Why did Justice Roberts betray the Republic? He's drugged to the eyeballs!

>>These are the "Hollywood" elitists who endorse socialist principles while sitting on golden thrones and casting thousands of dollars to their favorite political causes.<<

That is a straw man. As far as I know, no one in this discussion is a Hollywood elitist (if there is such a thing).

Maybe Chief Justice Roberts is "falling on the sword" for
the nation to ensure BHO is defeated in November?

"Utopian" comes to mind.
Reality begs you comes to terms.
A global "community" living in harmony reminds me of this:


Good luck with that.

>>Anarchist communism comes to mind.<<

Nope, I am not an anarchist either. IMO, anarchism, like libertarianism, is very dangerous.

As I said before, I would like to see a type of socialist globalization (with the elimination of corporate dominance) - a world state.

Fuck my psychiatrist put me on two of these

Funny how Rmoney thought the mandate was great for Romneycare in Massachusetts. Now it's the death of the Republic? Gimme a break. The majority of Americans won't have to pay it since they already have insurance through their employers.

That's a great excuse for you Hannity fans. Keep lying to yourself. You sound like a wife that has been beaten for a lifetime. YOUR POLITICIANS LIE TO YOU. At least Alchoholics have a moment of clarity! If you are a card carrying Republican, You are an idiot. When have they EVER legislated like they preach? Do yourself a favor, vote libertarian. I guess we aren't so "crazy" anymore.

+1

I don't care if I get banned... HEY FUCK FACE..... HOW MANY AMERICANS ARE UNEMPLOYED RIGHT NOW?!!!

I haven't read the entire thread. Sorry if somebody already posted this. George Will's take on the Supreme Court decision is pretty interesting. He sees the decision as a big win for conservatives since the commerce clause argument for penalizing inaction was not upheld.

From his essay:

The case challenged the court to fashion a judicially administrable principle that limits Congress' power to act on the mere pretense of regulating interstate commerce. At least Roberts got the court to embrace emphatic language rejecting the Commerce Clause rationale for penalizing the inactivity of not buying insurance:

"The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. ... The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. ... Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and -- under the government's theory -- empower Congress to make those decisions for him."

Read more here:

[link to www.delmarvanow.com]

I don't care if I get banned... HEY FUCK FACE..... HOW MANY AMERICANS ARE UNEMPLOYED RIGHT NOW?!!!

>>Then what is your ideal for the economic structure of this country?<<

The elimination of the idea "this country." I believe in a kind of socialist globalization, including the elimination of the present-day corporate state. That is pretty much the exact opposite of where we are headed.

>>Tax the successful people and support the less successful?<<

I do not define success in terms of wealth. That is capitalism.

>>Take away the incentive for success?<<

I reject the capitalist idea that people need an incentive.

>>The Communist manifesto?<<

No, I am not a Marxist.

[link to www.wnd.com]

Roberts affected by medication
Swing vote in Obamacare case suffered epileptic seizures

Talk radio host Michael Savage told his listeners today that the use of mind-altering drugs to treat seizures could explain why Bush-appointed Chief Justice John Roberts upheld Obamacare today along with four liberal colleagues.

Roberts shocked most analysts by siding with Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor in a 5-4 decision upholding the lynchpin provision of the president’s signature legislation, the so-called individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act.

Savage told his “Savage Nation” listeners that on the way to the studio for his program tonight he visited a world famous neurologist he knows, and they talked about Obamacare.

The physician urged Savage to check out Roberts’ history with epilepsy, referring him to a New York Times report in August 2007. The article said that after Roberts suffered a seizure, doctors were weighing whether to treat him with powerful drugs with “troubling side effects,” including mental slowing and forgetfulness.

Roberts had suffered a seizure 14 years earlier. The seizures meet the criteria for epilepsy, the Times report said, because they were “unprovoked,” meaning that they were not caused by a head injury, a drug reaction or another known factor.

The neurologist told Savage that Roberts’ cognition could be affected by taking epilepsy medicine.

“I’m going to tell you something that you’re not going to hear anywhere else, that you must pay attention to,” Savage said.

“It’s well known that Roberts, unfortunately for him, has suffered from epileptic seizures. Therefore he has been on medication.”

Savage said that “if you look at Roberts’ writings you can see the cognitive disassociation in what he is saying.”

“Roberts has no logic in what he said,” Savage asserted.

“He said the law is a tax, but if the law wasn’t written as a tax, how can he say it’s taxation?”

You sound like 3rd graders rooting for the Pokémon they love the most. So much passion. But what has your question to do with this topic?

There’s no difference between what Obama did as a President and Romney (before him) as a Governor – except for the level (federal/state); both were elected by majority of constituents based on their programs - and healthcare reforms were parts of them.

What pisses me off the most is that the same scum (Corsi) that was swift-boating many times decorated Vietnam vet opposing to wars is now cheerleading for a Vietnam draft-dodger, war monger, pathetic flip-flopper and corporate butt-licker.

Marco Rubio (R) said on Romney supporting the individual mandate in Massachusetts: “But what a big difference. He supported it on the state level. Which means if you didn’t like it in Massachusetts, you could move to another state."

You have a hint, hypocrite.

*

You sound like 3rd graders rooting for the Pokémon they love the most. So much passion. But what has your question to do with this topic?

There’s no difference between what Obama did as a President and Romney (before him) as a Governor – except for the level (federal/state); both were elected by majority of constituents based on their programs - and healthcare reforms were parts of them.

What pisses me off the most is that the same scum (Corsi) that was swift-boating many times decorated Vietnam vet opposing to wars is now cheerleading for a Vietnam draft-dodger, war monger, pathetic flip-flopper and corporate butt-licker.

Marco Rubio (R) said on Romney supporting the individual mandate in Massachusetts: “But what a big difference. He supported it on the state level. Which means if you didn’t like it in Massachusetts, you could move to another state."

You have a hint, hypocrite.

*

unlike you, i believe the 2 Party System suks!

i have no particular loyalty to either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party.

neither of these groups serve the Common person; they serve the major donors to their campaigns.

stop crying, poor baby!