Constitution. 

But there is a right to keep and bear arms.