Obama's Fundimental Principle

[bluethread]

Obama said that the Sipreme Court upheld the fundimental principle that no one should have their health or finances put at risk based on a medical condition.

First, is this indeed what the SCOTUS did with today's decision?

Second, is this indeed a fundimental principle?

[dianaiad]

Second, is this indeed a fundimental principle?

Well, it is for Obama.


Seriously, I would say it is a principle that can be justified by the "promote the general welfare" clause. As a specific principle, it is certainly not what I would call well-established or widely agreed upon, but I think there is considerable support for it.

So, if a 90 year old man needs a heart transplant, he should get it and it should not effect his financial situation?

Don't be silly. Under Obamacare no 90 year old will be allowed such a transplant, whether or not he could pay for it him/herself.

[WinePusher]

Deleted.

[dianaiad]

Obama said that the Sipreme Court upheld the fundimental principle that no one should have their health or finances put at risk based on a medical condition.

That's because Obama is a dumb,

He's smarter than you and me combined and I'm smarter than you. These are demonstrable facts.

I don't think so. In fact, since we don't have a clue WHAT Obama's IQ is--his fans put it at between 140 to 160 (which, btw, is beyond genius level, and would preclude many of the incredible gaffs the man has made over the years). Judging from what I have seen and analysis made by many different people--on both sides of the political fence--his 'real' IQ probably slips in at between 120 to 125. That's not an insult, by any means; it is, after all, considerably above average.

However, I rather doubt that it makes him smarter than ANY two people, unless one of them is in a vegetative state. It doesn't make him smarter than me, for one thing, and I don't consider myself to be genius level.

BTW...he himself admits to being a recipient of affirmative action, both in his admittance to Harvard and his place as editor of the Harvard Law Review--where he distinguished himself as being the only HLR editor to never have written anything.

...........and it turns out that the most impressive parts of 'Dreams of my Father' may well have been ghost written. Ah, well.

incompetant,

You misspelled that.
I find him to be a very competent pragmatic centrist.
His big error in his moral dream to forge a new future when the opposition is so extremist.

He may be many things, but 'centrist' he ain't.

sorry excuse for a President

How so? I think he's da man.

It will give me great pleasure to cancel out your vote come November, Slopeshoulder.

(yeah, yeah, I know that's not how it works, exactly, but....)

who knows nothing about the law or the Courts despite his Harvard Law School education.

He prevailed.

He did?

He is certainly attempting to present this as if he did, but I think the proper word for this particular victory may be "Phyrric." We'll see.

His guy argued correctly.

Yes, his guy did....

And in doing so didn't do Obama any favors at all, regarding American perception of his honesty and intelligence, IMO.
After all, it was his OPPONENTS who kept asking/charging him about the 'this is a TAX" aspect, and he was the one who, over and over and over and over again declared that it CERTAINLY WAS NOT.

...........and guess what.

Makes you wonder who's smarter?

And how could your claim be anything other than a "sorry excuse" for a serious point, and unsubstantiated and counterfactual to boot.

This is what affirmative action does, it gives dummies like Obama nice, fancy degrees not reflective of his talent or intellect.

Pure racism, as I suspected.

Perhaps that is...but even Obama admitted to being the beneficiary of affirmative action. Sorry about that. The following is from a writing sample from Pres. Obama during his student days at Harvard:

I must say, however, that as someone who has undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs during my academic career, and as someone who may have benefited from the Law Review's affirmative action policy when I was selected to join the Review last year.

If you think Obama is a dummy and lacks intellect, there is no saving you. You can disagree with him and his vision and priorities, but to call him dumb exposes you as an unserious hateful, and emotional person.

I don't think he's dumb. I don't think he walks on water or can find the Theory of Everything in his spare time, either. I do disagree with him on nearly everything.

You lost big today. Suck it up.

Actually, nobody lost yesterday. The constitution won, and the whole mess got thrown back where it belongs; in the voter's laps--and I have to hand it to SCOTUS; they did it in such a way as to sour the victory for Obama, and to REALLY sweeten the 'loss' for Romney.

I, personally, love it.

It's not the Supreme Court's job to uphold a made-up principle that has nothing to do with the Constitution. Their job is to interpret the law as it is. Their job in this case was to determine whether the individual mandate and Obamacare was consistent with the constitution. It is clearly not consistent, and the majority opinion even acknowledges this. The opinion explicitly stated that Congress did not have this power under not one, but two constitutional clauses. The Congress did not have the power to compell an individual to buy something under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. But if you change the wording and call the penalty a tax, which it is not, all of the sudden Congress is authorized to exercise this power. The inconvienet fact is that it is not a tax, even Obama said it wasn't a tax. So in order to uphold the statue, the court had to redfine the statue into something that it's not. And it's not the courts job to redefine laws in order to make them consistent with the constitution, it's their job to interpret the law as it is.

It would appear that you haven't followed the chief justice's argument. Whether this is an intelligence or talent issue I leave to readers' judgment.

Obama's statement is just an example of a sloppy and embarrasing victory dance. He's demonstrated on a second occasion that he doesn't know what the function of the Supreme Court is, the first being his complete and total ignorance of Marbury v. Madison.

Sore loser.

Oh, Slopeshoulder..he may be a 'sore loser,' but are you all THAT sure you 'won?"

[WinePusher]

Seriously, I would say it is a principle that can be justified by the "promote the general welfare" clause. As a specific principle, it is certainly not what I would call well-established or widely agreed upon, but I think there is considerable support for it.

I think I've already discussed the General Welfare clause with you before, but I guess we can go over it again. It's not a carte blanche for the Congress to do whatever it wants. The way you interpret this clause, the Congress has unlimited power and can do absolutely anything so long as they define as 'promoting the general welfare.' Remember, there are 18 enumerated powers spelled out in Article 1 Section 8, and some of them are extremely specific. If healthcare was meant to be a function of the federal government, why was it not specifically spelled out? Establishing post offices can be interpreted as promoting the general welfare, but it was also specifically spelled out as one of the 18 enumerated powers. Why wasn't the same done with healthcare? Because healthcare was never meant to be a function of the federal government.

[Slopeshoulder]

He's smarter than you and me combined and I'm smarter than you. These are demonstrable facts.

The only thing you seem to understand is your liberal, post modern theology crap that no one gives a damn about.

Calling it crap is uncivil and shows a little mind.
The rest of your sentence is counter-factual and unsubstantiated.

When it comes to actual issues, like Politics, Economics, Current Events you know absolutely nothing. An elementary school civics student probably knows more than you. How sad.

What's sad is that you would make such an unsubstantiated claim and ad hominem argument. While I may not take the time to participate much in this forum (preferring apologetics), note that my two degrees in religion concentrated in ethics, where I read a TON of political philosophy, political economy, etc. I also aced advanced courses in the yale law and business schools. Also, my undergrad minor was in applied ethics, and attended to real world issues in politics, law, journalism, medicine, and business. I have also made my living researching and strategizing in part around issues. Recent clients include the Gates Foundation, Seventh Generation, TOMRA Systems and Lucasfilm. Parallel to that, I advise CEO's on CSR and ethics and am working with a few internationally known consulting firms in the areas of development and corporate issues management. I am currently partnering with the world's leading practitioner of quantitative memetics. I am also a participant at invitation only conferences, retreats, gatherings, and online groups with people who are changing the world (I won't drop names, but think famous).
AND, genius, knowledge and intelligence are not the same thing. You either faied to grasp that purposely muddied the waters. You addressed an intelligence issue with a knowledge answer. How sad.

You misspelled that.

You mispell nearly every single word in every single sentence in every single one of your posts. Don't talk, hypocrite.

I found that funny that's all. Deliciously ironic.
Anyway, I await your detailed quantitative analysis to prove the very specific and unsubstantiated claim you just made.

He prevailed.

Only an idiot with no education on the Judiciary or the law would say this. Thanks for proving my point.

What? Obama won the case! Which part of that was unclear. What are you taking about? Who's the (tsk tsk) "idiot" now?

Pure racism, as I suspected.

Are you white?

Relevance?
I think it's cool you have to ask.

It's not the Supreme Court's job to uphold a made-up principle that has nothing to do with the Constitution. Their job is to interpret the law as it is. Their job in this case was to determine whether the individual mandate and Obamacare was consistent with the constitution. It is clearly not consistent, and the majority opinion even acknowledges this. The opinion explicitly stated that Congress did not have this power under not one, but two constitutional clauses. The Congress did not have the power to compell an individual to buy something under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. But if you change the wording and call the penalty a tax, which it is not, all of the sudden Congress is authorized to exercise this power. The inconvienet fact is that it is not a tax, even Obama said it wasn't a tax. So in order to uphold the statue, the court had to redfine the statue into something that it's not. And it's not the courts job to redefine laws in order to make them consistent with the constitution, it's their job to interpret the law as it is.

It would appear that you haven't followed the chief justice's argument. Whether this is an intelligence or talent issue I leave to readers' judgment.

I think that any reader would realize that you're not very smart when it comes to issues about Politics or Economics,

Again you are confusing information and interest with intelligence. "How sad."

which is why your comments end up being only about a few sentences long, void of any actual substance.

I get to the point. In this case that your emotional screed is counterfactual, unsubstantiated, and absurdist.

Why don't leave these debates to actual intelligent people, like nursebenjamin, micatala, or Abraxas?

Do you mean interested and informed?
Are you aware of the meaning of the word intelligent, as in cognitive capacity? Did you not take that class yet?
And don't tel me what to do. Sometimes my favorite thing to do is call you on your nonsnese. I'm only sad I can't do it full time.

Go talk about you stupid philosophical beliefs with someone who actually cares.

Like forum members and readers? Thanks, I will.

In fact, I thought I read somewhere that you were leaving the forum? What happened?

I allow myself 2 threads per week.

No life? No job? No responsibilities? Got nothing better to do then spend your days on the internet?

You're kidding right? My life and job and social circle RULE!

Obama's statement is just an example of a sloppy and embarrasing victory dance. He's demonstrated on a second occasion that he doesn't know what the function of the Supreme Court is, the first being his complete and total ignorance of Marbury v. Madison.

Sore loser.

If this is all you have to say why don't you just keep your fat, disgusting mouth shut?

my lips are thin. I am thin.
Disgust is a subjective reaction. if you are disgusted my work is not in vain.

You remind me of this social outcast in my high school class.

As do you. Tell me, did your social outcast play on school sports teams, play in the best band, ace classes, and date the hottest girl in the school? I did.

He had no friends and did poorly when it came to academics. He would always try so hard to fit in, and would talk about stuff he knew nothing about, whether it be movies or books or social trends, just to gain some acceptance. It's cute how you try so hard to participate in threads in the Politics subforum, but each and every time you make a complete embarrasment of yourself, just like that kid. If you would only find the motivation to get off your fat, lazy ass and pick up a dumbed down civics book you wouldn't look like such a fool.

LOL. Calling Otseng...

[WinePusher]

Deleted

[WinePusher]

And don't tel me what to do. Sometimes my favorite thing to do is call you on your nonsnese. I'm only sad I can't do it full time.

Well, there you have it. You're not interested in debating issues, you're only interested in starting hate wars. Please, call the moderators. It was your initial post that derailed this thread with inflammatory statements and ad hominems directed towards another member. You're a troll, plain and simple. You have no interest in debating issues, your only interest is to derail debates.

[Slopeshoulder]

"coward, fool, retarded, idiot," referring to rules...

OMG.

OMG.

OMG.

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And you either can't follow a simple argument or are willfully distorting what I said.

I'm out of this thread, except to report whatever you follow up with. I've already had messages of support.

I submit whatever happens will reveal the true character of this forum.

WOW.

You've crossed a line of honor, revealing much. As Cnorman once said to someone, and apparently within the rules, do not ever find yourself in physical proximity to me, unless you are also built like a football player. Even then.
l

[WinePusher]

"coward, fool, retarded, idiot," referring to rules...

Retarded? I would never call you retarded, I personally know people with handicaps and have sympathy for them. You have to resort to lying? Wow.

I'm out of this thread, except to report whatever you follow up with. I've already had messages of support.

Now that you're done derailing it.

You've crossed a line of honor, revealing much.

You entered this thread intending to start a hate war, using inflammatory language and calling others 'losers.' And now you're crying about name calling? You never had any honor to being with. Your intentions are clear as can be.

As Cnorman once said to someone, and apparently within the rules, do not ever find yourself in physical proximity to me, unless you are also built like a football player. Even then.

Only you would get so worked up about a random person over the internet to the point where you have to issue threats. How sad.

[otseng]

That's because Obama is a dumb, incompetant, sorry excuse for a President

Moderator Comment

The rules prevents attacks on people outside of this forum, as well as people on this forum.

1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed. Comments about any person that is negative, condescending, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.