• MSNBC: Florida judge rules health care law unconstitutional
    106 replies, posted
[QUOTE=thisispain;27808140]goddamnit the founding father's vision of america was one with expensive health care that makes people lose their lives and coverage based on legal loop holes and i'll be damned if a liberal tells me otherwise i don't even have to read any of their works because i know it's in my gut[/QUOTE] Gut literally being the stomach in this case, as there is no brain matter there.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;27810157]Gut literally being the stomach in this case, as there is no brain matter there.[/QUOTE] I learned on the Colbert Report tonight that your gut has as many nerve endings as a cat brain does, which makes sense because I think my old cat was republican
I was a cat, once.
in other news, Florida judge rules Glaber unconstitutional
[QUOTE=Penis Colada;27810844]in other news, Florida judge rules Glaber unconstitutional[/QUOTE] Just fucking dissolve the country if the fucking country hates its own.
[QUOTE=ThatHippyMan;27782059]Last I checked, Denmark wasn't a dictatorship.[/QUOTE]Hah, Novistador things Denmark is a dictatorship. [QUOTE=Zeke129;27785484]Scandinavian countries aren't dictatorships[/QUOTE] And a dumb. Seriously now, how stupid is this guy? [QUOTE=thisispain;27801191][b]it was essentially part of sweden till 1917[/b] and not all scandinavians are the same race either[/QUOTE]Uh no. We were a part of the Russian Empire (as an autonomous grand duchy) from 1809 until 1917. We were a part of Sweden for a much longer time, however; from the 12th century up until the Russians took over in 1809 when Sweden's empire was in decline. Russia had less of a cultural influence on us than Sweden (although during the last 2 decades of their control, they attempted Russification with little result) Indeed, Swedish remained an official language used in almost all government work, with Russian added to that during their control. It runs along the same line of thought as how countries would manipulate already existing power structures in colonial times for e.g. the old British tactic of playing off princes, warlords and such against each other; but not nearly as extreme. [QUOTE=Broseph_;27794341]But Finnish is a Ural language and the Finns aren't even the same race as the rest of the Scandinavians[/QUOTE]Russian isn't a Finno-Ugric language, if that's what you're implying. Russia has many many different ethnic groups with different languages, some similar to Finnish (e.g. Karelian). The race thing is quite irrelevant, nor indeed accurate. Again, we aren't Slavic. I also needn't remind you that the record for the most wars ever fought between the same 2 countries is held by Sweden and Demark. Brotherly love, right there. [QUOTE=yawmwen;27787212]Actually at least Finland was affected a great deal.[/QUOTE]Probably not in the way you're thinking. Essentially, we had to put on a friendly face towards the Soviet Union. Militarily, that involved buying their stuff and the West's equally, not entering into any sort of military union e.g. NATO (that would have really pissed them off), not giving them a hard time for their human rights abuses (a distasteful compromise, but one that had to be made), and so on. We were, after all, the only Western democracy directly bordering Russia at the time, and one that had fought against them in the Second World War, no less. There was really not much we could do, it was hard enough preserving our sovereignty. I'll grant you that self-censorship was excessive, as was Kekkonen's tendency to play the Moscow card, but we were certainly not becoming more Soviet.
the fu**
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;27810897]Just fucking dissolve the country if the fucking country hates its own.[/QUOTE] What?
Hopefully with this, the Obama Administration stops with the implementation.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;27811010] Probably not in the way you're thinking. Essentially, we had to put on a friendly face towards the Soviet Union. Militarily, that involved buying their stuff and the West's equally, not entering into any sort of military union e.g. NATO (that would have really pissed them off), not giving them a hard time for their human rights abuses (a distasteful compromise, but one that had to be made), and so on. We were, after all, the only Western democracy directly bordering Russia at the time, and one that had fought against them in the Second World War, no less. There was really not much we could do, it was hard enough preserving our sovereignty. I'll grant you that self-censorship was excessive, as was Kekkonen's tendency to play the Moscow card, but we were certainly not becoming more Soviet.[/QUOTE] I never said that you guys became puppets, or allies, or anything to the Soviets. However, when looking at history you can't downplay the influence other countries had. Some people were talking like Finland was in no way affected by the Soviet Union being on their border, that is inaccurate, and me being a stickler for small little details, had to say something about it. By the way, Finland is a kickass country, was able to fight against the Soviets twice around WWII without getting absorbed, and stayed pretty neutral pretty successfully during the cold war. Go Finland.
[QUOTE=Glaber;27815263]Hopefully with this, the Obama Administration stops with the implementation.[/QUOTE] nice job ignoring every post made in this thread bro
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;27815849]nice job ignoring every post made in this thread bro[/QUOTE] I thought it was humorous how he was commenting on his own thread as if he just walked in. Short term memory loss maybe?
[QUOTE=Glaber;27815263]Hopefully with this, the Obama Administration stops with the implementation.[/QUOTE] Now that's what I call delusional.
[QUOTE=Glaber;27815263]Hopefully with this, the Obama Administration stops with the implementation.[/QUOTE] you can't stop the love train of socialism
[QUOTE=Lambeth;27817275]you can't stop the love train of socialism[/QUOTE] Trains in America are slow and they smell of urine
You must be thinking of our subways. No. You see a FEDERAL JUDGE just ruled the whole law, unconstitutional. Right from CNBC itself: [quote]It’s well known that Judge Roger Vinson ruled yesterday that the individual mandate exceeded the powers of the federal government under the Commerce Clause. But he also ruled that because the law lacked a severability clause and the law’s proponents had argued that the individual mandate was a necessary part of the scheme, the entire law was invalid. Wesley J. Smith explains the implications: That means that under the ruling, the law is void and cannot be implemented from this point forward. The Administration’s legal remedy is to seek a stay of the ruling pending appeal. It cannot just defy a federal court ruling. If it tries, the plaintiffs should go to court for the injunction and/or seek an order of contempt against the administration. Pretending that the ruling doesn’t change anything when it unequivocally does, would be both a petulant and extra-legal approach to governance. [/quote] [url]http://www.cnbc.com/id/41375835[/url] What this tells me is that not even law makers are suppose to be above the law. More relevant quote: [quote]Vinson’s decision did not include an injunction to stop the implementation of health care reform on the grounds that an injunction would be superfluous. He argued that the government would stop implementing the law automatically once it was announced as unconstitutional. [/quote] Same source [url]http://www.cnbc.com/id/41375835[/url]
[QUOTE=Glaber;27821235]You must be thinking of our subways.[/QUOTE] Same thing [editline]2nd February 2011[/editline] and we heard you the first time glaber, no need to repeat yourself.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.