97 Comments

  1. “Critics say the mandate is unconstitutional,”

    WHICH critics?

    Because, you know, an individual mandate was legislated for in 1792. They were passed into law by the Second Congress and signed by President Washington.

    http://www.fcan.org/Health_care/law_professors_ACA.pdf

    So I’m just wondering who these “critics” are of yours who know more about the Founding Father’s intentions than the Congress of 1792 and President Washington…

    —-
    I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
    —-

  2. And in yet another example of conservative “honesty”, it’s interesting to see what Fox News left out of their story:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-remains-confident-supreme-court-will-uphold-health-care-law/2012/04/02/gIQA9HIOrS_story.html?hpid=z2

    —-
    “I just want to remind conservative commentators that for years what we have heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” Obama said. “Well, this has been a good example. I am pretty confident this court will recognize that and not take that step.”
    —-

    As we have seen on this blog, the wingnut section of the right-wing will twist and squirm dishonestly rather than openly deal with what they have previously said.

  3. Anna Nova says:
    April 2, 2012 at 18:07 (Edit)

    Because, you know, an individual mandate was legislated for in 1792. They were passed into law by the Second Congress and signed by President Washington.

    HAHAHAHAHAHA It’s always obvious when you are way far out of your league. The battle in the Courts is whether EVERYONE can be compelled to “BUY” a product. It’s never been done before, and there is no Clause in the Constitution that says they can compel people to buy a product. HOWEVER, if you KNEW the Constitution then you would have known that the bill that was passed was provided to be done in the Constitution in the Powers Enumerated to Congress and the President. But like all Progressives, the Constitution is outdated and meaningless. Guess again. Now cite where Congress and the President can compel everyone to buy a specific product or be fined.

    Section 8 – Powers of Congress

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    The President -
    Section 2 – Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

    The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

  4. Facing West in anticipation of the sunrise, Barack Obama, President of the Flat Earth Society, swallowed, blinked his eyes, coughed, crossed his fingers behind his back, and said with as much conviction as a low-down, belly crawling, yellow dog can muster:

    “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said.

    Facts

    The PPACA passed the Senate in the dark of night on Christmas Eve 2009 by a vote of 60-39. All Democrats and 2 Independents voted in favor, and all Republicans voted against it.

    PPACA passed the House on March 21, 2010 by a vote of 219-212. 34 Democrats and all Republicans voted against it.

    Most Americans oppose PPACA. As of February 2012, 72% of registered voters believe the individual mandate is unconstitutional, only 20% approve. (Politico, 2/27/12, Poll: Sharp split on healthcare repeal, by Tim Mak)

  5. PS: In the November 2012 mid-term elections Democrats lost more seats in Congress than any party in any mid-term election in more than 70 years. PPACA was the primary issue.

  6. “HAHAHAHAHAHA It’s always obvious when you are way far out of your league. The battle in the Courts is whether EVERYONE can be compelled to “BUY” a product. It’s never been done before,”

    Tell me, Yorkshire, are you unable to read or simply too lazy to do so?

    —-
    I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
    —-

  7. “Section 8 – Powers of Congress

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;”

    Oh, I see you’re unable to read.

    Brief hint – you missed some of the powers:


    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;

    So, let’s see – Congress obviously has the power to compel people to purchase products which is what they did in 1792. They have the power to provide for the general welfare.

    So I guess the question is – is healthcare a matter of concern for the general welfare of the United States?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-kirsch/the-private-health-insura_b_191770.html

    —-
    The result of leaving health care reform to the insurance industry is that health insurance premiums have gone up six times faster than wages in the past nine years. Those dollars are buying skimpier health coverage with high deductibles and caps on benefits, resulting in more and more insured people being forced into medical bankruptcy. Businesses that are struggling to meet health care costs in a global economy and dropping coverage, so much so that now 1 out of 3Americans under the age of 65 has been uninsured at some time in the past two years. Health care eats up 16% of our economy, up from 11% when the nation decided to leave the private insurance in charge.
    —-

  8. But it’s going to be interesting if the Supreme Court plumps for activism and shuts it down – going into the election, Obama will going to hang the current US healthcare crisis on the Republicans as “Teabaggercare”, and let every American citizen suffering blame the Right.

    It should be fun.

  9. How good of a defense, really, is the Militia Act for the insurance mandate?

    It’s pretty flimsy. The constitutionality of the insurance mandate relies on the so-called Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the power “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” The Militia Act (actually two bills passed within a week of one another in May 1792), on the other hand, depends on the Militia Clause, which authorizes the government to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia.” Because the two mandates have such different foundations, the constitutionality of one is essentially independent of the other.

    Separate clauses aside, the Militia Act of 1792 would still be poor precedent for the insurance mandate, because Congress never enforced, or even meant to enforce, the law at the federal level.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/12/of_muskets_and_health_care.html

  10. But it’s going to be interesting if the Supreme Court plumps for activism and shuts it down

    Uh huh. It’s actually the reverse — the SCOTUS preventing an activist government attempting to expand beyond its legal bounds.

  11. So, let’s see – Congress obviously has the power to compel people to purchase products which is what they did in 1792. They have the power to provide for the general welfare.

    Brilliant! Now, one wonders why the government, with its endless cadre of legal talent, did not make that argument!

  12. The greatest difference between the health care bill and the Second Militia Act is constitutionality. There is solid constitutional basis for the Second Militia Act: Article I, section 8, clause 16 states that Congress has the power “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.” Articulating a list of goods required for militia service is certainly within the bounds of this clause. Indeed, Federalist 29 emphasizes that such regulation of the militia is part of “superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.”

    In contrast to the Second Militia Act, the health care legislation lacks any constitutional basis or legal precedent to support its requirement that every living person in America purchase health care insurance. Some have suggested the Commerce Clause to be basis for the individual mandate. But this is wrong. The Commerce Clause does not empower Congress to impose a duty on individuals as members of society to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.

    http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/26/the-use-and-abuse-of-the-founders-the-individual-mandate-is-still-unprecedented-and-unconstitutional/

  13. Gee, Koolo, is there any chance you might wanna try a coherent argument some time?

    The “individual mandate” bit is one argument. Obviously, if there was an individual mandate enacted in 1792, individual mandates per se are not unconstitutional.

    Now, if you want to argue that the ACA itself has no constitutional basis, taht’s a separate argument. Try not confuse them.

    But, of course, any such argument made against the ACA can be made against Medicare as well – which has been upheld as constitutional.

  14. Mind you, I think Teabaggercare might be the better alternative. In a couple of decades, healthcare can eat up 25% of US GDP with enormous profits for those on top.

  15. AN:
    That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

    If you look at the lifestyle of the Colonist before the Revolutionary War in 1776 up to the institution of the Constitution, the People of We The People were mostly armed with those items anyway.

    It’s what defeated the British in 1783 and again in 1814. Reality was there was essentially non-stop War going on from 1776 to 1848 in the world. http://www.saylor.org/courses/hist303/

  16. “If you look at the lifestyle of the Colonist” etc etc etc etc

    Please don’t try to change the subject, Mr Yorkshire. Please stay on topic, Mr Yorkshire.

    You stated that Congress requiring people to buy a product “had never been done”, Mr Yorkshire. The bill I quoted required precisely that, Mr Yorkshire.

    You were ignorant, and you were wrong, Mr Yorkshire. Deal with that instead of changing the subject, Mr Yorkshire.

  17. “http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/26/the-use-and-abuse-of-the-founders-the-individual-mandate-is-still-unprecedented-and-unconstitutional/”

    Interestingly enough, this is the same Heritage Foundation that supported the individual mandate – back in 2006 when it was part of the RomneyCare that Obama based the ACA on.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/10/27/the_heritage_foundation_and_romneycare_cont_d.html

    I guess 5 years is long enough for wingnuts to overlook hypocrisy.

  18. Oh shut up. I just saw saw Sarah Palin on TV, and isn’t she beautiful? So sty;ish too! Oh, be still, my fluttering heart !!

  19. It sounds like the “brilliant constitutional scholar,” Barack Obama feels justified in denigrating the Supreme Court as he labels its Justices as “unelected.” His efforts to minimize the status of the Judicial Branch, which is equal to the status of the Executive Branch, are not only petty, they also demonstrate a pronounced ignorance on his part, especially pronounced as he made his remarks in the presence of two foreign leaders, who likely recognize the co-equality of the three branches of our government more clearly than President Obama apparently does.

    President Obama’s “warning” the Supreme Court not to overturn ObamaCare or face the label of judicial activism reeks of Chicago Way politics–unbecoming, to say the least.

  20. “It sounds like the “brilliant constitutional scholar,” Barack Obama feels justified in denigrating the Supreme Court as he labels its Justices as “unelected.””

    What interesting reasoning.

    Can you explain to us how describing the Supreme Court as “unelected”

    i, is inaccurate
    ii, denigrates them?

    Should schools be censoring out Article II Section 2 of the Constitution lest it denigrate the Supreme Court?

  21. So, let’s see – Congress obviously has the power to compel people to purchase products which is what they did in 1792. They have the power to provide for the general welfare.

    Brilliant! Now, one wonders why the government, with its endless cadre of legal talent, did not make that argument!

    I reiterate the above. Then again, the government would probably do well to ignore someone who thought Thomas Jefferson was the author of the Constitution, eh? That sure was some fun reading back at CSPT, I have to say!

  22. Koolo says:
    April 2, 2012 at 20:04

    Federally, the Militia Act is about as relevant as the Third Amendment.”

    The irony you note is is especially profound as when the militia act was brought up by RKBA proponents the left argued that it was not a universal requirement: applying only to select bands, that it was irrelevant, that it did not imply a right to bear arms, etc., etc.

    This whole health care debate is just another example of the progressives and their Gombe Chimp Attack mentality which they call “liberalism”.

    They will tap into your life, demanding that you affirm and underwrite their autogenic dysfunctions, kill themselves trying

  23. By the way, what “constitutional scholar”, is being referenced by the phrase “Threatens Scotus on Health Care”?

    Would that constitutional scholar be Obama?

    What courses in Constitutional law did scholar Obama actually teach? What are his published works of scholarship on Constitutional Law? (It’s all known all you have to do is look it up)

    I do that hear he likes to spout off some Hegelian claptrap regarding the concept of “positive liberty” which in progressive speak boils down to your duty to labor in a condition of less freedom so that others may enjoy grazing at a smorgasbord of life experience choices your labor produces; but, what articles on Constitutional law has the constitutional law “professor” Barak Obama published?

    “Freedom is to a liberal as a violin is to a dog”

  24. DNW says:
    April 3, 2012 at 11:30 (Edit)

    By the way, what “constitutional scholar”, is being referenced by the phrase “Threatens Scotus on Health Care”?

    Would that constitutional scholar be Obama?

    What courses in Constitutional law did scholar Obama actually teach? What are his published works of scholarship on Constitutional Law? (It’s all known all you have to do is look it up)

    The whole article and most responses really call for the Editor’s Dripping Sarcasm tag. BO may have gone to Harvard Law, may have taught at U. of Chicago, may have headed the Law Review at Harvard, but it hasn’t made him a scholar in any sense of the word.

    I watched my son go through Law School and he was on the International Law Review staff and was published, pass the Bar the first time trying (no minor feat) and I would bet the 20 Euros in my wallet he knows more about Law than BO does.

  25. “I reiterate the above. Then again, the government would probably do well to ignore someone who thought Thomas Jefferson was the author of the Constitution, eh? That sure was some fun reading back at CSPT, I have to say!”

    You are a really petty person, koolo, not a very good quality for a school teacher, which you purport to be! That mistake was long since acknowledged by the author of it. Why bring it up again? Oh, I know, you have never and will never make a mistake, correct koolo?

  26. SINP writes

    You are a really petty person, koolo, not a very good quality for a school teacher, which you purport to be! That mistake was long since acknowledged by the author of it. Why bring it up again? Oh, I know, you have never and will never make a mistake, correct koolo?

    I do so simply because Anna — as she/he always does here — belittles others’ [legal] arguments as if they’re not worthy of consideration at all. Like, for example the above: Why didn’t the government utilize Anna’s “general welfare” argument if it was so “valid?”

    And still getting personal, eh SINP? What kind of teacher were you? Why weren’t you one for very long? Were you fired for making insults? Complaining about everything? Threatening people?

  27. “They will tap into your life, demanding that you affirm and underwrite their autogenic dysfunctions, kill themselves trying”

    Easily forgotten by the DNW-types is being taken into a war of choice by their neocon compatriots, costing over 4,000 American lives and around a $trillion more or less, and including 100,000 Iraqi lives and trememdous infra-structure destruction.

    And then there is the regressive tax system to pay for it, which enriches our elites at the expense of the middle and poor Americans who actually fight the rich man’s wars, as they are told that this is a path to advancement.

    Time to get real, DNW!

  28. ” …then there is the regressive tax system to pay for it, which enriches our elites at the expense of … “

    This whole health care debate is just another example of the progressives and their Gombe Chimp Attack mentality, which they call “liberalism”.

  29. “I do so simply because Anna — as she/he always does here — belittles others’ [legal] arguments as if they’re not worthy of consideration at all. Like, for example the above: Why didn’t the government utilize Anna’s “general welfare” argument if it was so “valid?””

    Anna is putting forth an opinion just as the rest of us on here do, but you folks seem to have difficulty responding to the facts, instead you attack personally instead, in an attempt to diminish her opinion. You know what, koolo? That’s bloody chickens**t!

    “And still getting personal, eh SINP? What kind of teacher were you? Why weren’t you one for very long? Were you fired for making insults? Complaining about everything? Threatening people?”

    I’ll gladly respond to that, koolo. I consider that I was a pretty good teacher, but could have been better, as I kept striving for improvement throughout my almost ten years’ teaching career up until my mandatory retirement at age 65. I actually wish I were still able to continue in the profession as a Chemistry teacher, which I greatly enjoyed, following a worthwhile 25 year career as a staff member, then manager, involved in chemical research, development, engineering scale-up, and site environmental issues, for a very well known and highly regarded company. I was teacher of the year for my HS in my second year of teaching, and have seen a number of my students being successful in their chosen endeavors, a credit to their many fine dedicated and effective teachers as well as their own efforts in school.

    Here is a note that I received not too long ago from a gal I had in my Chemistry One class about 15 years ago:

    “Thinking back in Chemistry class, you were a great teacher! There were two chemistry teachers and those who had you were the “lucky” ones. Those who had the lady teacher, I can’t quite remember her name (maybe Mrs. Xxxx?), they weren’t too happy. At least, that was the general consensus of the students. I believe students liked her, but thought she was much too nasty.

    She had her first child, a boy, about two years ago, and gave him the same first name as mine. How much of an honor is that?

    There is nothing else other than parenthood, for me, that even approaches the satisfaction of accomplishment from being a teacher, which was also the most difficult assignment of all I’ve had, in terms of the effort involved in creating a credible and effective outcome for my students!

  30. “This whole health care debate is just another example of the progressives and their Gombe Chimp Attack mentality, which they call “liberalism”.”

    Right, something like 50 million Americans uninsured, many of whom then must depend on the whims of charity and welfare in order to get even minimal treatment. And you defend this “system”, DNW?

    Moreover, our per capita health care costs are about 70% higher than those of the next lower country, if memory serves. This doesn’t disturb you, DNW?

  31. SINP writes

    Anna is putting forth an opinion just as the rest of us on here do, but you folks seem to have difficulty responding to the facts, instead you attack personally instead, in an attempt to diminish her opinion. You know what, koolo? That’s bloody chickens**t!

    She puts forth an opinion that always mocks the quite valid — more valid in some cases — opinions of others. It always occured at CSPT, and it’s happening now. I’m perfectly entitled to respond in kind as a result. Don’t like it? Go somewhere else. Your mewling crybaby antics win no sympathy from anyone here aside from Anna. If you notice, I did respond to her facts about the Militia Act with more facts — facts which showed her argument to be quite specious. As for the general welfare clause, I merely reiterate what I wrote above: If it is a good argument, why didn’t Team Obama use it?

    As for the rest, again, you’re a mewling baby. Defend Ana’s actions while denigrating others’. Par for the course, and totally worthless and tiresome.

    I’ll gladly respond to that, koolo. I consider that I was a pretty good teacher

    I sincerely doubt it. One crummy little note used as an “example” is completely worthless. I’m merely going by how you act/whine/cry/complain in here as a basis for your personal life. Don’t like it? Don’t do it yourself to others. After all, you’re all for “fairness,” right? Then live up to it. For once in your life.

  32. Wagonwheel says:
    April 3, 2012 at 13:54

    “This whole health care debate is just another example of the progressives and their Gombe Chimp Attack mentality, which they call “liberalism”.”

    Right, something like 50 million Americans uninsured, many of whom then must depend on the whims of charity and welfare in order to get even minimal treatment. And you defend this “system”, DNW?

    Moreover, our per capita health care costs are about 70% higher than those of the next lower country, if memory serves. This doesn’t disturb you, DNW?”

    What has struck me recently in rereading some older anthropological or zoological materials is how perfectly the core mentality of the modern liberal parallels the famous Gombe chimps.

    Liberals of course are often pleased to cite this or that relationship with primates of various sorts, but in this particular case what seems to have been missed in talk of abstract “chimp wars” is what the war was about … it was a war waged against those who strove to place some distance between themselves and the offending parties.

    Liberals like the murderous Gombe chimps, cannot tolerate – Dana that gddmned flashing banner is … – rejection or distancing. It drives them crazy.

  33. “She puts forth an opinion that always mocks the quite valid — more valid in some cases — opinions of others.”

    Please give me one example, koolo.

    The rest of your post is more of your usual ugly hateful talk, unworthy anymore of a response. So have at it, koolo, you damage only yourself and your causes.

  34. “What has struck me recently in rereading some older anthropological or zoological materials is how perfectly the core mentality of the modern liberal parallels the famous Gombe chimps.

    Liberals of course are often pleased to cite this or that relationship with primates of various sorts, but in this particular case what seems to have been missed in talk of abstract “chimp wars” is what the war was about … it was a war waged against those who strove to place some distance between themselves and the offending parties.

    Liberals like the murderous Gombe chimps, cannot tolerate – Dana that gddmned flashing banner is … – rejection or distancing. It drives them crazy.”

    I merely note that you did not answer the questions which were asked, probably meaning that you had no answers, only more ideological bilge!

  35. SINP writes

    Please give me one example, koolo.

    *Yawn* The usual SINP games again. Nevetheless:

    Tell me, Yorkshire, are you unable to read or simply too lazy to do so?

    Oh, I see you’re unable to read.

    Gee, Koolo, is there any chance you might wanna try a coherent argument some time?

    There, I gave you not one but three.

    The rest of your post is more of your usual ugly hateful talk, unworthy anymore of a response. So have at it, koolo, you damage only yourself and your causes.

    Yeah, I’ll keep this response in mind the next time you bring up my professional abilities and/or family like you so often do. What do those comments of yours say about you, SINP?

    Ye gad, you really are passive aggressive. That is why you had to leave teaching, I’ll bet!

  36. OK koolo, have it your way. Your approach to dialogue is mostly childish personal attacks, for which you have a sick obsession, to which I will no longer respond, unless you decide to do civil debate on the topics of the day.

  37. “I do so simply because Anna — as she/he always does here — belittles others’ [legal] arguments as if they’re not worthy of consideration at all. ”

    One notices that in the rush to launch personal attacks at me, the wingnuts seem to have successfully overlooked the teeny tiny point I made.

    Can you explain to us how describing the Supreme Court as “unelected”

    i, is inaccurate
    ii, denigrates them?

    Should schools be censoring out Article II Section 2 of the Constitution lest it denigrate the Supreme Court?

    I wonder if there will ever come a time when wingnuts actually deal with facts rather than launching personal attacks.

  38. “She puts forth an opinion that always mocks the quite valid — more valid in some cases — opinions of others.”

    I’m reading the text of the Constitution in making my comment. What more valid source was Gretchen using for her opinion?

  39. SINP writes

    OK koolo, have it your way. Your approach to dialogue is mostly childish personal attacks, for which you have a sick obsession, to which I will no longer respond, unless you decide to do civil debate on the topics of the day.

    Blah blah blah. Now it’s the passive side. Later, you’ll be right back here, on the attack. You’re a modern day Jekyll and Hyde, SINP.

    Please read this book, SINP.

  40. Can you explain to us how describing the Supreme Court as “unelected”

    i, is inaccurate
    ii, denigrates them?

    Even though I didn’t write anything to the contrary, one could easily wonder how a constitutional law professor appears to be so unfamiliar with the concept of judicial review.

    I’m reading the text of the Constitution in making my comment.

    Uh huh. And then you responded to me “Gee, Koolo, is there any chance you might wanna try a coherent argument some time?” after I posted a link showing just why the Militia Act comparison to ObamaCare is feeble. In addition, your contention about the general welfare clause — if it is so worthy, why hasn’t the government made its case using just that? Say you’re using the text of the Constitution all you wish; much better legal minds than yours actually will use the purpose and history behind the text to make a reasoned judgment.

  41. Wagonwheel says:
    April 3, 2012 at 15:06

    “What has struck me recently in rereading some older anthropological or zoological materials is how perfectly the core mentality of the modern liberal parallels the famous Gombe chimps.

    Liberals of course are often pleased to cite this or that relationship with primates of various sorts, but in this particular case what seems to have been missed in talk of abstract “chimp wars” is what the war was about … it was a war waged against those who strove to place some distance between themselves and the offending parties.

    Liberals like the murderous Gombe chimps, cannot tolerate – Dana that gddmned flashing banner is … – rejection or distancing. It drives them crazy.”

    I merely note that you did not answer the questions which were asked, probably meaning that you had no answers, only more ideological bilge!”

    I merely note that you implicitly grant the Gombe Chimp/Liberal morality parallel and try to justify it on the basis of some your annoyance with costs that broadly escalate because of your previous attempts to get others to underwrite your welfare to their detriment.

    It’s the typical left wing ploy. Screw something up partly, and claim that completing the job will effect the cure.

  42. “Uh huh. And then you responded to me “Gee, Koolo, is there any chance you might wanna try a coherent argument some time?” after I posted a link showing just why the Militia Act comparison to ObamaCare is feeble.”

    Yes – and just after that I showed why your link didn’t work because it failed to make a coherent argument. DO try and keep up.

    Speaking of “incoherence”, you may want to go back and note that Gretchen stated that describing the Supreme Court as “unelected” “denigrated them”.

    Judicial review has nothing to do with that. Throwing that in is a red herring. Why don’t you simply deal with the argument, Koolo?

    The Supreme Court is, in fact, unelected – it says so right in the Constitution

    Can you or Gretchen explain to us how describing the Supreme Court as “unelected”

    i, is inaccurate
    ii, denigrates them?

    Oh, and without attempting to change the subject by talking about judicial review.

  43. “Oh, and without attempting to change the subject by talking about judicial review.”

    … or by making more juvenile personal attacks, which is what koolo mostly does!

  44. Oh, and without attempting to change the subject by talking about judicial review.

    You obviously missed “Even though I didn’t write anything to the contrary …” DO try to keep up, and DO try to read, and DO try to answer this question:

    Explain why your contention about the general welfare clause — if it is so worthy, why hasn’t the government made its case using just that?

  45. SINP writes

    … or by making more juvenile personal attacks, which is what koolo mostly does!

    Says the “man” who was suspended for threatening those with whom he disagrees.

    Wife not around now to abuse, SINP?

  46. BO’s Remarks piss off the Judges on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals – The 5th demands a RESPONSE on BO comments.

    5th Circuit Court Dares Obama’s Justice Department To Answer Whether Courts Can Strike Down Laws

    Michael Brendan Dougherty|Apr. 3, 2012, 4:53 PM|1,050|12

    Obama came out swinging yesterday, saying that if the Supreme Court struck down his health care law, it would be an “unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

    Well, apparently some members of the Judiciary aren’t happy about that.

    According to Jan Crawford of ABC, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered Obama’s Justice department to answer by Thursday whether the Administration believes that the courts have the ability to strike down a federal law:

    Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented — since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise — despite the president’s remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

    Here the Court is trying to humiliate the president, perhaps as retaliation against his over-the-top rhetoric about the role of the judicial branch of government.

    Think of a teacher asking a haughty trigonometry student to explain how addition works in front of the whole class.

    It is a juicy power play.

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/5th-circuit-court-dares-obamas-justice-department-to-answer-whether-courts-can-strike-down-laws-2012-4#ixzz1r1AhGTCG

  47. “Explain why your contention about the general welfare clause — if it is so worthy, why hasn’t the government made its case using just that?”

    My earlier comment must have been eaten or censored out.

    Essentially “because they don’t have to”. You are arguing from an absence of evidence to an evidence of absence, which is a no-no.

    Let me ask you for your opinion. Given this paragraph:


    The result of leaving health care reform to the insurance industry is that health insurance premiums have gone up six times faster than wages in the past nine years. Those dollars are buying skimpier health coverage with high deductibles and caps on benefits, resulting in more and more insured people being forced into medical bankruptcy. Businesses that are struggling to meet health care costs in a global economy and dropping coverage, so much so that now 1 out of 3Americans under the age of 65 has been uninsured at some time in the past two years. Health care eats up 16% of our economy, up from 11% when the nation decided to leave the private insurance in charge.

    do you believe the cost of healthcare is not a matter of concern to the general welfare of the US? Were you one of those arguing that Obama should “do something” about the cost of oil – if so, on what Constitutional basis?

  48. “The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.”

    If the SCOTUS wants to play an activist roll, moving themselves into the political realm, then they should expect to get push back from politicians.

    Of course this order is an insult, and therefore deserves no response from the administration on their testy terms.

    When the more Americans come to understand the ACA, there will be more support for it, and here’s one reason why:

    “Ryan claims:

    “Our plan is to give seniors the power to deny business to inefficient providers…their plan [Affordable Care Act] is to give government the power to deny care to seniors.”

    Here’s the truth, according to Jared Bernstein:

    Just a few little words…but there’s so much wrong with this—the logic is so upside down—it’s hard to know where to start. I’ll go after the first part here and leave the second part—‘their plan’—for later.

    To get why this “market solution” can’t work, you have to understand a bit about how Ryan’s plan changes Medicare. As is by now pretty widely appreciated, including by many in his own party, the plan ends guaranteed health care coverage for seniors and replaces it with a voucher for them to shop for insurance on the street.

    Importantly, the value of those vouchers start well below where they need to be to enable seniors to afford coverage comparable to Medicare today (in fact, beneficiaries costs would have to double), and their value falls increasing behind coverage costs over time.”

    Independent folks under the age of 55 need to pay attention before even considering to vote Republican this time!

  49. They’re paying attention, they have plenty of time because they’re unemployed as a result of Obama’s policies, and they know who is to blame.

  50. WW wrote:

    And then there is the regressive tax system to pay for it, which enriches our elites at the expense of the middle and poor Americans who actually fight the rich man’s wars, as they are told that this is a path to advancement.

    Uhhh, the bottom 47% of Americans, by AGI, pay zero in federal income taxes; just how is that regressive?

  51. Koolo wrote:

    Federally, the Militia Act is about as relevant as the Third Amendment.

    Miss Nova is trying to characterize it as an “individual mandate,” but what it really was was a conscription law. It was never declared to be unconstitutional — in 1792, the notion that the Supreme Court could declare a law unconstitutional hadn’t been considered — just as the ObumbleCare law is, as of right now, perfectly legal, because the Supreme Court hasn’t declared it to be unconstitutional; whether the justices do so in the next few months remains to be seen.

  52. WW wrote:

    Moreover, our per capita health care costs are about 70% higher than those of the next lower country, if memory serves. This doesn’t disturb you, DNW?

    The Supreme Court isn’t deciding the practicality of the law — or, at least, they shouldn’t be — but whether the law is constitutional. Arguments over practicality are wholly different things.

    I could easily construct a perfectly constitutional health care law which would cover everybody: just extend Medicare to cover everyone. Medicare has remained constitutionally unchallenged, and it is funded through direct taxation, a power explicitly granted to the Congress in the Constitution. But saying that it would be clearly constitutional is not the same thing as saying it should be done; it should not be done. I don’t want the federal government to assume the responsibility for insuring that everyone gets medical care. If you want health insurance, buy it on your own; if you don’t want to pay for health insurance, go right ahead and take your chances, but be prepared for what the consequences ought to be if you get sick without insurance.

  53. WW wrote:

    Independent folks under the age of 55 need to pay attention before even considering to vote Republican this time!

    Everyone should pay attention before they vote. Sadly, too many people do not, which is how Democrats win some elections.

  54. President Obama said:

    I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.

    Surely he didn’t manage to make it through Harvard Law School without hearing about laws which were passed by strong majorities being declared unconstitutional. Or perhaps he paid as much attention in class as he did in Jeremiah Wright’s church. :)

    It seems like a poor move on his part to me. I believe that the Justices have already voted, and now the Chief Justice and senior Justice on each side (assuming it wasn’t unanimous) are assigning the majority and minority opinions. If a majority voted to uphold ObumbleCare, the President’s remarks mean nothing. If a majority voted against ObumbleCare, the President’s remarks could push the majority opinion to a stronger tone, invalidating more of the law than might be the case otherwise.

  55. “But saying that it would be clearly constitutional is not the same thing as saying it should be done; it should not be done. I don’t want the federal government to assume the responsibility for insuring that everyone gets medical care. ”

    That paragraph again:

    —-
    The result of leaving health care reform to the insurance industry is that health insurance premiums have gone up six times faster than wages in the past nine years. Those dollars are buying skimpier health coverage with high deductibles and caps on benefits, resulting in more and more insured people being forced into medical bankruptcy. Businesses that are struggling to meet health care costs in a global economy and dropping coverage, so much so that now 1 out of 3Americans under the age of 65 has been uninsured at some time in the past two years. Health care eats up 16% of our economy, up from 11% when the nation decided to leave the private insurance in charge.
    —-

    So at what point “should” it be done, Mr Editor – when healthcare eats up 25% of America’s GDP? 30%? When American businesses can no longer compete overseas at all due to healthcare costs? When 1 in 2 or 2 in 3 Americans no longer has any effective access to healthcare past standing in line at an emergency room?

    Teabaggercare – “Die quickly”.

  56. “Miss Nova is trying to characterize it as an “individual mandate,” but what it really was was a conscription law”

    Bzzzt – this is a lie. The Militia Acts included both conscription AND an individual mandate for the conscriptees to provide their own weapons.

  57. It should not be done, period. I believe in people’s rights as those rights are part of themselves; I do not believe that there is a right for one person to stick his hand in someone else’s pocket.

  58. Editor, that’s how you tell a Democrat. You put your hand in your pocket and if someone else already has his hand in there, it’s a Democrat.

  59. Gretchen:

    “It sounds like the “brilliant constitutional scholar,” Barack Obama feels justified in denigrating the Supreme Court as he labels its Justices as “unelected.” His efforts to minimize the status of the Judicial Branch, which is equal to the status of the Executive Branch, are not only petty, they also demonstrate a pronounced ignorance on his part, especially pronounced as he made his remarks in the presence of two foreign leaders, who likely recognize the co-equality of the three branches of our government more clearly than President Obama apparently does.

    President Obama’s “warning” the Supreme Court not to overturn ObamaCare or face the label of judicial activism reeks of Chicago Way politics–unbecoming, to say the least.”

    Tell us, Gretchen, would you care to make any comment on this?

    http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/17/news/la-pn-gingrich-judges-20111217

    —-
    Newt Gingrich says he’d defy Supreme Court rulings he opposed

    Newt Gingrich says as president he would ignore Supreme Court decisions that conflicted with his powers as commander in chief, and he would press for impeaching judges or even abolishing certain courts if he disagreed with their rulings.

    In recent weeks, the Republican presidential contender has been telling conservative audiences he is determined to expose the myth of “judicial supremacy” and restrain judges to a more limited role in American government. “The courts have become grotesquely dictatorial and far too powerful,” he said in Thursday’s Iowa debate.

    As a historian, Gingrich said he knows President Thomas Jefferson abolished some judgeships, and President Abraham Lincoln made clear he did not accept the Dred Scott decision denying that former slaves could be citizens.

    Relying on those precedents, Gingrich said that if he were in the White House, he would not feel compelled to always follow the Supreme Court’s decisions on constitutional questions.
    —-

    Would any of the RWAs here care to make any comment on Gingrich’s statement?

  60. A.N. says:
    April 3, 2012 at 21:43

    “It should not be done, period.”

    So you’re willing to see Americans suffer in unnecessary misery and even die in order to preserve an abstract sense of purity?

    Including, for that matter, 22 year old daughters?

    One thing that is so typical of Progressives/ Socialist/ Liberals and Democrats is the argument always comes down to “Emotions” and not much of anything else. It’s always if we don’t pass this (give-away Bill of choice) so and so will starve, die, not have a job, and every other give-away.

    Can anyone tell me why it is the business of Government to provide the needs of people.

  61. John Hitchcock posted this on CSPT in April 2009. He also published it on his site. It is as pertinent today as it was about 200 years ago.

    I published the article below on my site twice already. I’ll publish it here because his words and his experience and public opinion regarding the Constitution during his time are very pertinent to this precise time and all the debates going on now.

    Liberals regularly ignore Constitutional restraints on government and Conservatives regularly point out those Constitutional restraints. Of course, Liberals falsely claim Conservatives to be heartless, while the selfsame Liberals refuse to acknowledge the restraints the Constitution placed. Conservatives regularly bring up founding fathers and history while Liberals deny history or ignore history.

    Well, from history, a page from Representative Colonel Davey Crockett’s life:

    I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support, rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question, when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:

    “Mr. Speaker — I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the Government was in arrears to him. This Government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the war of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor, and if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of; but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The Government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

    He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

    Like many other young men, and old ones too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.

    Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning, and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.

    I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied :

    “You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it.”

    He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished it turned to me and said:

    “Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen.”

    I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:

    “Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.”

    “The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business, and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a Praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.”

    “The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.”

    “So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddle-bags, and put out. I had been out about a week, and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow, when I asked him if he could give me a chew of tobacco.”

    “Yes,” said he, “such as we make and use in this part of the country; but it may not suit your taste, as you are probably in the habit of using better.”

    “With that he pulled out of his pocket part of a twist in its natural state, and handed it to me. I took a chew, and handed it back to him. He turned to his plow, and was about to start off. I said to him: “Don’t be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted,” He replied:

    “I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say.”

    “I began: “Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and—”

    “Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.”

    “This was a sockdologer. I had been making up my mind that he was one of those churlish fellows who care for nobody but themselves, and take bluntness for independence. I had seen enough of them to know there is a way to reach them, and was satisfied that if I could get him to talk to me I would soon have him straight. But this was entirely a different bundle of sticks. He knew me, had voted for me before, and did not intend to do it again. Something must be the matter; I could not imagine what it was. I had heard of no complaints against me, except that some of the dandies about the village ridiculed some of the wild and foolish things that I too often say and do, and said that I was not enough of a gentleman to go to Congress. I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

    “Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.”

    “Thank you for that, but you find fault with only one vote. You know the story of Henry Clay, the old huntsman and the rifle; you wouldn’t break your gun for one snap.”

    “No, nor for a dozen. As the story goes, that tack served Mr. Clay’s purpose admirably, though it really had nothing to do with the case. I would not break the gun, nor would I discard an honest representative for a mistake in judgment as a mere matter of policy. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.”

    “I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.”

    “No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true!”

    “Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote for which anybody in the world would have found fault with.”

    “Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity!”

    “Here was another sockdologer; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:

    “Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.”

    “It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the Government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the Government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right: to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive, what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.”

    “I have given you,” continued Crockett, “an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:

    “So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.”

    “I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

    “Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it, than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote, and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.”

    “He laughingly replied: “Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go round the district, you will tell the people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, J will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.”

    “If I don’t,” said I, “I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.”

    “No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.”

    “Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-by. I must know your name.”

    “My name is Bunce.”

    “Not Horatio Bunce?”

    “Yes.”

    “Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad that I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go.”

    “We shook hands and parted. “It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

    “At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

    “Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

    “It is not exactly pertinent to my story, but I must tell you more about him. When I saw him with his family around him, I was not surprised that he loved to stay at home. I have never in any other family seen a manifestation of so much confidence, familiarity and freedom of manner of children toward their parents mingled with such unbounded love and respect.

    “He was not at the house when I arrived, but his wife received and welcomed me with all the ease and cordiality of an old friend. She told me that her husband was engaged in some out-door business, but would be in shortly. She is a woman of fine person; her face is not what the world would at first sight esteem beautiful. In a state of rest there was too much strength and character in it for that, but when she engaged in conversation, and especially when she smiled, it softened into an expression of mingled kindness, goodness, and strength that was beautiful beyond anything I have ever seen.

    “Pretty soon her husband came in, and she left us and went about her household affairs. Toward night the children–he had about seven of them– began to drop in; some from work, some from school, and the little ones from play. They were introduced to me, and met me with the same ease and grace that marked the manner of their mother. Supper came on, and then was exhibited the loveliness of the family circle in all its glow. The father turned the conversation to the matters in which the children had been interested during the day, and all, from the oldest to the youngest, took part in it. They spoke to their parents with as much familiarity and confidence as if they had been friends of their own age, yet every word and every look manifested as much respect as the humblest courtier could manifest for a king; aye, more, for it was all sincere, and strengthened by love. Verily it was the Happy Family.

    “I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. When supper was over, one of the children brought him a Bible and hymn-book. He turned to me and said:

    “Colonel, I have for many years been in the habit of family worship night and morning. I adopt this time for it that all may be present. If I postpone it some of us get engaged in one thing and some in another, and the little ones drop off to sleep, so that it is often difficult to get all together.”

    “He then opened the Bible, and read the Twenty-third Psalm, commencing: “The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not want.” It is a beautiful composition, and his manner of reading it gave it new beauties. We then sang a hymn, and we all knelt down. He commenced his prayer “Our Father who art in Heaven.” No one who has not heard him pronounce those words can conceive how they thrilled through me, for I do not believe that they were ever pronounced by human lips as by him. I had heard them a thousand times from the lips of preachers of every grade and denomination, and by all sorts of professing Christians, until they had become words of course with me, but his enunciation of them gave them an import and a power of which I had never conceived. There was a grandeur of reverence, a depth of humility, a fullness of confidence and an overflowing of love which told that his spirit was communing face to face with its God. An overwhelming feeling of awe came over me, for I felt that I was in the invisible presence of Jehovah. The whole prayer was grand–grand in its simplicity, in the purity of the spirit it breathed, in its faith, its truth, and its love. I have told you he came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.

    “I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him–no, that is not the word–I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

    “But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted–at least, they all knew me.

    “In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

    “Fellow-citizens–I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can to-day offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.”

    “I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

    “And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.”

    “It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.”

    “He came upon the stand and said:

    “Fellow-citizens–It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.”

    “He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

    “I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

    “Now, sir,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed, and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.

    “There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men–men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased–a debt which could not be paid by money–and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

    The hour for the meeting of the House had by this time arrived. We walked up to the Capitol together, but I said not a word to him about moving a reconsideration. I would as soon have asked a sincere Christian to abjure his religion.

    I had listened to his story with an interest which was greatly increased by his manner of telling it, for, no matter what we may say of the merits of a story, a speech, or a sermon, it is a very rare production which does not derive its interest more from the manner than the matter, as some of my readers have doubtless, like the writer, proved to their cost.

    About the Author: Edward S. Ellis

    This story appeared in The Life Of Colonel David Crockett, published by Porter & Coates in 1884. Now in the public domain.

    I think that says it all.

    EDIT: Considering Davey Crockett’s words, do any of this site’s leftists want to discuss my accusations regarding President Obama’s actions being unconstitutional now, since all they produced in direct response was vitriol and devoid of facts?

  62. NA says:
    April 4, 2012 at 00:46 (Edit)

    Well, it looks as if the unannounced deleting going on in the thread is playing with the references. That link should read

    http://www.journal14.com/2012/04/02/constitutional-scholar-threatens-scotus-on-health-scare/comment-page-1/#comment-20346

    Integrity is not your forte, PIATOR. And “the ends justifies the means” doesn’t fly here, PIATOR. Perhaps the next time you try to lie about what one member of the blog administration did do or didn’t do, you might want to take into consideration the HISTORY button on comments from within an admin comment window. Since it is obvious you don’t know what that button does, let me explain it to you.

    You post a comment and Askimet either accepts it and puts it in the forum or it doesn’t. In the case that it doesn’t, Askimet will then either put it in moderation (pending) or spam. For it to get out of moderation or spam, an administrator or editor must actively decide to publish it. An administrator or editor may, at his or her discretion, modify someone’s comment (also called editing (editor -> editing)). In the event Askimet clears a comment, that is noted in the HISTORY of the comment. Any other actions on the comment are also noted — the general action and by whom and the relative time of occurrence.

    So, next time you want to falsely accuse someone of modifying your comment, remember about the comment HISTORY, and then choose not to lie about it for your own fluffery.

  63. My earlier comment must have been eaten or censored out.

    Uh huh. Riiiiiight.

    Essentially “because they don’t have to”. You are arguing from an absence of evidence to an evidence of absence, which is a no-no.

    But YOU are making the argument here — and as if it was a good one. Thus my query as to why, if it IS such a good legal argument, didn’t the government use it. Answer: Because it’s a lousy argument. Yet, you post it here as if it is.

  64. SINP laughingly writes

    If the SCOTUS wants to play an activist roll, moving themselves into the political realm, then they should expect to get push back from politicians.

    Except, of course, it’s bad when Republicans do it to a SCOTUS with whom you agree. Not very “bridging the gap” there, SINP.

    Again, this is laughable. It is the government which is playing the activist role, and the SCOTUS which is balancing the scales — just as the Founders intended.

    Of course this order is an insult, and therefore deserves no response from the administration on their testy terms.

    You forgot to call that court “racist.”

  65. “Uhhh, the bottom 47% of Americans, by AGI, pay zero in federal income taxes; just how is that regressive?”

    Easy answer Mr Editor: You continue to willfully ignore the fact that it is necessary to view the total tax burden on an individual American person or family. Therefore, included in the tax picture must be: state and local sales taxes (regressive), state income taxes (regressive), social security taxes (regressive), medicare taxes (regressive), and property taxes (regressive). A progressive tax is one which has increasing tax brackets throughout the entire earned income range; none of the above named taxes satisfies this definition, therefore all are regressive.

    In fact, I would even argue that our current so-called progressive federal income taxes are actually regressive, when considering the fact that the top bracket of 35% is on incomes over $379,150 (married filing jointly), with no higher tax brackets on any higher incomes. This was not the case for federal taxes post 1940 up to Reagan, during which time the upper bracket was as high as 94% down to 70% in 1979, when it was Ronald Reagan who drastically reduced federal taxes for the upper wage earners.

    And interestingly enough, contrary to Woodrow Wilson’s raising the top bracket to help pay for WWI, and Franklin Roosevelt’s raising the top bracket to help pay for WWII, George W Bush actually lowered the top tax bracket during his disastrous two wars of choice, which helped produce the fiscal mess which President Obama inherited, and which you, Mr Editor, would prefer that we forget in order to put most of the blame on President Obama.

    And in addition to lowering the top tax bracket, President George W Bush lowered the tax on dividends and on capital gains, which also favors the wealthy, all during war time. Considering two wars of choice and lowering taxes in favor of the wealthy, thus increasing the deficit/debt, considerable job losses in his last two years of his second term, creating a housing bubble and mortgage default crisis, these actions are what merits for Bush the rank of one of the worst Presidents we have ever had, certainly worse than any in the 20th and 21st Centuries, with the possible exception of Great Depression Republican Herbert Hoover!

  66. Our Editor writes:

    “If you want health insurance, buy it on your own; if you don’t want to pay for health insurance, go right ahead and take your chances, but be prepared for what the consequences ought to be if you get sick without insurance.”

    What about those who cannot afford to pay our high cost of health insurance which is related to our high cost of health care? I pointed out earlier that our per capita health care costs are about 70% higher than those of the next lower cost country.

    How can anyone expect the average middle class family, whose median income is about $52,000 for a family of four, to afford a basic health insurance premium of $13,375 in 2009, even those who have some assistance from their employers? Moreover, the cost of health insurance has gone up 113% for 1999-2009, much higher than the cost of inflation over the same period which was 28%.

    Republicans would love to kill the Obama ACA, we all know that. But, considering the above figures, what will be their alternative, the Ryan plan, which has nothing to offer, and would even destroy Medicare as we know it, by going to a much weaker voucher plan for those 55 or younger? This typifies the utter failures of the Republican Party operatives to work with their Democratic colleagues to construct viable and affordable health care insurance plans for Americans who need such. The American people would be very foolish to hand over power to these dysfunctional and self-centered individuals!

  67. SINP writes

    PS: It seems that any of my posts with more than one link goes into moderation. Can this be fixed?

    It isn’t just you. Everyone else has realized this and posts links as separate posts.

  68. Then what is your recommendation or the recommendation of your Party, Hoagie, to insure that all Americans get basic health care? Isn’t basic health care a necessity?

    Perhaps when you can see my post which is currently in moderation, you might think differently.

  69. SINP writes

    Then what is your recommendation or the recommendation of your Party, Hoagie, to insure that all Americans get basic health care? Isn’t basic health care a necessity?

    He’s asking this, of course, despite the myriad options posted by conservative commenters back at CSPT and here. Which he’s “conveniently” forgotten. As usual.

  70. The New Zealand author of the Walking with Ghosts blog asks,

    April 3, 2012 at 21:43

    “It should not be done, period.”

    So you’re willing to see Americans suffer in unnecessary misery and even die in order to preserve an abstract sense of purity?”

    It’s a matter of preserving the framework of real freedom, not an abstract sense of purity.

    Taking you as a fair representative [given your published history of inherently bad health and neurotic dysfunction] of the likely kind, it’s better that you suffer any natural penalty that results from you being you, than that I or anybody I care about, becomes insufferably yoked to your dysfunction in an attempt to relive you of it.

  71. DNW, unless our Editor acts to expel the pollution here we are insufferably yoked to its dysfunction while it feeds on forbearance.

  72. Wagonwheel says:
    April 4, 2012 at 09:50

    “Uhhh, the bottom 47% of Americans, by AGI, pay zero in federal income taxes; just how is that regressive?”

    Easy answer Mr Editor: You continue to willfully ignore the fact that it is necessary to view the total tax burden on an individual American person or family. …”

    You just can’t keep your hand off of other people’s lives can you.

    So, Perry, do the “poor” use more or fewer social services in proportion to the taxes they pay, than the undeserving rich?

    Hypothetically speaking, it the moral obligation of those with self-directive and self-discipline abilities to enable the behavior of those with less self-control? If so on what basis?

    See, one of the disturbing things I have been noticing “lately”, [the last half dozen or so years] is how the argument of the leftoid class has been not-so-subtly shifting from somewhat defensible arguments which assumed a state of equality of natural capacity, but posited that some of these naturally equal operators as struggling against a state of iniquitous social disability, into another argument that instead demands an accommodation of moral dysfunction and nihilism in the name of unconditional social solidarity as well. So, the drunk for example, has a right to be a drunk, and somehow a right also to demand that his drunkenness be underwritten by others.

    In this framework, endorsed by say, the Z-Net types, one is not “morally” entitled to one’s “natural gifts” because they are “unearned”, and supposedly can only be exercised in certain situations which the organism of the left naturally assumes is a situation that has been created by the planning of the leftists within the bureaucrat class.

    This will no doubt come as a surprise to those who have at least access to institutional memories that date back before the Clinton years. But the more the organisms of the left succeed in gaining control over the “distribution” of life chances in “the system”, the more plausible their fallacious assertions will seem to those individuals who have no experience of anything but a life of officially apportioned grants and permissions.

  73. ropelight says:
    April 4, 2012 at 12:00

    DNW, unless our Editor acts to expel the pollution here we are insufferably yoked to its dysfunction while it feeds on forbearance.”

    The technical difference as you would acknowledge, is that while a troll may experience some gratification over the attention it receives here, our decisions to dispense or withhold that attention are at our discretion.

    There is no implied obligation to grant them status or recognition as moral peers.

    Wait … now that I think on it, their complaints to Dana over “double standards”, and their sense of entitlement to the of the use of his bandwidth, implies that they do imagine that there is, doesn’t it.

    I guess you’re right.

  74. So, next time you want to falsely accuse someone of modifying your comment, remember about the comment HISTORY, and then choose not to lie about it for your own fluffery.

    Two teeny tiny things, Mr Hitchcock:

    i, I am not an administrator. Therefore I have no way to know who is deleting my posts.

    ii, You are a proven l1ar, and one who censors people to hide that fact. Your word is simply not good enough.

    http://www.journal14.com/2012/04/03/open-thread/comment-page-1/#comment-20208

  75. WW wrote:

    “Uhhh, the bottom 47% of Americans, by AGI, pay zero in federal income taxes; just how is that regressive?”

    Easy answer Mr Editor: You continue to willfully ignore the fact that it is necessary to view the total tax burden on an individual American person or family. Therefore, included in the tax picture must be: state and local sales taxes (regressive), state income taxes (regressive), social security taxes (regressive), medicare taxes (regressive), and property taxes (regressive). A progressive tax is one which has increasing tax brackets throughout the entire earned income range; none of the above named taxes satisfies this definition, therefore all are regressive.

    Most state income taxes have a progressive rate structure, but even those which have single-percentage rate structures (Pennsylvania’s is a flat 3.07%) have people who earn more paying more. Medicare taxes are the same throughout the scale, and sales taxes are the same throughout the scale.

    Your problem is one of definition. You stated that if a tax does not have a progressive rate structure, it is regressive; that is untrue. There is a middle ground in which a single percentage rate tax structure is neutral, and that’s the way most of them are.

  76. WW wrote:

    Then what is your recommendation or the recommendation of your Party, Hoagie, to insure that all Americans get basic health care? Isn’t basic health care a necessity?

    This is your attempt — and not the first time you have done so — to set as a default position that everybody is entitled to health care, and that it is the responsibility of the government to see to it that they get it.

    Well, no, sorry, but I do not see health care as some sort of entitled right, for which other people must pay if you cannot or will not pay for it yourself. If you want some good or service that another person must provide for you, it is your responsibility to figure out how to pay for it; it is not my responsibility to pay for it for you.

  77. “Your problem is one of definition. You stated that if a tax does not have a progressive rate structure, it is regressive; that is untrue. There is a middle ground in which a single percentage rate tax structure is neutral, and that’s the way most of them are.”

    Pardon me, but this is only true if you think like a particularly simple-minded accounting program rather than, say, a human being. The killer word is “neutral” as you use it there.

    Consider two people – one earning $25,000 a year, and one earning $250,000 a year.

    The simple minded accounting program will say that it is “neutral” for these people to pay the same percentage, that for the $25,000 a year earner, the value of (say) $50 is the same as the value of $500 for the $250,000 a year earner.

    In the real world, where human beings operate, this is obviously not so. The burden of losing $50 for the poorer person is considerably more than the burden of losing $500 for the richer person. Progressive taxation results in less misery to the taxpayers overall than a set percentage.

    This is not even controversial – Jefferson outlined a progressive tax system in 1785:

    “Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.”

    So a flat tax is not “neutral”; rather, it improves the welfare of the rich by increasing overall misery among taxpayers.

  78. A.N. says:
    April 4, 2012 at 18:14 (Edit)

    So, next time you want to falsely accuse someone of modifying your comment, remember about the comment HISTORY, and then choose not to lie about it for your own fluffery.

    Two teeny tiny things, Mr Hitchcock:

    i, I am not an administrator. Therefore I have no way to know who is deleting my posts.

    ii, You are a proven l1ar, and one who censors people to hide that fact. Your word is simply not good enough.

    Your (i) is laughable on its face. Anyone who has administrative access to any blog with a WP engine (such as Truth Before Dishonor, The First Street Journal, Common Sense Political Thought, Building the Gap) has access to the HISTORY of a comment. I expect even your own woebegotten site had a similar structure, if not the exact same.

    Your (ii) is foolhardy, as you, PIATOR, are a documented fraudster, identity thief, sock-puppeteer, and liar. Wagonwheel is also a proven liar. Your “proven liar” scam only works with you, a proven liar and Wagonwheel, a proven liar. Oh, it might also work with a certain administrator of Iowa Liberal, who also practices fraud, Identity Theft, sock-puppeteering, and lying. But, as documentation shows, the obverse of “proven” is clearly evident, as practically everyone on the Conservative side has declared your blatantly false accusations to be … get this … blatantly false.

    But it is cute the way you ignored the proof of your false accusation that a higher-numbered comment link occurred than a lower-numbered comment link because someone was deleting comments. And I have already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you, PIATOR, have absolutely no use for integrity in your own life.

    So, vamoose!

  79. Phoenician in a time of Romans, the New Zealand librarian and author of the Walking with Ghosts blog says to another commenter:

    “… you are a proven li@r. Your invective is out of place – you are not arguing with me, but with your own words.”

    Did you, or did you not, present Hitchcock’s e-mail address as your own?

  80. “Well, no, sorry, but I do not see health care as some sort of entitled right, for which other people must pay if you cannot or will not pay for it yourself. If you want some good or service that another person must provide for you, it is your responsibility to figure out how to pay for it; it is not my responsibility to pay for it for you.”

    We are actually talking about insurance, Mr Editor, specifically health care insurance, therefore your characterization is invalid. Insurance represents a pooling of premium payments to support the payment of a claim for an insured who has a valid claim. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the insured to pay their premiums. Thus, in that sense, it is your responsibility to pay the claims of others.

    This Conservative idea that health insurance involves someone taking money out of someone’s pocket undeservedly, is a mischaracterization, made for political reasons, but having no truth to it at all!

  81. “As I have said, Mr Hitchcock, you are a proven li@r. Your invective is out of place – you are not arguing with me, but with your own words.”

    Not only that, Anna Nova, but Mr Hitchcock considers any disagreement with him constitutes a lie. He’s terribly confused!

  82. “Consider two people – one earning $25,000 a year, and one earning $250,000 a year.”

    Exactly, Anna Nova! I like your explanation. Hopefully our Editor now understands what a regressive tax is. All our taxes, even our federal tax on income higher than the top bracket, is regressive, viewed in terms of the burden on the taxed individual or family, which is the correct way to characterize our taxes.

  83. Wagonwheel, I already proved that you are, indeed, a liar. I even wrote an article about it on this site and permitted you to comment on it, releasing you from your promise. But you chose not to comment on the article proving you to be a liar. I wonder why that is.

    And your absolute and demanding anti-Christian violation of the Tenth Commandment is further noted. To be Socialist, which is what all so-called “Progressives” are, is to be in direct violation of Providence’s Tenth Commandment. There is no way around that absolute Truth, as you continually prove.

Comments are closed.