If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(US Supreme Court) NewsFlash Supreme Court rules that Obamacare is constitutional. The bland mask that is Mitt Romney's face twitches with something called "emotion"   (supremecourt.gov) divider line 3382
    More: NewsFlash, obamacare, supreme courts, Mitt Romney, supreme court ruling  
•       •       •

14893 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Jun 2012 at 10:27 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

3382 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | » | Last
 
2012-06-28 06:32:34 PM

what_now: MurphyMurphy: Here's a clue: health insurance is not health care. All "universal" or "single-payer" systems work by rationing care. You want treatment for your rare cancer? Some government bureaucrat will determine that the treatment isn't cost effective, and you will either die waiting for it, or you'll never be given the chance.

Sort of like what happens now with my insurance company?


Bingo, this is such a patently stupid argument.

**ALL** healthcare systems work by rationing health care, by providing incentives for healthful behavior, and by providing disincentives for unhealthy behavior,

I would rather the person making the call of whether I live or die is not making that call based on whether it will cause stock prices to dip. I would rather such decisions be based on actual science and be carried out by people whose jobs depend on a healthy populace rather than a profitable one.
 
2012-06-28 06:32:36 PM

Aikidogamer: JollyMagistrate: This already exists and no one was complaining with the many, many other taxes that work in this fashion. For example: those who do not have children are taxed more. Simply for being alive. Imagine that. Every exemption you can claim on your taxes work in exactly the same way.

This is neither radical nor new. And if you look pre-2008 you will find almost all of your current Republicans in favor of this mandate as being "personally responsible." The only real source of this manufactured outrage is that Republicans didn't get to present it to the national scale first.

Exemptions are a formulaic calculation of reduction in tax burden based on the cost for sustaining yourself or children. This is simply a fee for not doing as the govt wants you to do. I also had a problem with it when the Republicans wanted to do it at a federal level. At the State level, I am more or less fine with it. I would not vote for it, but if NY or CA want it, so be it. Tax or penalty, the implication is spend your money on products your government wants you to or else...


You forgot to mention the New World Order, Illuminati, Reptilians, and how it all ties into 9/11 and the Jews.
 
2012-06-28 06:32:49 PM

meat0918: Ok, now someone tell me just WhyTF these ladies are protesting in belly dance attire? I mean, I applaud the creativity, but seriously?

[fark.upi.com image 301x301]


What I want to know; why aren't these people at their jobs?
 
2012-06-28 06:33:04 PM

Corvus: AtlanticCoast63: ....Okay:

1. Card-carrying Republican here.
2. I didn't agree with the individual mandate - still don't - but the SCOTUS ruling was reasoned and clear.
3. They've spoken, and now we need to get on with it.

/If I'm supposed to be all kinds of butthurt about this, let me know

You're a good guy. It just seem to me a lot of good guys are there anymore in the Republican Party. Or maybe the assholes are being so loud they are drowning the good ones out.


But your team has the good guys with class, right?


patdollard.com


/despise politics SO freaking much.
 
2012-06-28 06:33:34 PM

Corvus: armoredbulldozer: Paging Mr. Harrelson.....

Kagan should have recused herself. The racist Sotomayor sucks Donkey cock!

Should Clarence Thomas recused himself? You know they guy who's wife took 1.5 MILLION DOLLARS FROM ANTI-ACA GROUPS IN LOBBYING MONEY?


Duh, that was HIS WIFE, not HIM. Under what kind of moral code would spouses be considered one being, one unit no man can tear asunder? And it's not as though marriage is a legal partnership that is incentivized through the tax code, thereby imposing an unfair tax on those who don't wish to enter such a partnership.
 
2012-06-28 06:34:29 PM

SharkTrager: I'm going to point something out. Being happy you won because it means the other side lost doesn't make you any better than your opposition.

I'm amazed how many people here really are more concerned with winning and losing than the relevant issues involved. OK, not amazed. Disappointed.


"My Side" is the side of America. Americans should be happy about this decision. I know, that makes me a libby lib lib. But DAMN, insure the population, let businesses not need to waste time worrying about this infrastructure crap, and let's get some people back to work.
 
2012-06-28 06:35:19 PM

jvowles: what_now: MurphyMurphy: Here's a clue: health insurance is not health care. All "universal" or "single-payer" systems work by rationing care. You want treatment for your rare cancer? Some government bureaucrat will determine that the treatment isn't cost effective, and you will either die waiting for it, or you'll never be given the chance.

Sort of like what happens now with my insurance company?

Bingo, this is such a patently stupid argument.

**ALL** healthcare systems work by rationing health care, by providing incentives for healthful behavior, and by providing disincentives for unhealthy behavior,

I would rather the person making the call of whether I live or die is not making that call based on whether it will cause stock prices to dip. I would rather such decisions be based on actual science and be carried out by people whose jobs depend on a healthy populace rather than a profitable one.


To be fair, a healthy populace IS a profitable populace. If everyone's sick, deformed, allergic, obese, etc. then little work gets done and little money flows through the economy.
 
2012-06-28 06:35:47 PM

gimmegimme: Under what kind of moral code would spouses be considered one being, one unit no man can tear asunder?


All of those homophobic, racist assholes who think marriage is between one white man and one white woman until the rapture to create more Jesus babies?

I mean, that's the argument, right?
 
2012-06-28 06:36:25 PM

Purdue_Pete: Corvus: AtlanticCoast63: ....Okay:

1. Card-carrying Republican here.
2. I didn't agree with the individual mandate - still don't - but the SCOTUS ruling was reasoned and clear.
3. They've spoken, and now we need to get on with it.

/If I'm supposed to be all kinds of butthurt about this, let me know

You're a good guy. It just seem to me a lot of good guys are there anymore in the Republican Party. Or maybe the assholes are being so loud they are drowning the good ones out.

But your team has the good guys with class, right?


[patdollard.com image 600x350]


/despise politics SO freaking much.


Funny because you seem like such an ass, not sure why it would bother you.
 
2012-06-28 06:36:36 PM
Follow my train of thought for a moment.

Our constitution never mentions healthcare as an industry that the government should control. It also states that every activity not specifically mentioned is reserved for the states or the people themselves to take care of.

This ruling basically says that since the constitution also says congress may collect taxes, the ability to tax apparently takes precedence over anything else. This is in addition to other post new deal rulings that basically say that anything that affects interstate commerce may be regulated in any way and that so long as something is done for the general welfare of the country and can be considered necessary and proper it is also super peachy.

Given all that, what obstacle is there to prevent, just as an example, Republicans from using the apparently unlimited taxing power to levy a $100 trillion dollar tax penalty on being a Democrat and imprisoning anyone who cannot pay? I can say for certain that fewer Democrats would improve the general welfare of this country and that this act would be both necessary and proper given the stakes.

Furthermore, having established last week that the executive's ability to employ prosecutorial discretion gives him the freedom to simply not prosecute entire categories of crimes, why could a hypothetical President Romney simply not declare that going forward no murder charges would be filed against people who kill democrats?

Anybody here have any good answers?
 
2012-06-28 06:37:06 PM

NewportBarGuy: gimmegimme: Under what kind of moral code would spouses be considered one being, one unit no man can tear asunder?

All of those homophobic, racist assholes who think marriage is between one white man and one white woman until the rapture to create more Jesus babies?

I mean, that's the argument, right?


I believe his point was sarcastic.
 
2012-06-28 06:37:31 PM

ghare: SharkTrager: I'm going to point something out. Being happy you won because it means the other side lost doesn't make you any better than your opposition.

I'm amazed how many people here really are more concerned with winning and losing than the relevant issues involved. OK, not amazed. Disappointed.

"My Side" is the side of America. Americans should be happy about this decision. I know, that makes me a libby lib lib. But DAMN, insure the population, let businesses not need to waste time worrying about this infrastructure crap, and let's get some people back to work.


There is a difference between what you just said and what I said. Let's be frank. The average Farker is more happy that this upsets Republicans than they are that the healthcare bill was upheld. Were it reversed we'd see the same from the other side. It's what's wrong with our system and it's why some of us refuse to align with either party or label. This shouldn't be a game, contest or sporting event.
 
2012-06-28 06:38:41 PM

armoredbulldozer: Paging Mr. Harrelson.....

Kagan should have recused herself. The racist Sotomayor sucks Donkey cock!


Awesome! Can I have a second helping of Republican tears?
 
2012-06-28 06:39:05 PM

EvilIguana966: Follow my train of thought for a moment.

Our constitution never mentions healthcare as an industry that the government should control. It also states that every activity not specifically mentioned is reserved for the states or the people themselves to take care of.

This ruling basically says that since the constitution also says congress may collect taxes, the ability to tax apparently takes precedence over anything else. This is in addition to other post new deal rulings that basically say that anything that affects interstate commerce may be regulated in any way and that so long as something is done for the general welfare of the country and can be considered necessary and proper it is also super peachy.

Given all that, what obstacle is there to prevent, just as an example, Republicans from using the apparently unlimited taxing power to levy a $100 trillion dollar tax penalty on being a Democrat and imprisoning anyone who cannot pay? I can say for certain that fewer Democrats would improve the general welfare of this country and that this act would be both necessary and proper given the stakes.

Furthermore, having established last week that the executive's ability to employ prosecutorial discretion gives him the freedom to simply not prosecute entire categories of crimes, why could a hypothetical President Romney simply not declare that going forward no murder charges would be filed against people who kill democrats?

Anybody here have any good answers?


static.guim.co.uk

upload.wikimedia.org

media.tumblr.com
 
2012-06-28 06:39:25 PM

Corvus: I believe his point was sarcastic.


Well, I was going for the full derp response. Should I have added more exclamation points? heh...

Just a fun day overall.
 
2012-06-28 06:39:32 PM

EvilIguana966: Our constitution never mentions healthcare as an industry that the government should control. It also states that every activity not specifically mentioned is reserved for the states or the people themselves to take care of.


No it does not say this.

It says this:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That's not the same thing as what you just said.
 
2012-06-28 06:39:38 PM

Infobahn: Free Republic has a headline the SCOTUS just woke a "sleeping giant". Conservatives seem to sleep a lot. Maybe they should see their doctor.


It's okay, they sleep through the classes where they learn science, math, history, civics, logic, english, reading comprehension, and foreign languages. Unfortunately, they also tend to sleep through all the bits of the Bible lessons where they discuss the actual contents of the book and the commonly accepted scholarship on that book --- but always wake up for the part where the fire-and-brimstone faith healer guy talks about how everything's the fault of the queers and satanists and muslims.

Luckily they don't trust doctors with all their elitist book-learning and fancy degrees. Thank god for former playboy models whose bust size is bigger than their IQ, or they'd never know about how autism is caused.
 
2012-06-28 06:40:11 PM
Socialism!
Government takeover of a private industry
Mandate!
unconstitutional!

BIGGEST TAX INCREASE EVAR!!


and you wonder why people call you crazy.
 
2012-06-28 06:40:16 PM

SharkTrager: I'm going to point something out. Being happy you won because it means the other side lost doesn't make you any better than your opposition.

I'm amazed how many people here really are more concerned with winning and losing than the relevant issues involved. OK, not amazed. Disappointed.


You sound like a loser.
 
2012-06-28 06:41:33 PM

bhcompy: InmanRoshi: And as a mortal human being you are eventually going to get sick and die, and if you were uninsured those costs would have been covered by the insured.

You were simply gambling (with other people's money) that was going to happen later rather than sooner. I shed no tears for you, and you get no sympathy from me.

Yes, because no one takes responsibility for their own actions. I forget, this is America.

/I'm a healthy male in my 20s and get routine checkups, there is no reason for me to spend the outrageous amounts on health care that this law requires. Bye bye no coverage option, bye bye high deductible HSA.


Check again, buddy, there are specific provisions for self-centered asshats like you, so when you get hit by a car, you won't lie there dying until the bed for the uninsured opens up.
 
2012-06-28 06:41:36 PM

Aikidogamer: If you don't have income then you are still responsible for the flat fee because medicaid is till means tested by resources. So yes, if you have resources but no income you will still pay the minimum tax.


Nope. Not talking about the Medicaid means-testing at all. Rather, the very specific part of Section 5000A part e (exemptions):

"No penalty shall be imposed under subsection
(a) with respect to .... INDIVIDUALS WHO CANNOT AFFORD COVERAGE.-
''(A) IN GENERAL.-Any applicable individual for any
month if the applicable individual's required contribution
(determined on an annual basis) for coverage for the month
exceeds 8 percent of such individual's household income
for the taxable year described in section 1412(b)(1)(B) of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."

In other words, whether or not you're Medicaid eligible (irrelevant to this quesion), if a 'required contribution' (aka "silver plan") would cost you more than 8% of your gross income (after whatever subsidies), you're exempt from any penalty assessment. Thus, if you don't have income, there is no tax. It is an income tax.
 
2012-06-28 06:41:39 PM

EvilIguana966: Republicans from using the apparently unlimited taxing power to levy a $100 trillion dollar tax penalty on being a Democrat and imprisoning anyone who cannot pay?


That would be a violation of the first and fourteenth amendments.
 
2012-06-28 06:42:48 PM

EvilIguana966: Given all that, what obstacle is there to prevent, just as an example, Republicans from using the apparently unlimited taxing power to levy a $100 trillion dollar tax penalty on being a Democrat and imprisoning anyone who cannot pay?


Because there is a law that you can not have thing like this be unfairly applied to people. I forget what it is called but you can't apply a law that is not consistent across the board.

Also it is still a democracy, people can still be voted out of office for laws they don't like. You make it sound like the Constitution supposed to stop ever bad law. It's not.
 
2012-06-28 06:43:35 PM

EvilIguana966: Follow my train of thought for a moment.

Our constitution never mentions healthcare as an industry that the government should control. It also states that every activity not specifically mentioned is reserved for the states or the people themselves to take care of.

This ruling basically says that since the constitution also says congress may collect taxes, the ability to tax apparently takes precedence over anything else. This is in addition to other post new deal rulings that basically say that anything that affects interstate commerce may be regulated in any way and that so long as something is done for the general welfare of the country and can be considered necessary and proper it is also super peachy.

Given all that, what obstacle is there to prevent, just as an example, Republicans from using the apparently unlimited taxing power to levy a $100 trillion dollar tax penalty on being a Democrat and imprisoning anyone who cannot pay? I can say for certain that fewer Democrats would improve the general welfare of this country and that this act would be both necessary and proper given the stakes.

Furthermore, having established last week that the executive's ability to employ prosecutorial discretion gives him the freedom to simply not prosecute entire categories of crimes, why could a hypothetical President Romney simply not declare that going forward no murder charges would be filed against people who kill democrats?

Anybody here have any good answers?


lol take some civics classes. This is the stuff Teabaggers bring to the table, such amusement!
 
2012-06-28 06:43:45 PM

LordJiro: Bullseyed: BunkyBrewman: FoxNews is keeping up the fight.

[a57.foxnews.com image 640x387]

/nothing like not updating the headline on their front page for at least half an hour after the decision has been made

As opposed to CNN who updated with the wrong verdict?

No one was prepared for this ruling because it is blatantly obvious that the law was unConstitutional.

Which is why the vast majority of people who actually study the Constitution said it was Constitutional, right? But I'm sure some anonymous farknugget on the internet knows better than the majority of all those elitist scholars.


OK. That made me LOL.

One free month of TF for you.
 
2012-06-28 06:44:17 PM
It's OK, fascists don't need your stinkin Constitution and your stinkin "laws" and Supreme Court.

Walker won't comply
 
2012-06-28 06:44:43 PM

EvilIguana966: Furthermore, having established last week that the executive's ability to employ prosecutorial discretion gives him the freedom to simply not prosecute entire categories of crimes, why could a hypothetical President Romney simply not declare that going forward no murder charges would be filed against people who kill democrats?


Because there are STATE LAWS against murder?

HUUUURRRRRR!!!

You really seem dumb.
 
2012-06-28 06:45:05 PM

WhyteRaven74: netweavr: The circumstances don't matter, the promise was still broken.

The circumstances matter a great deal. There are two standing executive orders to shut down Gitmo, it's Congress alone that has kept it open.


His efforts don't change the end-result. He shouldn't have promised something he couldn't accomplish. He didn't say he would try to shut down Gitmo, he said he would shut down Gitmo.

badLogic: WhyteRaven74: netweavr: The circumstances don't matter, the promise was still broken.

The circumstances matter a great deal. There are two standing executive orders to shut down Gitmo, it's Congress alone that has kept it open.

By netweavr's logic, Obama should just disband Congress. Since that is all that is holding him back from keeping his promises.


No. You're failing to follow me. He should never have made a promise he couldn't keep.
 
2012-06-28 06:45:20 PM

Brandyelf: Supposedly, they're already vowing to (at least, according to this)


i2.listal.com

That's not just doubling down. That's like quintupling.
 
2012-06-28 06:46:19 PM

WhyteRaven74: EvilIguana966: Republicans from using the apparently unlimited taxing power to levy a $100 trillion dollar tax penalty on being a Democrat and imprisoning anyone who cannot pay?

That would be a violation of the first and fourteenth amendments.


So? Haven't we just established that congress may tax anything for any reason? If we can ignore the 10th why shouldn't we ignore those as well?
 
2012-06-28 06:46:27 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: netweavr: Keizer_Ghidorah: netweavr: Keizer_Ghidorah: technocrat: qorkfiend: netweavr: People without children should (and do) pay higher taxes...

I won't debate that people without children do pay higher taxes, but what argument do you have as to why they should pay higher taxes?

Obama's broken lots of promises that one you mentioned, gitmo, government transperncy, debt, etc. . . most people are going to be alright with that.

Considering Congress wouldn't let him close Gitmo, how is that breaking a promise?

His mouth writing checks his ass can't cash counts as breaking a promise. I'm not arguing its out of his control, I'm arguing he promised to do something and it didn't happen.

In other words, if I promise to stop the sun from rising tomorrow, I'd be a liar when dawn came through your window.

Maybe you should talk to your Republican friends in Congress and tell them to stop being farktards. Then maybe Obama can do some of the things he promised.

See, your sun analogy falls flat because it's physically impossible to stop the Earth from spinning. Perhaps an analogy like "If I promise to save that kitten up in that tree, but when I tried the local bullies pulled me down and beat the shiat out of me, so I failed to save the kitten, and now I'm a liar because of that" would work better.

What's your point? The end result is the same. He made a promise he couldn't keep. The circumstances don't matter, the promise was still broken.

So you're ignoring the why's for the sake of needing something to hate with? Wow, that takes some real mental gymnastics.

He'd have Gitmo closed in a week if the Republicans in Congress would let him. Checks and balances are a wonderful thing, they work to both prevent the bad and stifle the good, especially when people like you need ammunition for their insipid hatemongering.


I don't hate him. Where are you getting this from? He made a promise he couldn't keep. That makes it a broken promise. You guys are acting like I'm damning his entire existence over this.
 
2012-06-28 06:46:42 PM

WhyteRaven74: Ben Franklin the boobiesmaster general


This was either an epic win for the filter or epic post. Awesome either way.
 
2012-06-28 06:47:48 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: SevenizGud: Great, now I get to buy health care insurance for another 16 million losers.

No, you get a tax increase.


You were already paying for the uninsured.
 
2012-06-28 06:47:48 PM

LockeOak: jigger: LockeOak: By that reasoning, not having a child is inaction, and those that do not have children pay a higher tax.

So you agree that Obamacare is an increase on everyone's tax rates.

I find it difficult to imagine someone who comes out worse off under the PPACA than they were before. Everyone should benefit from better price controls as well as expanded patient's rights. I suppose if you're a healthy 26-30 year old male (as am I) that's currently uninsured (I have health insurance) you will end up paying more than before, though you will have health insurance, likely discounted. There are also some measures that increase taxes on unearned income by the very wealthy, but that doesn't concern me. I would much prefer single-payer, but this is a big improvement over the previous system.


I can't imagine young contract workers being better off under this one. Oh sure, now they have health insurance because they have a new bill to pay, or they have a higher tax bill to pay. It's like someone said not too long ago, "If things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn't."
 
2012-06-28 06:48:33 PM

EvilIguana966: WhyteRaven74: EvilIguana966: Republicans from using the apparently unlimited taxing power to levy a $100 trillion dollar tax penalty on being a Democrat and imprisoning anyone who cannot pay?

That would be a violation of the first and fourteenth amendments.

So? Haven't we just established that congress may tax anything for any reason? If we can ignore the 10th why shouldn't we ignore those as well?


Umm no! We did not. Congress can not rax anything for any reason, you are wrong.

And how is taxation a power given to the federal government in the Constitution not a power of the federal government?
 
2012-06-28 06:49:40 PM

WhyteRaven74: BobBoxBody: how unsustainable and how damaging this legislation will be to the country's longterm economic health

Making sure people don't go bankrupt due to medical expenses is bad for long term economic health? Really?


What? This isn't the NHS here.
 
2012-06-28 06:49:45 PM

netweavr: WhyteRaven74: netweavr: The circumstances don't matter, the promise was still broken.

The circumstances matter a great deal. There are two standing executive orders to shut down Gitmo, it's Congress alone that has kept it open.

His efforts don't change the end-result. He shouldn't have promised something he couldn't accomplish. He didn't say he would try to shut down Gitmo, he said he would shut down Gitmo.

badLogic: WhyteRaven74: netweavr: The circumstances don't matter, the promise was still broken.

The circumstances matter a great deal. There are two standing executive orders to shut down Gitmo, it's Congress alone that has kept it open.

By netweavr's logic, Obama should just disband Congress. Since that is all that is holding him back from keeping his promises.

No. You're failing to follow me. He should never have made a promise he couldn't keep.


This has never happened with any politician in the world ever.
 
2012-06-28 06:51:43 PM

Corvus: Because there are STATE LAWS against murder?


Also there are federal laws against murder

ambassador_ahab: This was either an epic win for the filter or epic post. Awesome either way.


Actually just a post of a Fark favorite, happened years ago, someone tried to say that Ben Franklin the the first you know, post master general. Forgot about the filter. So their post said he was the boobiesmaster general and there was much rejoicing on Fark.

EvilIguana966: So? Haven't we just established that congress may tax anything for any reason? If we can ignore the 10th why shouldn't we ignore those as well?


Uh no. The fourteenth amendment requires laws apply equally to all people.
 
2012-06-28 06:52:21 PM

badLogic: Infernalist: Ben Franklin would tell you to STFU and GTFO if you don't want to pay your fair share of taxes to the common good of the republic.

And then he would do something awesome, like invent bifocals bang four french hookers in one night.

FTFY
This is Fark after all.


Gentlemen, please.

There's absolutely no reason why Mr. Franklin couldn't do both.
 
2012-06-28 06:52:33 PM

too-old: ignatius_crumbcake: If anything, it will increase conservative apathy cause the teabaggers don't think their Lord-and-Savior Mitt Romney (lol) can be trusted to do anything.

But what does Sarah Palin think about all this?


Sarah Palin has thoughts? I thought she was just programmed with soundbytes that she can't even get right.....
 
2012-06-28 06:52:52 PM

netweavr: I don't hate him. Where are you getting this from? He made a promise he couldn't keep. That makes it a broken promise. You guys are acting like I'm damning his entire existence over this.


I just don't understand your point. He tried his best to accomplish something that he said he would try to accomplish.

I look at campaign "promises" as things they want to try to accomplish. If they actually do the things the said they would then I don't consider it lying.
 
2012-06-28 06:53:21 PM

EvilIguana966: WhyteRaven74: EvilIguana966: Republicans from using the apparently unlimited taxing power to levy a $100 trillion dollar tax penalty on being a Democrat and imprisoning anyone who cannot pay?

That would be a violation of the first and fourteenth amendments.

So? Haven't we just established that congress may tax anything for any reason? If we can ignore the 10th why shouldn't we ignore those as well?


lolwat? Did you just wake up from a coma?
 
2012-06-28 06:53:31 PM

gimmegimme:
This has never happened with any politician in the world ever.


the punchline is that dedicated devotion to upfront and truthful statements finding itself in a voting booth pulling the lever for romney.
 
2012-06-28 06:54:21 PM

netweavr: WhyteRaven74: netweavr: The circumstances don't matter, the promise was still broken.

The circumstances matter a great deal. There are two standing executive orders to shut down Gitmo, it's Congress alone that has kept it open.

His efforts don't change the end-result. He shouldn't have promised something he couldn't accomplish. He didn't say he would try to shut down Gitmo, he said he would shut down Gitmo.

badLogic: WhyteRaven74: netweavr: The circumstances don't matter, the promise was still broken.

The circumstances matter a great deal. There are two standing executive orders to shut down Gitmo, it's Congress alone that has kept it open.

By netweavr's logic, Obama should just disband Congress. Since that is all that is holding him back from keeping his promises.

No. You're failing to follow me. He should never have made a promise he couldn't keep.


God damn, you are an idiot.
 
2012-06-28 06:54:40 PM
I truly got a kick out of these comments. The buthurt that is coming will be quite entertaining.
 
2012-06-28 06:54:48 PM
Can someone explain what this means in non-partisan language without all this screaming and flailing about?
 
2012-06-28 06:54:49 PM

WhyteRaven74: Corvus: Because there are STATE LAWS against murder?

Also there are federal laws against murder


I would imagine so. However how does that make my point no longer valid? It doesn't.

If federally the stop prosecuting murder states can still send people to jail for it.

Are you one of those who have no idea what the point of a conversation is a try to butt in?
 
2012-06-28 06:55:06 PM

Fluorescent Testicle: JDAT: [www.catholicvote.org image 640x425]

[i.imgur.com image 625x502]


Boris Becker is running for President?
 
2012-06-28 06:55:46 PM

neener neener: Can someone explain what this means in non-partisan language without all this screaming and flailing about?


It was upheld. If you want a more detailed answer you need to ask a more detailed question.
 
2012-06-28 06:56:47 PM

neener neener: Can someone explain what this means in non-partisan language without all this screaming and flailing about?


YOUR MOM IS A WHORE, AND WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE.

i think it means tomorrow will be a helluva lot like yesterday, but that lacks a certain dramatic flair.
 
Displayed 50 of 3382 comments

First | « | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | » | Last

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report