Compared to Biden, we’re all “leading scholars”
I love Bite Me Biden, I’m going to miss him after January. Apparently, according to the Washington Examiner, yesterday Bite Me told an eager crowd of reporters that Al Franken is a “leading legal scholar”;
“He has been one of the leading legal scholars,” Biden said of Franken today, according to the pool report. He also said that Franken “is deadly serious” as a senator. He made the comments while recalling concerns that then-candidate Franken could not be taken seriously as a Senate candidate given his SNL work.
Of course, compared to Joe Bite Me, Coco the Chimp is a leading legal scholar.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Dumbass Bullshit
Not necessary, Nobunny – but thanks. I absolutely hate seeing people make asinine and ignorant arguments without doing their homework; insipid’s doing exactly that here. And I have to admit I rather enjoy exposing them as lazy, ignorant fools when I can.
I can’t believe that this whole conversation is based on the fact that Insipid is bound and determined that he/she can convince us that neither Joe Bite Me nor Al Franken are retarded idiots. They’re both imbeciles and no amount of distraction can change that.
Franken wasn’t even good when he made a feeble attempt at comedy. Not funny at all.
Regardless of who can call forth militia, my point was that it CAN be called forth and that by your bizarre interpretation that would mean that anyone can be called forth at any time should Congress- by Constitutional authority- or the President- by authority given to him by Congress- desire it. The Constitution even goes further dictating that Congress “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.” Again either this is a military body, which makes sense, or Congress has the power to organize and arm and discipline any Joe Schmoo off the street. While there are two definitions of militia, Congress made it perfectly clear that they were talking about the military definition when they used the term “Well Regulated” as Jacobite’s source Rawle’s stated: **“That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.”** I never stated that Congress can’t insist that we possess firearms, they clearly can (they can also insist that we have health insurance). But they can also insist that we don’t The source that you gave, the Militia act of 1792 bolsters MY claim that they were talking about a MILITARY body, not 5 guys with a pick up truck and gun racks. Some passages of the militia act that you “conveniently” left out that clearly shows they are talking about a military body organized and disciplined the way Congress dictates. **Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the militia employed in the service of the United States, shall receive the same… Read more »
Did not mean that last post to be anonymous. Computer issues.
John Lilya: I can’t believe that this whole conversation is based on the fact that Insipid is bound and determined that he/she can convince us that neither Joe Bite Me nor Al Franken are retarded idiots. They’re both imbeciles and no amount of distraction can change that.
Actually, it’s based on the fact that Hondo is likes this kind of debate and i’m obliging him as i stated earlier that i would.
When you write your best-selling novel or win any Emmy award or any Oscar nominations THEN you can call Franken a “retard”.
It’s funny how you right wingers CLAIM to love rugged individualists but always tend to be lap dogs to economic royalists. The last Presidential candidate you had that DIDN’T come from a multi-millionaire-legacy-never-needed-to-work-a-day-in-his-life-spoiled-rich-brat-background was Ronald Reagan. The last President you supported that came from a poor background was Richard Nixon.
Whereas Democrats actually embody the spirit of American excellence you CLAIM to admire but actually hold in contempt: Obama came from a poor background but lifted himself by his own boot straps to become a success. Franken made it into Harvard through academic excellence, George W. Bush made it by being his daddy’s son. Bill Clinton came from a poor background and made himself a success. Joe Biden also came from the middle class and is now vice president.
You guys talk a good game about liking the middle class and American egalitarianism. But really you’re just sycophants to the rich folks and regard anyone who made it on his own as interlopers.
Actually, Insipid, I can call Franken a retard anytime I want. And there’s enough evidence to support my contention. I noticed that you didn’t try to defend Bite Me.
“Whereas Democrats actually embody the spirit of American excellence”? Then you cite selective references. Why didn’t you reference Jawn F’ing Kary, John Rockefeller, Jawn Edwards, Nancy Pelosi, Babs Boxer, or the multitude of other millionaires in the dem party? Y’know, either “legacy” millionaires or the gigolos who married their money?
You really can’t be serious claiming that the dems “embody the spirit of American excellence”, can you? If you really believe that, you’re hopeless.
As to your flawed argument about the 2nd Amendment, Answers dot com has the explanantion for the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments, “First 10 amendments to the Constitution of the United States, adopted as a group in 1791. They are a collection of guarantees of individual rights and of limitations on federal and state governments that derived from popular dissatisfaction with the limited guarantees of the Constitution”.
http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-of-rights
You can call anyone anything you want. Biden needs no “defense”. The man beat an established Republican leader at the age of 32 to become one of the youngest Senators ever elected. The man embodies the “family values” you CLAIM to admire when he raised his children by himself after a horrific car accident that killed his wife and daughter and severely injured his two sons. You can- and do- call anyone anything you want. That’s your right, it’s your blog.
But WHEN your side loses- and loses badly in November don’t wonder why. It’s because folks like you call Teenagers that aren’t alive to defend themeselves “thugs”. It’s because of Rush’s attacks on women and Romney’s attacks on Hispanics. Your side is playing the politics of division and you’re only serving to unite the majority of us against YOU.
So go ahead, call Vice President Joe Biden and President Obama all the names you want. You just show people what you are and what you’re made of, which isn’t much. Make my day.
Yeah, Insipid, because we’re electing the next American Idol in November, not the leader of the free world.
“Make my day”? Why, how very stand your ground of you, Insipid.
One of the people you mentioned, John Edwards, IS a self made man. Other than that, i pretty much agree that the man is pond scum. While Senator Kerry is not a self made man, he did not come from wealth and privilege the way Mitt Romney, George W. Bush, and George H. W. Bush did.
The fact is that OUR standard bearers know what it is like to HAVE to earn a living, yours do not.
I feel no urge to shoot John Lilyea for our disagreement, UpNorth. So not “Stand your ground” at all.
John Lilyea: Yeah, Insipid, because we’re electing the next American Idol in November, not the leader of the free world.
Despite the obvious stupidity of George W. Bush the GOP choose him as its standard bearer based solely on the idea that he’s the guy we’d like to have a beer with. Don’t lecture me about American Idol.
Yeah, anyone who thinks that George Bush is an idiot, but Joe Biden is some sort of gifted savant, and John Edwards is a self-made man is really worth arguing with.
You got some documetnation in your pocket there, ins, so we could actually compare the current to any of the formers? Gee, it might be kinda nice to see some grade cards, transcripts, or anything which could give us a clue, but there just aren’t any.
Does that mean that his academic career is a lie? Without proof positive, it is just as logical to assume that he never attended anywhere that he claims as it is to assume that he’s telling the truth. Or something in between the two extremes.
How does that work for you? You assume he’s telling the truth and I’ll assume he’s lying. Get back to us when you have something substantive to share.
Until then, since you continue to act like a troll, I can only conclude that you are indeed still a troll. Feeding trolls is fun for a while, but then it just seems so pitiful.
@45 – I may not have been clear enough about exactly what I was taking issue with, my bad. My issue was not with whether or not a militia is a different physical body when addressed in different parts of the Constitution, my issue was with what I perceive to be your disagreement with the protected individual right to own firearms. Each of the examples I gave you supports firearms ownership as an individual right, an individual right that supports a collective responsibility. It should be noted that trying to interpret individual phrases from the 18th century requires some research into definitions peculiar to the times. As a for instance, “Well regulated” as written in the 2nd Amendment, did not mean controlled with regulations, it meant “Well trained”. The concept being that a well armed populace would have the means to provide riflemen in a time of need who had seen to their own individual training by virtue of familiar regular use. Now since you seem to have a bit of respect for Harvard, how about the opinion of a Harvard Law Professor? [The Second Amendment’s] central purpose is to arm “We the People” so that ordinary citizens can participate in the collective defense of their community and their state. But it does so not through directly protecting a right on the part of states or other collectivities, assertable by them against the federal government, to arm the populace as they see fit. Rather the amendment achieves its central purpose by assuring that the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification consistent with the authority of the states to organize their own militias. That assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes–not a right to hunt for game, quite clearly, and certainly not a right to employ firearms to commit aggressive acts against other persons–a right that directly limits action by Congress or by the Executive Branch and may well, in addition,… Read more »
Crap, sorry about the missed tag. I hate it when I do that. 🙂
And Insipid, you still haven’t answered my question in post #19, or post #42.
I’m patiently waiting. 🙂
As far as #19 goes. I do NOT believe that the second amendment has ANYTHING to do with Stand Your Ground laws. My main beef, believe it or not, is not your interpretation of the second amendment but more to do with your expanding it to not only allow you to have a weapon but as also somehow allowing you to use it without ever having to face repurcussions for it.
No, i do not mean to say a blanket statement regarding all cops. And i’m sure you get similarly outraged when Conservatives make blanket statements about liberals.
“While Senator Kerry is not a self made man, he did not come from wealth and privilege the way Mitt Romney, George W. Bush, and George H. W. Bush did”.
Well, first off, I guess you missed this. http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq10-3.htm
Second, you’re right, Kerry didn’t earn it, he married it. Pelosi and Boxer used the government to enhance themselves. So, “OUR standard bearers know what it is like to HAVE to earn a living, yours do not” doesn’t really apply, now does it?
Pelosi and Boxer were never our nominees for President, President Obama, John Kerry and Bill Clinton were. Nice to see you acknowlege someone being a genuine war hero, as George H. W. Bush definately was. It would be nice if some of your cohorts would pay the same respect to John Kerry.
In any case, the only self-made men Presidents that have been around in the past 30 years have been Democrats.
That’s not what I asked in 19, here’s what I asked –
“Can you give me an example of how the Second Amendment has ever prevented you from walking to the convenience store and back without being stalked and shot and killed? Can you give me an example of how it has done that to anyone?”
Well, Trayvon Martin was stalked, shot and killed and according to many of the folks here the second amendment gave Zimmerman that “right”.
Jawn F’ing Kary a war hero? Puh-leeze. Lots of his shipmates would disagree with you, among a host of others.
“In any case, the only self-made men Presidents that have been around in the past 30 years have been Democrats”. Stop. Sides. Hurt. Laughing.
As to your continued mis-informed opinion on Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman, saying it loudly and often won’t make it so.
There’s no “shipmates” that would disagree with me. There’s ONE guy and a host of other actual shipmates that did and do call him a hero. The other Swift Boat Veterans did not serve with John Kerry. The claims made in the Swift Boat hit piece has been thoroughly examined and completely debunked. John Kerry was a war hero, it is fact. Once again, you guys only respect the right troops. Troops that disagree with you can go to hell.
You can laugh as much as you want, but George W. Bush would be flipping burgers at a greasy spoon right now if he wasn’t the son of George W. Bush and the grandson of Presscott Bush and Mitt Romney would be selling cars at one of the Auto Dealers President Obama saved if he weren’t the son of George Romney.
Sorry, son of George H.W. Bush.
By the way the ONE shipmate that served with Kerry, Steven Gardner, was not present during any of the events that earned John Kerry his medals or any of his three purple hearts.
insipid: I really have trouble believing you are as dense as your comment 54 above indicates. What part of “all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard” is unclear? Yes, you’re reading that right, dipstick – that does indeed mean that every swinging dick in the USA between the ages of 17 and 45 who (1) isn’t already a member of the Federal armed forces and who is either (2) a US citizen, or (3) has declared their intent to become a US citizen,is, by Federal law, a member of the militia of the United States. There is no requirement that members of the militia of the United States be enrolled in any military unit whatsoever. If they are in a military unit, then they’re in the National Guard – and they’re members of the organized militia. If they’re not in the National Guard, they’re in the unorganized militia. With the exception the fact that today racial equality is operative, the situation is no different today than it was on 1 March 1795. If you’re in that demographic, under Federal law you are a member of the militia – period. Today, militia membership has been further extended by Federal law to include National Guard members over the age of 45 (that’s what 32 USC 313 covers), and to female members of the National Guard – today, those groups are also members of the militia of the United States. Females not affiliated with the National Guard are not. And yes: Congress does indeed have the authority to call to military service “any Joe off the street” if necessary. Ever hear of a thing called the “draft”, or the Selective Service System? Let me clue ya in, sunshine – that’s exactly what happened to one helluva lot of guys prior to 1972 or so.… Read more »
Fine, Hondo, continue to pretend that the passages in the Constitution AND in the 1792 act that CLEARLY state that we’re talking about people CALLED for service and not “every swinging dick”. Ignore all the parts where it talks about officers and enlistments and privates and being “in the service of the United States” ignore the part about pay and how it should match the pay of Federal officers and enlisted men. Because you gun nuts are good at ignoring parts of laws that are “inconvenient” hence the NRA’s leaving out that pesky militia part of the amendment. It’s too damn inconvenient. And the reason why you should ignore it? Because that way you can continue to pretend that the liberal did not make a fool of you in your major issue. That way you can pretend that you haven’t been forced to make such a stupid fucking argument as to pretend that somehow you’re already in the military BEFORE you’ve been drafted and are ALREADY subject to military law. And now you’re pretending that the DRAFTING process does not matter and you’ll probably say that the notes that CLEARLY state they were talking about a military service and protecting the MILITIA does not matter. I mean really you are desperate aren’t you? You wanted this fight and now that it’s not going your way you’re having a desperate little tantrum holding your guns really tight and thinking about doing very obscene things with them to make the bad man stop making a fool of you. You are wrong, you’ve been proven wrong with your own sources you’ve been proven wrong and you don’t have the class to admit that you’ve been proven wrong. The militia in the Constitution is a military body it’s clear in the constitution itself, it’s clear from the federalist papers it’s clear from the notes on the convention it is clear that it does NOT pertain to every “swinging dick” and no amount of stamping your feet and or cutting and pasting SELECTED parts of bills will make it so. Also, remember to make sure… Read more »
insipid: Buddy, you’re hopeless. I’ll spell it out for you: the first sentence of the 2nd 1792 Militia Act defines the “Who” covered by the law. The rest of the act defines what will be done, and how. The rest of the act has no bearing whatsoever on the definition of who; that definition stands alone. That’s crystal clear to anyone with even a marginal ability to comprehend written English and 3 or more working brain cells. It’s so obvious even Stevie Wonder can see that.
If you’re unable to figure out that for yourself, well, God help ya fella.
I really wonder sometimes if you’re actually typing your own comments here, or if you’re having a drunk wino from skid row interpret and transcribe what would otherwise be unintelligible grunts, squeals, ughs, and nonsensical babbling from you for our benefit. If so, tell them they need to work on their logical reasoning and reading comprehension, because they’re making you look like a fool.
And you need to work on your reading skills. Here is the part of the act which defines tha militia and, as you can se the
“That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively BE ENROLLED in the militia, by the CAPTAIN OR COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE COMPANY, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.
So yes, the definition is CLEARLY stating that i am right and you are wrong. It’s dealing with a MILITARY body. Deal with it.
And don’t bother with your next response which will surely be “Well, if you skip every other word and read the law sideways you can CLEARLY see they intended….”
Whatever standards you give, whether it’s JUST going by the definition or reading the entire bill the act is referring to MILITARY people ENROLLED in service. That’s the plain langauage of the text.
Insipid wrote – “Well, Trayvon Martin was stalked, shot and killed and according to many of the folks here the second amendment gave Zimmerman that “right”.
Really? I can’t find an instance where anyone here said that, could you point it out for me? And even if you do find an instance of someone espousing that, it still doesn’t answer the question, it’s simply an example of what someone said.
Most of the regulars here are perfectly aware of what right is actually covered by the 2nd Amendment, and stalking and shooting someone isn’t it. More hyperbole from Insipid.
Still patiently waiting. 🙂
Honestly the best thing to do is just ignore insipid. I don’t know how he made it as far as he did in life with his head that fucking far up his ass. Everything I’ve seen from him so far has shown you just can’t take him seriously. He’s just a troll. Don’t feed him.
Insipid I thought I told you to go eat a dick…no wait that was Joe. Sorry I get you two asshats confused. By all means you can join him in the meal of dick…you two sound so much alike.
Here’s a blog post right here stating that Stand Your Ground laws are actually a Right:
http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=29371
Oh, and if you were the person who posted anonymously, i apologize. I thought i was addressing Hondo. I don’t insult people unless if they insult first.
Redacted, people can tie there own shoe laces, you don’t need to tell them who they can and cannot speak with.
And Jason I thought i told you to go fuck yourself. See, i can talk tough to over the internet. But unlike you i’m not a sniveling little coward piece of shit.
And the reason why you get “confused” is because you have shit for brains.
Well that was just some friendly advice, i’m not telling anyone to do anything. I figured you’d fuck that one up.
I’m with OWB and Redacted – we should stop feeding this troll. Back to your full time job at Starbucks, insipid.
Well, i actually did NOT want to engage in a 2nd amendment debate, i’m obliging Hondo who’s been pouting ever since.
If you will actually bother to look you will see that 1. I never insult first(and no, insulting conservative in general or a piece of legislation people like is NOT the same as a direct insult) and 2. I’m never the one to take anything off topic. Generally if people treat me with respect I’ll do the same. Yes, i’ll disagree but i’m capable of doing it without being disagreeable. If you want to engage in name calling, i’m fine with that, if you want to engage in debate without that then i’m fine with that too.
So no, i did not “fuck it up”. I just pointed out that i am not a troll. Many of you, though not all, just have tantrums when someone disagrees.
Yes, you did fuck it up and yes, you’re a troll. Bye bye now.
Ok, i’m calling bullshit right here. There is absolutely no way you’re a lawyer nobunny. What’s your closing argument: AND in conclusion i’d like to state that my opponent is s doodie head!
I mean really first you come up with a zinger about me being allowed to be on the computer and now a lame-ass Starbucks joke? Really how many hours did it take you to come up with that? And did you leave a red mark slapping your knee?
Here’s a little hint for you: When you’re putting someone down actually try and make sure that it’s not such a lame ass put-down that it makes you seem like a fucking moron for stating it. Either that or you should change your name from nobunny to nofunny.
Here let me give you your next three lame-ass insults so you don’t strain your brain anymore:
Hey, insipid, were you able to stop picking your nose long enough to write a message?
Hey insipid, i hope you didn’t get grease on your keyboard from your McDonalds job!
Hey, insipid, did you get in trouble when your mommy caught you saying the swear words?
I mean really there’s no way your a lawyer because you’re not even smart enough to be a decent troll.
Like i really wanted to talk to you anyway, redacted. See ya.
From his reaction, it looks like your comment about Starbucks stung ol insipid a bit, Nobunny. Who’d have guessed that insipid worked in the fast-food/service industry? Yeah, you’re right. We should have seen that he was another sophomoric (literally) English lit or sociology major or grad working at the only job for which he’s qualified by education and intellect. No surprise there. insipid: you’ve studied Goebbels well, though you have neither his smarts nor his rhetorical skill. You’ve been repeatedly proven here – with legal references – that you’re wrong as a matter of both language and law, yet you keep insisting that black is right, truth is falsehood, and that one plus one is not two, but whatever number you want it to be. With you, the “big lie” principle of argument is still alive and well. You just don’t have the skill to pull it off adequately. That “be enrolled” clause you make such a bother about by quoting it in all caps above, if you’ll bother to read both it and the rest of the paragraph, only means be formally enumerated and notified of obligation under the law. It imposes no requirement on the individual militia member in and of itself. Rather, it’s actually more a requirement imposed on the States than individuals, since the states – not the Federal government – run the organized militia components even today (e.g., the National Guard elements) unless they are in active Federal service, just as they did in 1795. The Federal government’s role – then as now – was only in prescribing standards of who/what/how for the militia when not in Federal service. (Although today, the Federal government does considerably more in the way of equipping and providing other resources for that small portion of the population that is the organized militia.) Indeed, one could argue that this requirement for individual notification contained in the 2nd Militia Act of 1792 is possibly the first example of an unfunded Federal mandate on the States. Further, the clause is not strictly necessary. The rest of the law is unaffected if it… Read more »
Hondo, I just hope he doesn’t play poker with real money.
I never did claim to be an attorney, but it must be hard to read when your eyes are brimming with hot, angry tears.
And Jason I thought i told you to go fuck yourself. See, i can talk tough to over the internet. But unlike you i’m not a sniveling little coward piece of shit. Really? Are you sure, insipid?
Oh, did Kary achieve his, in your eyes, hero status for that trip to Cambodia, over Christmas? That trip that never happened? Look up Sa Dec on a map of Viet Nam, that’s as close as Kary ever got to Cambodia, contrary to what you think.
Insipid I have never treated you with respect and I resent the implication that I ever did. You sir are an boner biting unclefucker, and really don’t add anything here other than a place for me to type insults. Unfortunatly, yes I do have to “hide” behind a keyboard , because I don’t have the opportunity to say this to your face.
Nobunny…quite the contrary, I hope he does play with real money…lots of it. You know the phrase…there are those who know, those who don’t know, but that dumb bastard don’t even suspect.
Above, insipid the Clueless makes one statement that I can’t let go unchallenged. That is a statement to the effect (comment #54) that Congress has the power to force people to purchase a firearm, or health insurance, if it so chooses. This statement is incredibly foolish, on multiple levels. However, it’s often heard, and is usually justified by referencing the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. That represents an incredibly distorted and, frankly, a disingenuous and dangerous interpretation of the Commerce clause. “Regulate” and “compel participation” are not equivalent terms. Regarding commerce, Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce under the US constitution. It does not have the power to compel participation. And please – spare me that bogus “Wait – you have a legal requirement to by auto insurance or property insurance!”. Yes, you do – IF you choose to drive, or own property under specified conditions. Those are about the only cases I’m aware of where having insurance of any type is legally compulsory. Where they exist, those requirements are State requirements, not Federal. And they’re only legally compulsory when you choose to engage in behaviors requiring them – e.g., own a car, own a business, have a mortgage. An individual has a choice as to whether they own a car, has a mortgage, or owns a business; it’s also possible to live without doing any of those. Engaging in those are therefore the result of voluntary actions; the state can require insurance in those cases for the protection of others you might injure. In contrast, I haven’t yet figured out how to live without breathing. And requiring someone to purchase health insurance – or anything else, for that matter – simply as a condition of breathing is not regulation of commerce. That’s compelled participation. Regardless of political leanings, all Americans should pray that the SCOTUS gets this one right and holds that Congress does not have the power to compel involuntary individual participation in commerce. Why? Well, here are a few of the other things that can be justified using that argument (e.g., tangential effect of behavior… Read more »
It has been but a few short years since most Americans saw the compulsion to buy health insurance as no more likely than any of your examples, or consuming brocolli, for that matter, Hondo.
Huge distinction needs to be made here – Congress has the power to do many things, and those things vary depending upon many factors such as who is in control, local priorities, needs/wants of the country, perhaps even the phase of the moon. The real question is not of their power but of their authority. The Constitution limits their authority. We, the great unwashed, determine their power.
So basically everytime i nail you to the wall, Honda and reveal how specious your first amendment arguments are the answer is always 1. That part of the law isn’t really that important or 2. The founders didn’t mean what it seems like they said they meant. Basically you can only make your case by leaving out inconvenient words like “Well regulated Militia” and “Be enrolled”. As far as your arguments about the ACA goes they’re equally moronic and reveal you to be a light intellect, really not worthy of anyones time. The ways in which health insurance is not like Brocoli: 1. I cannot go into a supermarket and demand that I be given 20,000 dollars worth of Brocoli for free. I can go into the emergency room and demand 20,000 dollars worth of healthcare for free. 2. If you decide not to buy brocoli (i’m sure your diet consists mostly of beer and wing-dings) the cost of brocoli does not change. If you decide not to buy health care it inreases my costs about a 1000 dollars. 3. A person can go his whole life without using brocoli (i’m sure you have) but it’s virtually impossible to go your whole life without health care. 4. Brocoli is not subject to adverse selection. A young person will not avoid eating brocoli and then try to buy a thousand bushels should he get cancer or hit by a bus. But he WILL attempt to get health care should he have an emergency, thus the mandate is necessary for there to be a no pre-existing exclusion. Mandates make it impossible to game the system. In that way health insurance is EXACTLY like car insurance. Your refusing to buy it adversely effects everyone else, thus Congress is perfectly allowed to mandate that everyone has it. The same way they mandate that we buy SSI and Medicare. It does and has served the greater good. Oh and if you don’t believe anything coming from those Commie Pinkoes, LBJ and FDR how about John Adams? Who last i looked was a founding father who… Read more »
Also, it would be nice, though certainly not expected, if you understood the law, Hondo. The mandate doesn’t “compel” anything. There is no criminal penalty if you don’t pay it, it’s merely a tax which you can avoid paying by buying health insurance. It’s similar to the tax credit you can get for buying a home or having a kid.
And the tax is entirely fair. If you refuse to buy health insurance you cost the rest of society. Therefore the rest of society has the right to demand recompense.