@Feral I don't bother with Slate articles, have you got a source less obviously biased?
it's just not worth wading through the drek for the occasional objective nugget.
Edit: Checked the byline on that article... yeah, not bothering. Sorry man, no offense to you.
They're direct quotes, dude. I'm quoting the justices, not Dahlia Lithwick.
I know! I listened to yesterday's argument already... I snickered when the SG had to be corrected after slipping and calling it a tax twice while arguing it wasn't one. Just saying, about the article.... yeah.
@Feral I don't bother with Slate articles, have you got a source less obviously biased?
it's just not worth wading through the drek for the occasional objective nugget.
Edit: Checked the byline on that article... yeah, not bothering. Sorry man, no offense to you.
Just to be clear: when you ignore an article because of who the author is, that's okay. But when I ignore the article both because of who the author is and because the author quotes a fucking shitfaced retard as if he was an authority, that's different?
If we had treated Grunnloven as holy, jesuits and jews would still be banned from the realm.
Well the US Constitution has been updated 27 times, 12 of which were in the last 100 years. If it was a "holy" document, black people would still be counted as 3/5ths, etc.
You also have to remember that the US has 62x the population of Norway and a fundamentally more conservative view on government power and whatnot. There is a lot of intertia in the system - we usually end up on the right course, but it takes a long time to make the change.
your "conservative" when it comes to government power, is the polar opposite to most other places.
I mean hell, our conservative party was formed in opposition to democracy.
Well, if you look at our conservative party as a coalition of your Conservatives and Christian Democrats where the first drops their social policy positions in exchange for the second dropping their economic positions, it maybe makes a little more sense? Then imagine that "Kristent Samlingsparti" (sorry if I butchered that, got it from Wikipedia) for some reason gets the dominant voice in the coalition and you have our Republicans.
The other problem is that our "liberal" coalition is pretty much made of Labour and Conservatives, with some populists and socialists marginalized at the edges instead of holding 25+% of the seats.
Conservative-liberal isn't one we use much, since the liberal party Left and the (historically) conservative party Right are likely coalition partners.
Economical left-right axis is mostly used to describe our "sides". My point is that these terms are only barely meaningful when applied to a single nation.
Oh and Kristent Samlingsparty is a fringe party that got 4000 votes last time.
the Christian Popular Party, KrF, somehow got the prime minister position last time we had a right-wing coalition.
I always have a hard time mapping European parties since Wikipedia tells me that "conservative liberalism" and "liberal conservatism" are completely different things and Christian Democrats are liberal by US standards. I bet the Republicans would love to call themselves "Christian Republicans" :P
As for the bolded, imagine a country where that party would get several million votes and you kind of see what we're working against here :?
Ahh, isn't the general welfare part in the preamble? I didn't think that was actually part of the Constitution. Also no one is arguing it before the SCOTUS today,so I don't think it really is a factor regardless.
The Obama administration's interpretation does seem to grant it extremely broad regulatory power, in effect saying "all the things you cannot avoid doing? we can control how you do them".
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Article 1, Section 8. It is also in the preamble.
Ok. The government, I assume, isn't arguing from this clause because they say the mandate penalty isn't a tax, so they can't say they're levying the tax for the general welfare of the people.
Neat!
I was merely pointing out that the general welfare clause does exist beyond the preamble. I believe the ACA falls comfortably within the interstate commerce clause.
Comfortably? Even the government admits that its a big stretch. They aren't arguing that it's obvious or easily explainable, they're arguing that it's a special snowflake case that for realsies they won't ever use to justify other similar regulation. Honest injun they won't.
The Government counters that the individual mandate is well within the bounds of congressional power. Congress can regulate even purely local, intrastate economic behavior so long as, in the aggregate, it substantially affects interstate commerce. The manner in which consumers pay for services in the interstate health care market is such an example. Because virtually everyone will, at some point, need health services, no one is truly inactive, and the health services market is inextricably intertwined with health insurance. Congress found that those who do not purchase health insurance, and instead self-insure, almost inevitably take health care services they cannot afford. Hospitals, by virtue of federal law and professional obligation, provide these services, and as a result, $43 billion in annual costs are shifted to the insured, through higher premiums. That, in turn, makes health insurance less affordable and increases the total number of uninsured. Therefore, it is argued that Congress rationally concluded that decisions about how to pay for health care, in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce. The Government contends, moreover, that the individual mandate can be upheld as an essential element of the Affordable Care Act’s broader reforms, like the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements, which all agree are within Congress’s power. That is because Congress found that absent the mandate, the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements would lead individuals to wait to buy insurance until they needed care, causing higher premiums, again reducing the number of insured, and destroying the efficacy of Congress’s regulatory scheme.
What you're thinking of is
The Government concedes the novelty of the mandate and the lack of any doctrinal limiting principles; indeed, at oral argument, the Government could not identify any mandate to purchase a product or service in interstate commerce that would be unconstitutional, at least under the Commerce Clause. But the Government does stress that the health care market is factually unique; there are few other markets, it says, where participation is a virtual certainty, or where declining to buy a product disproportionately causes a national economic problem.
But this is basically a slippery slope argument, not a legal argument. The Courts base their arguments on the Constitution, precedent and the law, not hypotheticals. Requiring everyone to buy broccoli would be dumb. That doesn't mean it would be Unconstitutional. There's precedent going back the FirstCongress requiring taxpayers -or in this case shipowners and "able bodied white men" to buy health insurance and guns respectively - to purchase something. Just because you could justify a dumb law under similar reasoningthat means a law is Constitutional doesn't mean that reasoning/precedent is invalid.
Ahh, isn't the general welfare part in the preamble? I didn't think that was actually part of the Constitution. Also no one is arguing it before the SCOTUS today,so I don't think it really is a factor regardless.
The Obama administration's interpretation does seem to grant it extremely broad regulatory power, in effect saying "all the things you cannot avoid doing? we can control how you do them".
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Article 1, Section 8. It is also in the preamble.
Ok. The government, I assume, isn't arguing from this clause because they say the mandate penalty isn't a tax, so they can't say they're levying the tax for the general welfare of the people.
Neat!
I was merely pointing out that the general welfare clause does exist beyond the preamble. I believe the ACA falls comfortably within the interstate commerce clause.
"I didn't think the preamble was actually part of the Constitution" may be one of the dumber things I've read on this forum.
The preamble sets out what the government is for, i.e. the sorts of laws and actions that the constitution is supposed to support. The rest is all just limitation on government power to protect the rights espoused within the preamble.
There aren't any rights espoused in the preamble! WTF man? And I meant a binding part of the Constitution.
We, the People, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
There are no rights in the Preamble. I think you are confused here, dude.
(I wrote that out from memory!)
I wonder if the clauses listed are meant to be listed in order of priority.
I know so little about your Constitution, America.
Considering Jefferson's love of an artful turn of phrase, it's probably ordered least to most. He loved the buildup to crescendo in his writing.
Damn, and here I thought I had an argument for big federal government :P
Considering it was Madison who wrote the Bill of Rights and not Jefferson, you do.
Sweet. But given that I wasn't aware of that fact, perhaps it's not my place to debate your constitution in the first place!
The King in Council of State has the right to pardon criminals after verdict has fallen.
but the criminal has the right to deny the pardon.
The same exists in the US. IIRC, Woodrow Wilson pardoned a guy for something, and the Supreme Court ruled that he did have the right to refuse it, since a pardon implicitly admits that you committed a crime and thus violates your 5th amendment right against incriminating yourself. I think the pardonee was eventually acquitted of the offense, to boot.
If we had treated Grunnloven as holy, jesuits and jews would still be banned from the realm.
Well the US Constitution has been updated 27 times, 12 of which were in the last 100 years. If it was a "holy" document, black people would still be counted as 3/5ths, etc.
You also have to remember that the US has 62x the population of Norway and a fundamentally more conservative view on government power and whatnot. There is a lot of intertia in the system - we usually end up on the right course, but it takes a long time to make the change.
your "conservative" when it comes to government power, is the polar opposite to most other places.
I mean hell, our conservative party was formed in opposition to democracy.
Well, if you look at our conservative party as a coalition of your Conservatives and Christian Democrats where the first drops their social policy positions in exchange for the second dropping their economic positions, it maybe makes a little more sense? Then imagine that "Kristent Samlingsparti" (sorry if I butchered that, got it from Wikipedia) for some reason gets the dominant voice in the coalition and you have our Republicans.
The other problem is that our "liberal" coalition is pretty much made of Labour and Conservatives, with some populists and socialists marginalized at the edges instead of holding 25+% of the seats.
Conservative-liberal isn't one we use much, since the liberal party Left and the (historically) conservative party Right are likely coalition partners.
Economical left-right axis is mostly used to describe our "sides". My point is that these terms are only barely meaningful when applied to a single nation.
Oh and Kristent Samlingsparty is a fringe party that got 4000 votes last time.
the Christian Popular Party, KrF, somehow got the prime minister position last time we had a right-wing coalition.
I always have a hard time mapping European parties since Wikipedia tells me that "conservative liberalism" and "liberal conservatism" are completely different things and Christian Democrats are liberal by US standards. I bet the Republicans would love to call themselves "Christian Republicans" :P
As for the bolded, imagine a country where that party would get several million votes and you kind of see what we're working against here :?
Economically liberal, but they still want the state to care for its citizens.
We have no parties that doesn't - barring fringe crazies without a single seat anywhere.
@Feral I don't bother with Slate articles, have you got a source less obviously biased?
it's just not worth wading through the drek for the occasional objective nugget.
Edit: Checked the byline on that article... yeah, not bothering. Sorry man, no offense to you.
Just to be clear: when you ignore an article because of who the author is, that's okay. But when I ignore the article both because of who the author is and because the author quotes a fucking shitfaced retard as if he was an authority, that's different?
Well.
When I say "have you got another source because I don't find that one fair-minded?" that's OK.
When you dismiss an idea because you don't like who spoke it, and don't bother to even ask for an alternate, that's different yes.
The constitution basically delegates the power between the states and the federal union.
The federal government can pretty much take any power its sees fit assuming the states give a rats ass about them. Most of the time the government issues a mandate, and metrics, and pays out federal money, and the states decide to meet and/or supplement the mandate with additional funds or guidelines.
Minimum wage, highway, medicade are examples of this.
There's another word for that:
blackmail.
I better go call the police on my employer! They're blackmailing me into doing shit by implicitly threatening to refuse to pay me if I don't!
If we had treated Grunnloven as holy, jesuits and jews would still be banned from the realm.
Well the US Constitution has been updated 27 times, 12 of which were in the last 100 years. If it was a "holy" document, black people would still be counted as 3/5ths, etc.
You also have to remember that the US has 62x the population of Norway and a fundamentally more conservative view on government power and whatnot. There is a lot of intertia in the system - we usually end up on the right course, but it takes a long time to make the change.
your "conservative" when it comes to government power, is the polar opposite to most other places.
I mean hell, our conservative party was formed in opposition to democracy.
Well, if you look at our conservative party as a coalition of your Conservatives and Christian Democrats where the first drops their social policy positions in exchange for the second dropping their economic positions, it maybe makes a little more sense? Then imagine that "Kristent Samlingsparti" (sorry if I butchered that, got it from Wikipedia) for some reason gets the dominant voice in the coalition and you have our Republicans.
The other problem is that our "liberal" coalition is pretty much made of Labour and Conservatives, with some populists and socialists marginalized at the edges instead of holding 25+% of the seats.
Conservative-liberal isn't one we use much, since the liberal party Left and the (historically) conservative party Right are likely coalition partners.
Economical left-right axis is mostly used to describe our "sides". My point is that these terms are only barely meaningful when applied to a single nation.
Oh and Kristent Samlingsparty is a fringe party that got 4000 votes last time.
the Christian Popular Party, KrF, somehow got the prime minister position last time we had a right-wing coalition.
I always have a hard time mapping European parties since Wikipedia tells me that "conservative liberalism" and "liberal conservatism" are completely different things and Christian Democrats are liberal by US standards. I bet the Republicans would love to call themselves "Christian Republicans" :P
As for the bolded, imagine a country where that party would get several million votes and you kind of see what we're working against here :?
Yeah. In 2011 they got 0.1% of the votes in county elections.
Pretty sure David Duke pulled more than that in the '92 Republican Primary.
The King in Council of State has the right to pardon criminals after verdict has fallen.
but the criminal has the right to deny the pardon.
The same exists in the US. IIRC, Woodrow Wilson pardoned a guy for something, and the Supreme Court ruled that he did have the right to refuse it, since a pardon implicitly admits that you committed a crime and thus violates your 5th amendment right against incriminating yourself. I think the pardonee was eventually acquitted of the offense, to boot.
oooooooh
then it makes sense. I was all why the hell would you not accept a pardon?
In theory the German President is selected by the Legislative branch but independent from it. In theory he/she can veto law, there's powers exclusive to him/her. But at the same time they wanted a weak President/executive so its really more like 2.5 branches.
Jefferson was a pretty strange guy. No centralized bank, (I think he removed the US bank when he got in power didn't he?) and he thought the constitution should be rewritten every 2 decades or so, if I recall.
He was the conservative to Washington's "liberal."
My knowledge of post-colonial constituents is severely lacking though, so I could be wrong.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Ahh, isn't the general welfare part in the preamble? I didn't think that was actually part of the Constitution. Also no one is arguing it before the SCOTUS today,so I don't think it really is a factor regardless.
The Obama administration's interpretation does seem to grant it extremely broad regulatory power, in effect saying "all the things you cannot avoid doing? we can control how you do them".
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Article 1, Section 8. It is also in the preamble.
Ok. The government, I assume, isn't arguing from this clause because they say the mandate penalty isn't a tax, so they can't say they're levying the tax for the general welfare of the people.
Neat!
I was merely pointing out that the general welfare clause does exist beyond the preamble. I believe the ACA falls comfortably within the interstate commerce clause.
Comfortably? Even the government admits that its a big stretch. They aren't arguing that it's obvious or easily explainable, they're arguing that it's a special snowflake case that for realsies they won't ever use to justify other similar regulation. Honest injun they won't.
The Government counters that the individual mandate is well within the bounds of congressional power. Congress can regulate even purely local, intrastate economic behavior so long as, in the aggregate, it substantially affects interstate commerce. The manner in which consumers pay for services in the interstate health care market is such an example. Because virtually everyone will, at some point, need health services, no one is truly inactive, and the health services market is inextricably intertwined with health insurance. Congress found that those who do not purchase health insurance, and instead self-insure, almost inevitably take health care services they cannot afford. Hospitals, by virtue of federal law and professional obligation, provide these services, and as a result, $43 billion in annual costs are shifted to the insured, through higher premiums. That, in turn, makes health insurance less affordable and increases the total number of uninsured. Therefore, it is argued that Congress rationally concluded that decisions about how to pay for health care, in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce. The Government contends, moreover, that the individual mandate can be upheld as an essential element of the Affordable Care Act’s broader reforms, like the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements, which all agree are within Congress’s power. That is because Congress found that absent the mandate, the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements would lead individuals to wait to buy insurance until they needed care, causing higher premiums, again reducing the number of insured, and destroying the efficacy of Congress’s regulatory scheme.
What you're thinking of is
The Government concedes the novelty of the mandate and the lack of any doctrinal limiting principles; indeed, at oral argument, the Government could not identify any mandate to purchase a product or service in interstate commerce that would be unconstitutional, at least under the Commerce Clause. But the Government does stress that the health care market is factually unique; there are few other markets, it says, where participation is a virtual certainty, or where declining to buy a product disproportionately causes a national economic problem.
But this is basically a slippery slope argument, not a legal argument. The Courts base their arguments on the Constitution, precedent and the law, not hypotheticals. Requiring everyone to buy broccoli would be dumb. That doesn't mean it would be Unconstitutional. There's precedent going back the FirstCongress requiring taxpayers -or in this case shipowners and "able bodied white men" to buy health insurance and guns respectively - to purchase something. Just because you could justify a dumb law under similar reasoningthat means a law is Constitutional doesn't mean that reasoning/precedent is invalid.
The law requiring people to buy a gun was only for those in the militia. Also, I was talking about the SCOTUS argument today, not circuit court opinions. Of course I'm speculating a bit, because I haven't heard the arguments yet - just read some available reviews.
That second quote is gold to me - from what I've read, one of the keys to getting the mandate declared unconstitutional is convincing justice Kennedy that there's no limiting principle. Anyhow, I hope the Justices don't find this logic persuasive - I want the government to be Constitutionally constrained, not just constrained by common sense or benevolent attitudes.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Sweet! My buddy with the blood clot that was preventing him from drinking forever apparently no longer has said blood clot!
We can all get shitfaced!! YEAY!
0
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
The King in Council of State has the right to pardon criminals after verdict has fallen.
but the criminal has the right to deny the pardon.
The same exists in the US. IIRC, Woodrow Wilson pardoned a guy for something, and the Supreme Court ruled that he did have the right to refuse it, since a pardon implicitly admits that you committed a crime and thus violates your 5th amendment right against incriminating yourself. I think the pardonee was eventually acquitted of the offense, to boot.
Fun fact: the Republic of Ireland has no analog to the 5th amendment protection against self incrimination.
Jefferson was a pretty strange guy. No centralized bank, (I think he removed the US bank when he got in power didn't he?) and he thought the constitution should be rewritten every 2 decades or so, if I recall.
He was the conservative to Washington's "liberal."
My knowledge of post-colonial constituents is severely lacking though, so I could be wrong.
He also thought cities were awful, and that the country should be made up entirely of rural farms. He also blamed Britain for the institution of slavery in the U.S.
There's a work shuttle that goes from main campus to the building I work in. It was pretty full and I was hurrying to the back. In the back of some of the shuttles there is a large metal boxy thing attached to the ceiling (AC unit?) in the back. It was just high enough to be outside my field of vision but just low enough to catch the metal lower edge with the very top of my skull.
edit: went to the doctor on Friday as I still felt really weird. Said I had a concussion and to just wait it out. Up till yesterday I think I was still pretty impaired mentally. Doing a lot better today.
Economically liberal, but they still want the state to care for its citizens.
We have no parties that doesn't - barring fringe crazies without a single seat anywhere.
And you have no parties that do.
We don't have any major parties that want the social support system to be as extensive as it is in Norway, true. I wouldn't go so far as to say that both parties don't want to care for citizens - I think we're just still having the argument about caring for the poor and elderly vs. just the elderly, which is pretty crazy, but hey.
@Feral I don't bother with Slate articles, have you got a source less obviously biased?
it's just not worth wading through the drek for the occasional objective nugget.
Edit: Checked the byline on that article... yeah, not bothering. Sorry man, no offense to you.
Just to be clear: when you ignore an article because of who the author is, that's okay. But when I ignore the article both because of who the author is and because the author quotes a fucking shitfaced retard as if he was an authority, that's different?
Well.
When I say "have you got another source because I don't find that one fair-minded?" that's OK.
When you dismiss an idea because you don't like who spoke it, and don't bother to even ask for an alternate, that's different yes.
Glad I could clarify that for you!
So, when I said pretty much exactly that, and your response was "well, you should read it, because even a broken clock is right twice a day!" you only meant that to apply to people who you like, right?
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
Mass Effect 3 came. I guess I should resubscribe to Live. Any deals out there?
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I find the slippery slope argument weak. Not everything is interstate commerce. Healthcare clearly is.
Then again, I dont want limits on my government. As long as it stays democratic (ie. coercing the minority olols) - the bigger, the better.
Not everything... just everything you can't avoid doing.
Eating and drinking.
Showering.
Getting dressed.
Driving to work.
Not spending money on the internet.
Banking.
Not banking.
Skipping the gym.
Watching TV at home.
Going out for a drink.
Going to bed early.
Staying up late.
when i was living in mississippi there was a guy who ran on a white power platform for like every election, much like that david duke guy. we're not talking a masked racism type of platform. like, straight up using slurs and talking about the "[insert minority group] problem" and etc
he would always get several thousand votes. scary.
@Feral I don't bother with Slate articles, have you got a source less obviously biased?
it's just not worth wading through the drek for the occasional objective nugget.
Edit: Checked the byline on that article... yeah, not bothering. Sorry man, no offense to you.
Just to be clear: when you ignore an article because of who the author is, that's okay. But when I ignore the article both because of who the author is and because the author quotes a fucking shitfaced retard as if he was an authority, that's different?
Well.
When I say "have you got another source because I don't find that one fair-minded?" that's OK.
When you dismiss an idea because you don't like who spoke it, and don't bother to even ask for an alternate, that's different yes.
Glad I could clarify that for you!
So, when I said pretty much exactly that, and your response was "well, you should read it, because even a broken clock is right twice a day!" you only meant that to apply to people who you like, right?
I also linked you to the source in that exchange, and stopped berating you for your intransigent attitude, and forgot about the whole thing.
when i was living in mississippi there was a guy who ran on a white power platform for like every election, much like that david duke guy. we're not talking a masked racism type of platform. like, straight up using slurs and talking about the "[insert minority group] problem" and etc
he would always get several thousand votes. scary.
www dot rebelarmy dot com
that used to be his website. probably still is.
0
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
That kind of stuff is pretty much dogma around here but it doesn't hold water in the end. Europeans parties look favorably on comprehensive social safety nets than American parties, definitely. And there's no South in Europe. But Christian Democrats are to the right of the core of the Democratic Party (socially especially), and most Americans don't even consider the Democratic Party truly liberal.
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
If watching TV at home vs watching it in a bar or something was 1/6th of the economy and you not doing so costs the government and taxpayers a ton of money, I would definitely consider regulating this.
Posts
I know! I listened to yesterday's argument already... I snickered when the SG had to be corrected after slipping and calling it a tax twice while arguing it wasn't one. Just saying, about the article.... yeah.
yeah!
As for the bolded, imagine a country where that party would get several million votes and you kind of see what we're working against here :?
ORLY?
6th Circuit decision upholding
What you're thinking of is
But this is basically a slippery slope argument, not a legal argument. The Courts base their arguments on the Constitution, precedent and the law, not hypotheticals. Requiring everyone to buy broccoli would be dumb. That doesn't mean it would be Unconstitutional. There's precedent going back the First Congress requiring taxpayers -or in this case shipowners and "able bodied white men" to buy health insurance and guns respectively - to purchase something. Just because you could justify a dumb law under similar reasoningthat means a law is Constitutional doesn't mean that reasoning/precedent is invalid.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I've been dying for an opportunity to use it.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Sweet. But given that I wasn't aware of that fact, perhaps it's not my place to debate your constitution in the first place!
Economically liberal, but they still want the state to care for its citizens.
We have no parties that doesn't - barring fringe crazies without a single seat anywhere.
And you have no parties that do.
Well.
When I say "have you got another source because I don't find that one fair-minded?" that's OK.
When you dismiss an idea because you don't like who spoke it, and don't bother to even ask for an alternate, that's different yes.
Glad I could clarify that for you!
I better go call the police on my employer! They're blackmailing me into doing shit by implicitly threatening to refuse to pay me if I don't!
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Yeah. In 2011 they got 0.1% of the votes in county elections.
Pretty sure David Duke pulled more than that in the '92 Republican Primary.
(Yup, he got .94%)
oooooooh
then it makes sense. I was all why the hell would you not accept a pardon?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
He was the conservative to Washington's "liberal."
My knowledge of post-colonial constituents is severely lacking though, so I could be wrong.
The law requiring people to buy a gun was only for those in the militia. Also, I was talking about the SCOTUS argument today, not circuit court opinions. Of course I'm speculating a bit, because I haven't heard the arguments yet - just read some available reviews.
That second quote is gold to me - from what I've read, one of the keys to getting the mandate declared unconstitutional is convincing justice Kennedy that there's no limiting principle. Anyhow, I hope the Justices don't find this logic persuasive - I want the government to be Constitutionally constrained, not just constrained by common sense or benevolent attitudes.
We can all get shitfaced!! YEAY!
Conveniently comes with it's own reason to celebrate, too!
Fun fact: the Republic of Ireland has no analog to the 5th amendment protection against self incrimination.
He was kind of crazy.
Then again, I dont want limits on my government. As long as it stays democratic (ie. coercing the minority olols) - the bigger, the better.
There's a work shuttle that goes from main campus to the building I work in. It was pretty full and I was hurrying to the back. In the back of some of the shuttles there is a large metal boxy thing attached to the ceiling (AC unit?) in the back. It was just high enough to be outside my field of vision but just low enough to catch the metal lower edge with the very top of my skull.
edit: went to the doctor on Friday as I still felt really weird. Said I had a concussion and to just wait it out. Up till yesterday I think I was still pretty impaired mentally. Doing a lot better today.
We don't have any major parties that want the social support system to be as extensive as it is in Norway, true. I wouldn't go so far as to say that both parties don't want to care for citizens - I think we're just still having the argument about caring for the poor and elderly vs. just the elderly, which is pretty crazy, but hey.
Super convenient because my bachelor party is this weekend. I was worried that he would have to watch us being stupid.
Not everything... just everything you can't avoid doing.
Eating and drinking.
Showering.
Getting dressed.
Driving to work.
Not spending money on the internet.
Banking.
Not banking.
Skipping the gym.
Watching TV at home.
Going out for a drink.
Going to bed early.
Staying up late.
Basically, everything.
he would always get several thousand votes. scary.
If you don't mind waiting for a card to come in the mail: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16874103258&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-na-_-na-_-na&AID=10440897&PID=3668349&SID=
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I also linked you to the source in that exchange, and stopped berating you for your intransigent attitude, and forgot about the whole thing.
Sorry I got under your skin there.
www dot rebelarmy dot com
that used to be his website. probably still is.
Oh, that's awesome. Perfect timing! Report back to us re: your shenigans, and so that we can ensure that you survived.
Edit: Also so that we have documentation of what you did.
$15 off the online code here: http://www.amazon.com/Xbox-LIVE-Month-Gold-Membership-360/dp/B0029LJIFG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1332878570&sr=8-1
you get under everyone's skin
That kind of stuff is pretty much dogma around here but it doesn't hold water in the end. Europeans parties look favorably on comprehensive social safety nets than American parties, definitely. And there's no South in Europe. But Christian Democrats are to the right of the core of the Democratic Party (socially especially), and most Americans don't even consider the Democratic Party truly liberal.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Politico.com: Conservative justices skeptical of individual mandate
*double checks*
*triple checks*