Question on the interview given to Mormons to determine temple worthiness:
"Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow men?"
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
"Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow men?"
Black Republican
Member
if obama failed, the gop would have said he tried his best anyways
Bin Laden was walking on the sidewalk outside the White House when Obama made the call.
Nothing to write home about.
RustyNails
Member
Had Himmy Carter succeeded in his iran US embassy hostage rescue operarion the right wing would be making fun if him for making an easy call. The gop is morally bankrupt and i thank fuck every day im not a right winger buffoon
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Why? That's their primary residence.
How? Absentee ballot.
Since you guys like calling Romney out on "lying until it becomes truth" - where on that website does it say that the GOP made that video (I get that it's a right-win site)? Do we now attribute every kook left-wing video to the President?
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
You're right - it's not just the GOP but the entire right side of the American political spectrum that is scummy.
Ho ho
RustyNails
Member
Maybe yes maybe no. But what's for sure is that the false meme of Obama's Bin Laden kill order was a walk in the part has made it's place inside the annals of GOP's institutional hive mind. We have to put up this stupid falsehood and shoot it down whenever an idiot utters it, like GOP's Presidential Nominee did last month by saying lols it was so easy even Jimmy Carter would've done it. Cunt. Had the mission been a failure this jackass would've been shouting from rooftops about Obama's lack of experience.
I get such a kick every four years watching biased people work themselves into a lather. "Candidate X is the most dispicable, two-faced, corrupt man that has ever had a chance at presidency!! This country will implode if he is elected."
Then four years later, "Eh, he wasn't that bad of a guy. Just surrounded by bad people."
Then four years later, "Eh, he wasn't that bad of a guy. Just surrounded by bad people."
RustyNails
Member
Bush was a fucktard surrounded by equally stupid fucktards. Does that ease your concerns?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I would accept cracking down on out-of state voting and requiring absentee ballots if it was also accompanied by a massive, pervasive media campaign making students aware that they had to file said ballots, as I don't think its very prominent in the public conciseness, especially among collage students.
In other words, more stringent requirements for voting identification are acceptable if and only if they don't lead to decreased incidence of voting.
RustyNails
Member
So sorry to disappoint. Not going to sip my tea, deliberate, and adjust my monocle while nonsense is being farted around by GOP.
The Librarian
Banned
On these points alone, the mandate is constitutional: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/26/george-washingtons-individual-mandates/
If SCOTUS overturns, it'll prove (further prove?) they're just partisan assholes.
If SCOTUS overturns, it'll prove (further prove?) they're just partisan assholes.
Jon Kyl Blames Obama For Failure Of Immigration Reform Under Bush
Well ok.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...a-arizona-dream-act-hispanic-vote.php?ref=fpa
Well ok.
Invisible_Insane
Member
I'm almost positive that that point has been raised in PoliGAF before. I don't think it was raised by the defenders of ppaca before the court, though, which strikes me as a curious oversight.
why we still got facts?
Dr. Pangloss
Member
Weren't we just talking a couple days ago about some CNN talking head who said Ann Romney never had a 'real' job? And then Obama had to repudiate her even if she had no connection to the campaign. Welcome to modern politics.
Isn't this the same guy who outright lied about planned parenthood?
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Exactly one of the reasons why I genuinely dislike the man. You can't be Johnny Mormon and then lie through your teeth every chance you get. Bothers the crap out of me.
Your arguing the wrong point with this. Specifically to the point about requiring ship owners to buy medical insurance for their seamen under the commerce clause, this has nothing to do with the INDIVIDUAL mandate. What it would have to do with, would be the requirement in PPACA for businesses of a certain size to provide health insurance or else pay a $2,500 per employee fine. Last I recall listening to the arguments before the SCOTUS, this particular requirement of PPACA was not even argued as being unconstitutional.
So, what was your point again?
Byakuya769
Member
When I was an undergraduate, I had a campus administrator email students about that bullshit. I explained the history of the legislation and he got pissed at me for "being blind," if I remember correctly.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Obama is also losing ground in Virginia. This is going to be ugly
The Librarian
Banned
So you're just going to ignore the whole part about the individual requirement for seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves? Or that Congress, at one point, mandated that every "appropriate" man buy a musket? Yeah, those are individuals.
What is your point? What is the economic difference between the government taking your money through taxes and using it to purchase something, and the government telling you to buy something? You're arguing something is unconstitutional that wouldn't have even been considered unconstitutional FIVE YEARS AGO. The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Healthcare is interstate commerce, ergo, the individual mandate is constitutional.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I don't know if the mandate is constitutional, but it sounds like something that shouldn't be, in my opinion. Forcing people to pay money to private corporations that are some of the world's most profitable businesses or suffer a fine?
3/4 people who declare bankruptcy for medical reasons have health insurance. Forcing us to pay more money to these bloated, expensive, and unreasonable entities is beyond me. If there were a public option, I could see it being constitutional and fair, but not to solely private entities.
3/4 people who declare bankruptcy for medical reasons have health insurance. Forcing us to pay more money to these bloated, expensive, and unreasonable entities is beyond me. If there were a public option, I could see it being constitutional and fair, but not to solely private entities.
PhoenixDark
Banned
The constitution specifically requires the maintaining of a militia.
yeah, according to a organization that has been churning out gop leaning results all year. i don't put much credence into We Got America and their polls yet.
The Librarian
Banned
This doesn't make any sense. You're saying the method is okay as long as it's a product you approve of?
What about the Militia Acts of 1792?
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
No, if there is a public option, that means the government is sponsoring and controlling it. Not for profit, which would keep costs down and force insurance providers to lower their prices to compete.
Merely forcing everyone to pay money to these corrupt companies is baffling.
Byakuya769
Member
I don't think that's really his argument. A public option mandated is just a tax, not a forced transfer to a third party.
Congress has the ability to design and pass regulations for the sole purpose of phasing an industry out of existence, and has done so, before. Why would they not have the power to do the exact opposite of that?
The Librarian
Banned
That's not what happened in Massachusetts. The penalty is only a little harsher there: $816.90 under PPACA and $1,260 under the MA reform for someone making $32,676 a year above the age of 27. So, too, are there no criminal actions against those who don't pay the fine in MA (as far as I know). I bet people were wondering how MA was going to implement its tax too.
Except that's not what's happening. It's not "everyone." Half of the uninsured the bill targets will be covered through the expansion of Medicaid, and about 24 million Americans are exempt from the mandate for a variety of reasons.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Cool, so forcing wealthy people is OK. Just not poor people. I am glad we got that covered.
I actually agree, at least philosophically.
Free market doesn't work with captive costumer base, which also why we have laws against monopolies.
Stuff like the mandate combines the worst of both worlds if you ask me, and often leads to corruption (seriously, back home it got comical, a rich well connected fuck buy a business that sell reflective safety vests, and a couple of years later they pass a law that everyone has to carry one in his car).
But most of that crap happens in the state or local level, and I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court is not going to touch that.
p.s.
I think that a strong decision here can kill many of the terrible "market solution" conservatives float around.
So that's not a horrible thing.
Byakuya769
Member
I'm explaining his argument, which Dax mischaracterized. But excuuuuuuuuse me, Mr. "I've read a few articles and now I'm an expert on Con Law."
This stuff isn't completely simple. I think it is constitutional, but not to a hand waving degree.
You are correct
There has not been a court ban on congress achieving regulatory goals through taxation (and that IS what the fine is) since Bailey vs Drexel Furniture in 1922, which invalidated a 10% tax on the annual profits of companies which knowingly employed child labor. But the only reason the court ruled that way is because the court viewed the law as an attempt by congress to circumvent the court overturn of another child-labor-related law from a year or so earlier.
The court even upheld a regulatory tax designed to completely eliminate bookmaking operations in 1953, and a tax that compelled states to create unemployment benefits systems for their residents in 1937.
The mandate is essentially a regulatory excise, which congress is given power in article 1, section 8
No part of the constitution makes a distinction between congress's regulatory authority over private or public commerce. Furthermore, the companies which provide health insurance are all government-created corporations, chartered by the state governments. Though the concept of a corporation did not exist when the constitution was written, the idea that the government can regulate activity between persons within its jurisdiction has been a prevailing idea for millenia, and the same concept applies to non-personal entities.
Whether they're fining you for not purchasing private insurance or taxing you for a government-run health insurance program that you 1. Are not allowed to use until a certain age. 2. May never be allowed to use in your lifetime and/or 3. Are not required to use when you are permitted to, they are regulatory measures by congress over the territories it holds jurisdiction.
Please tell me what is unconstitutional about any of this. Please.
Byakuya769
Member
copy. paste.
Learn2read
Member
Spot on argument.
When proven wrong, go Fox News on a motherfucker!
- Status