Our current President is a proud graduate of “Chuck U Smuck”
collage of Poli Scy. “Chuck U Smuck” proudly advertises on Match Book covers, wherever fine smokes are sold, given away, or thrown at you by “Chuck U Smuck” graduates (or any smoker) of for asking you not to smoke.

I addressed this in my original post. You’re using an impressive array of logical fallacies.

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 3:56 PM

Like argument from authority?

By the way, I remember a few weeks back, you mentioned that both of your sons worked for one of the “5 most prestigious law firms” in America, and then when I asked you which one you skittered away. I’m guessing you were referring to the Vault rankings? If so, which firm(s) did your sons work at, Davis Polk, CSM, Wachtell Lipton, S&C or Skadden? Or were you just making that up?

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 3:52 PM

which Obamacare addresses by allowing people who can’t afford it not to purchase healthcare.

Tom_Shipley on February 1, 2011 at 7:14 PM

“Allowing people” - you liberals don’t really notice when your authoritarian mask slips, do ya?

karenhasfreedom on February 1, 2011 at 2:49 PM
I think Crr6 is really Anninca in disguise….This means she is a middle aged woman….

They made my day.

Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody buy a house, and that, you know, and that would solve, you know, the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t.

Isn’t that a policy argument, not a legal argument? So why on earth was the judge using a policy in support of the proposition that the mandate is unconstitutional?

That aside, it wasn’t a wise move by the judge. It makes him look petty, and political.

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 1:38 PM

Point, but as part of their defense, the government was claiming that the mandate was an intrinsic and necessary part of the bill. This claim is a direct contradiction of what Obama was claiming in the video from 2008. The Obama administration also claimed that the mandate wasn’t a tax to pass the legislation, then claimed it was a tax during the defense. They also shifted their emphasis from the Commerce Clause when it became untenable and retreated to the Necessary and Proper Clause.

I think that under the circumstances, Judge Vinson can be forgiven for pointing out a few hypocrisies and gaps in logic.

You know that quote will be mentioned in the Supreme Court decision some where.

Except nowhere in the excerpts you cite does Obama claim that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. He claims that it’s not feasible because not everyone would be able to afford it — which Obamacare addresses by allowing people who can’t afford it not to purchase healthcare.

Tom_Shipley on February 1, 2011 at 7:14 PM

The individual mandate – you don’t really understand how that works, do you?

Obamacare addresses by allowing people who can’t afford it not to purchase healthcare.

Tom_Shipley on February 1, 2011 at 7:14 PM

This is a band-aid for a sucking chest wound.
The reason health care services are expensive in the 1st place is bcs….wait for it… GOVT SETS THE PRICE!
We could also get some tort reform.
Those 2 things along cause healthcare to skyrocket in price.

So Obamacare is another corn cob up the a$$ for us bcs it does not address the cause of the problem.
If someone is causing a bad thing to happen, why would they be the ones responsible for making it better?

You have become a serf, a child masquerading as an adult.

PackerBronco on February 1, 2011 at 7:26 PM

Willingly…sad.

Also….strange how are trolls go nowhere near the waiver issue. Such toadies.

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 7:15 PM

Plus 7 states who are going to nullify O-Care. 35 and counting.

I know math is hard for libs but that’s 70% of the states.

Now read that sentence again, “Is he ALLOWED to do that?” If that doesn’t worry you, if that doesn’t say “off the slippery slope and down the canyon”, if your immediate reaction is not “WTF?”, then you are completely hopeless. You have become a serf, a child masquerading as an adult.