Jump to content

Bye bye zerOCare


Guest Patriot
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Patriot

A federal judge in Florida declared zerOCare as illegal and unconstitutional. Now it will go to the Supreme Court where it will be defeated 5-4.

Poor zerO, now he'll go back to Chicago in 2 years having accomplished nothing except putting us on the brink of bankruptcy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A federal judge in Florida declared zerOCare as illegal and unconstitutional. Now it will go to the Supreme Court where it will be defeated 5-4.

Poor zerO, now he'll go back to Chicago in 2 years having accomplished nothing except putting us on the brink of bankruptcy.

I thought you guys were against legislating from the bench?

Why am I asking a question? This troll is too cowardly to actually come back and answer questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Legal Fact Checker

A federal judge in Florida declared zerOCare as illegal and unconstitutional. Now it will go to the Supreme Court where it will be defeated 5-4.

Poor zerO, now he'll go back to Chicago in 2 years having accomplished nothing except putting us on the brink of bankruptcy.

You're presuming Justice Kennedy's vote to get to 5. If you follow the court, you know that's a very big presumption. You're also presuming that the makeup of the current Supreme Court will be the same when a decision is rendered by it. The case you mentioned is a district court decision. It was stayed by the judge who issued it and will now be appealed to the circuit's court of appeals. There are also district court decisions upholding the health care law. The Supreme Court at some point in autumn 2011 or spring 2012 will take cert on one or more circuit courts of appeal decisions. They rarely exercise jurisdiction directly from a district court case. That means a decision won't be rendered by the Supreme Court until June 2012 at the earliest and probably June 2013.

Legal scholars expect Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kennedy to be the next justices to retire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot

You're presuming Justice Kennedy's vote to get to 5. If you follow the court, you know that's a very big presumption. You're also presuming that the makeup of the current Supreme Court will be the same when a decision is rendered by it. The case you mentioned is a district court decision. It was stayed by the judge who issued it and will now be appealed to the circuit's court of appeals. There are also district court decisions upholding the health care law. The Supreme Court at some point in autumn 2011 or spring 2012 will take cert on one or more circuit courts of appeal decisions. They rarely exercise jurisdiction directly from a district court case. That means a decision won't be rendered by the Supreme Court until June 2012 at the earliest and probably June 2013.

Legal scholars expect Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kennedy to be the next justices to retire.

That's correct. Kennedy's vote is not a lock but his previous votes have leaned right in most cases. My bet would be he'll be the 5th vote to repeal.

This might be all moot anyway. It the case isn't heard until 2013, then zerO's gone, we have a republican president and the senate and house will be controlled by the GOP. Either way, zerO's legacy will be the president who spent the most money and almost bankrupted the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought you guys were against legislating from the bench?

Why am I asking a question? This troll is too cowardly to actually come back and answer questions.

Dude-he's a Repub troll. Even money says that if he does come back he'll tell us all how he's a Marine/Army combat vet and how you're either really brave sitting in your momma's basement or how he'd slap you in the face if you said that to his face.

He probably won't be back though. Trolls are the same all over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Legal Fact Checker

That's correct. Kennedy's vote is not a lock but his previous votes have leaned right in most cases. My bet would be he'll be the 5th vote to repeal.

This might be all moot anyway. It the case isn't heard until 2013, then zerO's gone, we have a republican president and the senate and house will be controlled by the GOP. Either way, zerO's legacy will be the president who spent the most money and almost bankrupted the country.

Saying Kennedy leans right in most cases mischaracterizes him. He's not a predicatable conservative. He wrote the Court's decision in Roemer establishing gay rights under the due process clause and the opinion overturing Bowers. He voted to uphold Roe v. Wade. As to healthcare legislation, the the current challenges turn on whether the healthcare legislation is a valid exercise of Congress's power to legislate under the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

In his 24 years on the Court, Kennedy has sided with both expansive and narrow opinions on the Commerce Clause. His most recent opinion, 2005, would indicate he'd uphold the healthcare legislation. Justice Kennedy joined the 'liberal’ justices in Gonzalez v. Raich to decline overturning the Controlled Substances Act. The majority, including Kennedy, found that unless the federal government were able to control the interstate activity under the Commerce Clause, the federal regulation of marijuana was unsustainable. Kennedy joined Stevens’ opinion, which went all the way back to the New Deal case of Wickard v. Filburn, where the Court affirmed a prosecution of a wheat farmer for violating a federal law restricting wheat production. The farmer asserted that he was growing the wheat for his personal consumption and that, therefore, the law was an unconstitutional extension of the Commerce Clause. The Court held that the farmer’s consumption of his own wheat would affect larger markets because he would not be purchasing wheat for his consumption and that Congress may constitutionally regulate intrastate activity under its Commerce Clause powers so long as the activity, in the aggregate, exerted a measurable effect on interstate commerce.

That is exactly the same argument that the Obama Justice Department is making regarding Congress's power under the Commerce Clause to enact healthcare reform. They are deliberately tailoring the argument based on Justice Kennedy's jurisprudence.

Let's hope he's still on the Court when the case is ultimately heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot

I thought you guys were against legislating from the bench?

Why am I asking a question? This troll is too cowardly to actually come back and answer questions.

Try to keep up dummy. Declaring the zerO healthcare bill illegal is not "legislating", it's ruling on the validity of a law that has come before them.

"Legislating" means creating a law (legislation), not ruling on an existing law. (If you have trouble understanding this, ask a Patriot to explain it to you.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try to keep up dummy. Declaring the zerO healthcare bill illegal is not "legislating", it's ruling on the validity of a law that has come before them.

"Legislating" means creating a law (legislation), not ruling on an existing law. (If you have trouble understanding this, ask a Patriot to explain it to you.)

EXACTLY!

That is precisely what I wanted you to say-I'm keeping up just fine. Legislating from the bench almost never happens.

Roe v. Wade didn't create a new law-it declared state laws prohibiting abortion illegal. Yet Republicans call it legislating from the bench. The various court cases declaring same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional were rulings on individual laws-once again Republicans declared them to be legislating from the bench. When various school boards get taken over by religious extremists who make creationist policies that get struck down as violating the Constitution, Republicans again call it legislating from the bench.

I'm glad that you agree that none of those situations qualifies as legislating from the bench.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying Kennedy leans right in most cases mischaracterizes him. He's not a predicatable conservative. He wrote the Court's decision in Roemer establishing gay rights under the due process clause and the opinion overturing Bowers. He voted to uphold Roe v. Wade. As to healthcare legislation, the the current challenges turn on whether the healthcare legislation is a valid exercise of Congress's power to legislate under the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

In his 24 years on the Court, Kennedy has sided with both expansive and narrow opinions on the Commerce Clause. His most recent opinion, 2005, would indicate he'd uphold the healthcare legislation. Justice Kennedy joined the 'liberal’ justices in Gonzalez v. Raich to decline overturning the Controlled Substances Act. The majority, including Kennedy, found that unless the federal government were able to control the interstate activity under the Commerce Clause, the federal regulation of marijuana was unsustainable. Kennedy joined Stevens’ opinion, which went all the way back to the New Deal case of Wickard v. Filburn, where the Court affirmed a prosecution of a wheat farmer for violating a federal law restricting wheat production. The farmer asserted that he was growing the wheat for his personal consumption and that, therefore, the law was an unconstitutional extension of the Commerce Clause. The Court held that the farmer’s consumption of his own wheat would affect larger markets because he would not be purchasing wheat for his consumption and that Congress may constitutionally regulate intrastate activity under its Commerce Clause powers so long as the activity, in the aggregate, exerted a measurable effect on interstate commerce.

You must have a lot of free time on your hands.

That is exactly the same argument that the Obama Justice Department is making regarding Congress's power under the Commerce Clause to enact healthcare reform. They are deliberately tailoring the argument based on Justice Kennedy's jurisprudence.

Let's hope he's still on the Court when the case is ultimately heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Legal Fact Checker

Try to keep up dummy. Declaring the zerO healthcare bill illegal is not "legislating", it's ruling on the validity of a law that has come before them.

"Legislating" means creating a law (legislation), not ruling on an existing law. (If you have trouble understanding this, ask a Patriot to explain it to you.)

Patriot, you're being disingenous. Conservatives often complain of "activist" judges who who invalidate laws and state actions because of Constitutional rights. The argument is let the people and the States decide through their democratically elected legislatures what the law should be. This comes up most often in the debate regarding abortion right protections under the due process clause.

Of course, we know that in Bush v. Gore, 5 justices found a new constitutional right under the equal protection clause to invalidate State action (the Florida recount was stopped). That's activist jurisprudence. Now, conservatives want to use the Constitution and have unelected judges invalidate legislation enacted by an elected legislature.

Switching judicial philosophies based on preferred outcomes is hypocritical. Let me put it another way, Patriot. The Supreme Court ruled (using your language) on the "validity of a law that came before them" by invalidating a State law that restricted abortion in Roe v. Wade. Your answer means you support that decision. Is that your position?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest downwithfedres

A federal judge in Florida declared zerOCare as illegal and unconstitutional. Now it will go to the Supreme Court where it will be defeated 5-4.

Poor zerO, now he'll go back to Chicago in 2 years having accomplished nothing except putting us on the brink of bankruptcy.

Unfortunately,Obama will leave a legacy of Sotomayor and Kagan unless he becomes the Reggie Bush of 2013.Even were he to be impeached over the giving away of Britain's nuclear secrets,the Twin Terrors would remain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try to keep up dummy. Declaring the zerO healthcare bill illegal is not "legislating", it's ruling on the validity of a law that has come before them.

"Legislating" means creating a law (legislation), not ruling on an existing law. (If you have trouble understanding this, ask a Patriot to explain it to you.)

So Stupid,

When the US Supreme Court handed down Roe v. Wade, declaring some laws against abortion unconstitutional, by your "reasoning" that wasn't legislating from the bench. The Court didn't pass any law.

And when the US Supreme Court handed down Griswold v. Connecticut, declaring a law against the use of condoms by married couples unconstitutional that wasn't legislating from the bench. The Court didn't pass any law by doing that either.

But when the Court hands down a decision saying that the right to bear arms is a private right, even though the Second Amendment clearly says that its purpose is to protect "a well-regulated militia," according to you that's not legislating from the bench.

And when the same hand-selected right-wingers hand down a deicision saying that corporations have the same political rights as people, despite more than 200 years of precedent and the clear intent of the Framers to the contrary - not to mention common sense - that's not legislating from the bench either, according to you.

And if the same group of right wingers now decides that Congress and the President, duly elected by the people, didn't have the power to pass the new health care law - even though we all have to pay for medical care of people who don't have insurance - according to you that's not legislating from the bench either.

"Legislating from the bench" is not a legal concept. It's a slogan. The legal concept is that courts have certain powers. They can overstep those powers by creating new laws or by declaring valid laws invalid. Either way, when the courts take on functions that are supposed to reside with other branches of government, they overreach their authority. But as usual, you can't think past your little right-wing slogan, in this case "legislating from the bench," and you didn't even notice that you contradicted a position you've taken when the shoe was on the other foot, as in the case of Roe v. Wade. You can't analyze the issue because you don't understand it.

The only thing you seem to understand is your narrow view of everything. According to you, legislating from the bench is when the Court hands down a decision that you don't like.

And of course you admit that it's all politics: you assume that the 4 ultra-right-wingers on the Court will vote to strike down the law, the 4 moderates will vote to uphold it, and you're counting on Kennedy siding with the radical right. To you, it's all entirely predictable based on the politics of the Justices. And the reason for that is that the right wing has been stacking the federal bench since Reagan took office, which is exactly the opposite of what the Framers intended, if you want to talk about original intent. You right wingers don't care about the rule of law or the Constitution. All you care about is remolding the world to fit your fantasies.

With a little luck, Scalia and Thomas will retire in the next year or so, and if not then, the American people have enough sense to re-elect President Obama, who is one of the few people in politics talking and acting like an adult. I notice you haven't mentioned his approval ratings lately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try to keep up dummy. Declaring the zerO healthcare bill illegal is not "legislating", it's ruling on the validity of a law that has come before them.

"Legislating" means creating a law (legislation), not ruling on an existing law. (If you have trouble understanding this, ask a Patriot to explain it to you.)

Is it going to be replaced by Boner care? That's enough to make a speaker of the house weep...again.

PS: There's a difference between a patriot like Paul Revere, and the horse's ass he rode on(that would be you)

PPS: I'm not a witch (oops, I mean dummy) I'm you :P if you have trouble understanding this..ask Christine O'Donnell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welfare, free food, section 8, charity medical care, a check every month for each kid, wick (more food for free) and worst of all, mothers having babies from 5 different guys and never applying for child support. People living together as families purposely not getting married so the guy can have a job and the mother can collect all of he above and still live together. They work the system so well they must take classes in it. Disability is a joke too. I know a guy who makes $80,000.00 a year and his wife gets $1000.00 a month in disabilty plus a $300 check for each kid. He says disabilty has been paying his mortgage for the last 10 years. Damn right I turned them in. This is just one example among hundreds of thousands of alledged disabled people from their 20's and up. Nowhere near ths Social Security age. Why isn't their anyone checking on these people. Christ, the guy who was making the $80,000.00/year worked for the city. Another form of patronage and nepotism again. I applied for disability because I have a terminal disease and no way can I work. They turned me down saying I wasn't sick enough. A terminal disease doesn't get disability when a slipped disk gets $1000.00 a month. Its every race of people also. I had to get a lawyer to get my disability. By the time I get my first check I might be dead. Real efficient. Thats NJ for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot

Patriot, you're being disingenous. Conservatives often complain of "activist" judges who who invalidate laws and state actions because of Constitutional rights. The argument is let the people and the States decide through their democratically elected legislatures what the law should be. This comes up most often in the debate regarding abortion right protections under the due process clause.

Of course, we know that in Bush v. Gore, 5 justices found a new constitutional right under the equal protection clause to invalidate State action (the Florida recount was stopped). That's activist jurisprudence. Now, conservatives want to use the Constitution and have unelected judges invalidate legislation enacted by an elected legislature.

Switching judicial philosophies based on preferred outcomes is hypocritical. Let me put it another way, Patriot. The Supreme Court ruled (using your language) on the "validity of a law that came before them" by invalidating a State law that restricted abortion in Roe v. Wade. Your answer means you support that decision. Is that your position?

Absolutely. I'm a right to life supporter. If you've ever listened to a fetal heartbeat (beyond the first tri-mester) you'd know that a fetus is aware of sounds and feels pain. Abortion is nothing more than baby killing.

Getting back on point, zerOcare violates the constitution and Kennedy will recognize that and vote with the Patriots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot

So Stupid,

When the US Supreme Court handed down Roe v. Wade, declaring some laws against abortion unconstitutional, by your "reasoning" that wasn't legislating from the bench. The Court didn't pass any law.

And when the US Supreme Court handed down Griswold v. Connecticut, declaring a law against the use of condoms by married couples unconstitutional that wasn't legislating from the bench. The Court didn't pass any law by doing that either.

But when the Court hands down a decision saying that the right to bear arms is a private right, even though the Second Amendment clearly says that its purpose is to protect "a well-regulated militia," according to you that's not legislating from the bench.

And when the same hand-selected right-wingers hand down a deicision saying that corporations have the same political rights as people, despite more than 200 years of precedent and the clear intent of the Framers to the contrary - not to mention common sense - that's not legislating from the bench either, according to you.

And if the same group of right wingers now decides that Congress and the President, duly elected by the people, didn't have the power to pass the new health care law - even though we all have to pay for medical care of people who don't have insurance - according to you that's not legislating from the bench either.

"Legislating from the bench" is not a legal concept. It's a slogan. The legal concept is that courts have certain powers. They can overstep those powers by creating new laws or by declaring valid laws invalid. Either way, when the courts take on functions that are supposed to reside with other branches of government, they overreach their authority. But as usual, you can't think past your little right-wing slogan, in this case "legislating from the bench," and you didn't even notice that you contradicted a position you've taken when the shoe was on the other foot, as in the case of Roe v. Wade. You can't analyze the issue because you don't understand it.

The only thing you seem to understand is your narrow view of everything. According to you, legislating from the bench is when the Court hands down a decision that you don't like.

And of course you admit that it's all politics: you assume that the 4 ultra-right-wingers on the Court will vote to strike down the law, the 4 moderates will vote to uphold it, and you're counting on Kennedy siding with the radical right. To you, it's all entirely predictable based on the politics of the Justices. And the reason for that is that the right wing has been stacking the federal bench since Reagan took office, which is exactly the opposite of what the Framers intended, if you want to talk about original intent. You right wingers don't care about the rule of law or the Constitution. All you care about is remolding the world to fit your fantasies.

With a little luck, Scalia and Thomas will retire in the next year or so, and if not then, the American people have enough sense to re-elect President Obama, who is one of the few people in politics talking and acting like an adult. I notice you haven't mentioned his approval ratings lately.

Speaking of zerO, did you read where he just gave away British nuclear secrets to the Russians? I think we all know he's a one-hit wonder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Legal Fact Checker

So Stupid,

When the US Supreme Court handed down Roe v. Wade, declaring some laws against abortion unconstitutional, by your "reasoning" that wasn't legislating from the bench. The Court didn't pass any law.

And when the US Supreme Court handed down Griswold v. Connecticut, declaring a law against the use of condoms by married couples unconstitutional that wasn't legislating from the bench. The Court didn't pass any law by doing that either.

But when the Court hands down a decision saying that the right to bear arms is a private right, even though the Second Amendment clearly says that its purpose is to protect "a well-regulated militia," according to you that's not legislating from the bench.

And when the same hand-selected right-wingers hand down a deicision saying that corporations have the same political rights as people, despite more than 200 years of precedent and the clear intent of the Framers to the contrary - not to mention common sense - that's not legislating from the bench either, according to you.

And if the same group of right wingers now decides that Congress and the President, duly elected by the people, didn't have the power to pass the new health care law - even though we all have to pay for medical care of people who don't have insurance - according to you that's not legislating from the bench either.

"Legislating from the bench" is not a legal concept. It's a slogan. The legal concept is that courts have certain powers. They can overstep those powers by creating new laws or by declaring valid laws invalid. Either way, when the courts take on functions that are supposed to reside with other branches of government, they overreach their authority. But as usual, you can't think past your little right-wing slogan, in this case "legislating from the bench," and you didn't even notice that you contradicted a position you've taken when the shoe was on the other foot, as in the case of Roe v. Wade. You can't analyze the issue because you don't understand it.

The only thing you seem to understand is your narrow view of everything. According to you, legislating from the bench is when the Court hands down a decision that you don't like.

And of course you admit that it's all politics: you assume that the 4 ultra-right-wingers on the Court will vote to strike down the law, the 4 moderates will vote to uphold it, and you're counting on Kennedy siding with the radical right. To you, it's all entirely predictable based on the politics of the Justices. And the reason for that is that the right wing has been stacking the federal bench since Reagan took office, which is exactly the opposite of what the Framers intended, if you want to talk about original intent. You right wingers don't care about the rule of law or the Constitution. All you care about is remolding the world to fit your fantasies.

With a little luck, Scalia and Thomas will retire in the next year or so, and if not then, the American people have enough sense to re-elect President Obama, who is one of the few people in politics talking and acting like an adult. I notice you haven't mentioned his approval ratings lately.

Exactly on point. Although my language was more judicious.

Don't forget that Patriot = 2Smart = Kearny fireman. Adds a whole other layer to this, doesn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot

So Stupid,

When the US Supreme Court handed down Roe v. Wade, declaring some laws against abortion unconstitutional, by your "reasoning" that wasn't legislating from the bench. The Court didn't pass any law.

And when the US Supreme Court handed down Griswold v. Connecticut, declaring a law against the use of condoms by married couples unconstitutional that wasn't legislating from the bench. The Court didn't pass any law by doing that either.

But when the Court hands down a decision saying that the right to bear arms is a private right, even though the Second Amendment clearly says that its purpose is to protect "a well-regulated militia," according to you that's not legislating from the bench.

And when the same hand-selected right-wingers hand down a deicision saying that corporations have the same political rights as people, despite more than 200 years of precedent and the clear intent of the Framers to the contrary - not to mention common sense - that's not legislating from the bench either, according to you.

And if the same group of right wingers now decides that Congress and the President, duly elected by the people, didn't have the power to pass the new health care law - even though we all have to pay for medical care of people who don't have insurance - according to you that's not legislating from the bench either.

"Legislating from the bench" is not a legal concept. It's a slogan. The legal concept is that courts have certain powers. They can overstep those powers by creating new laws or by declaring valid laws invalid. Either way, when the courts take on functions that are supposed to reside with other branches of government, they overreach their authority. But as usual, you can't think past your little right-wing slogan, in this case "legislating from the bench," and you didn't even notice that you contradicted a position you've taken when the shoe was on the other foot, as in the case of Roe v. Wade. You can't analyze the issue because you don't understand it.

The only thing you seem to understand is your narrow view of everything. According to you, legislating from the bench is when the Court hands down a decision that you don't like.

And of course you admit that it's all politics: you assume that the 4 ultra-right-wingers on the Court will vote to strike down the law, the 4 moderates will vote to uphold it, and you're counting on Kennedy siding with the radical right. To you, it's all entirely predictable based on the politics of the Justices. And the reason for that is that the right wing has been stacking the federal bench since Reagan took office, which is exactly the opposite of what the Framers intended, if you want to talk about original intent. You right wingers don't care about the rule of law or the Constitution. All you care about is remolding the world to fit your fantasies.

With a little luck, Scalia and Thomas will retire in the next year or so, and if not then, the American people have enough sense to re-elect President Obama, who is one of the few people in politics talking and acting like an adult. I notice you haven't mentioned his approval ratings lately.

Are you realy so naive as to think Scalia or Thomas would retire when zerO is in office? They'd rather die than turn their seats over to a liberal puke. You really need to expand your news base beyond loony left bloggers if you want to talk with me. I feel like I'm teaching 5th grade here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welfare, free food, section 8, charity medical care, a check every month for each kid, wick (more food for free) and worst of all, mothers having babies from 5 different guys and never applying for child support. People living together as families purposely not getting married so the guy can have a job and the mother can collect all of he above and still live together. They work the system so well they must take classes in it. Disability is a joke too. I know a guy who makes $80,000.00 a year and his wife gets $1000.00 a month in disabilty plus a $300 check for each kid. He says disabilty has been paying his mortgage for the last 10 years. Damn right I turned them in. This is just one example among hundreds of thousands of alledged disabled people from their 20's and up. Nowhere near ths Social Security age. Why isn't their anyone checking on these people. Christ, the guy who was making the $80,000.00/year worked for the city. Another form of patronage and nepotism again. I applied for disability because I have a terminal disease and no way can I work. They turned me down saying I wasn't sick enough. A terminal disease doesn't get disability when a slipped disk gets $1000.00 a month. Its every race of people also. I had to get a lawyer to get my disability. By the time I get my first check I might be dead. Real efficient. Thats NJ for you.

What about the real problem? The richest people have it good so they're blocking a national effort to convert to renewable energy. They're preventing all meaningful reform in the financial sectors. They got a health care bill that mainly rewards the insurance companies. They're the ones who are stealing you blind, not some poor schlump picking up a $300 welfare check.

But they've got you snowed. You sit there listening to some of the richest people in the country telling you that your enemies are other poor schlumps like you. Sooner or later you'll figure it out but meanwhile, you're going to keep voting for people who help these guys keep stealing everything from the rest of us. You're dumb as sheep and twice as gullible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you realy so naive as to think Scalia or Thomas would retire when zerO is in office? They'd rather die than turn their seats over to a liberal puke. You really need to expand your news base beyond loony left bloggers if you want to talk with me. I feel like I'm teaching 5th grade here.

You just admitted that Scalia and Thomas are political hacks. You should be in 5th grade, alright, but not up front. If you went back to school, maybe you could learn to hold an intelligent discussion that responds to arguments on their merits.

But then again, no, you probably couldn't. You'd have to get a dump truck to unload all the fetid garbage filling your cranium. If you did that, maybe you could start to think with a little intelligence and reason. But there's no evidence that you're going to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the real problem? The richest people have it good so they're blocking a national effort to convert to renewable energy. They're preventing all meaningful reform in the financial sectors. They got a health care bill that mainly rewards the insurance companies. They're the ones who are stealing you blind, not some poor schlump picking up a $300 welfare check.

But they've got you snowed. You sit there listening to some of the richest people in the country telling you that your enemies are other poor schlumps like you. Sooner or later you'll figure it out but meanwhile, you're going to keep voting for people who help these guys keep stealing everything from the rest of us. You're dumb as sheep and twice as gullible.

Like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Legal Fact Checker

Are you realy so naive as to think Scalia or Thomas would retire when zerO is in office? They'd rather die than turn their seats over to a liberal puke. You really need to expand your news base beyond loony left bloggers if you want to talk with me. I feel like I'm teaching 5th grade here.

But Justice Kennedy will retire under President Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Kearny Guy

Exactly on point. Although my language was more judicious.

Don't forget that Patriot = 2Smart = Kearny fireman. Adds a whole other layer to this, doesn't it?

The hypcorisy is astounding. So Patriot has 98% of his health insurance costs paid by the Kearny taxpayer but he doesn't want the working poor to have access to affordable health insurance? So Patriot keeps the tax-funded Cadillac Plan and the working stiff under the health care reforms gets basic coverage that wouldn't cover prescriptions and has much higher out of pockets than Patriot's health plan. Stunning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot

The hypcorisy is astounding. So Patriot has 98% of his health insurance costs paid by the Kearny taxpayer but he doesn't want the working poor to have access to affordable health insurance? So Patriot keeps the tax-funded Cadillac Plan and the working stiff under the health care reforms gets basic coverage that wouldn't cover prescriptions and has much higher out of pockets than Patriot's health plan. Stunning.

Since America is a democracy and not a socialist nanny state which zerO envisions, there will be those who succeed and those who do not succeed. The reason the U.S. is almost bankrupt is because the working poor with their 7 kids can't afford healthcare and want the government to take care of them for life. Don't have kids if you can't afford them and don't expect me to pay for them. BTW, I'm not a Kearny or Harrison FF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...