Ebola victims heading for USA

[desert dude]

Recent court rulings disagree whether current Federal subsidies are legal. Probably not. Recipients may be required to return the subsidies they have already received. I can hear Schuylaar screaming already. Don't think you can plead poverty. The IRS will be collecting it. By-by welfare check, student loan, Pell grant, tax refund, social security.

Yeah, there will be much gnashing of teeth if the courts insist on following the law. It is unfortunate that there is any doubt about the willingness of the courts to follow a law, but that is where we are in America.

 

[UncleBuck]

aren't you two retards the same two retards who, when you weren't busy joining white supremacy groups, kept declaring the ACA to be unconstitutional even after the SCOTUS ruled that it was indeed constitutional?

but i bet you guys have it totally right this time.

 

[desert dude]

DoD might save Africa from Ebola. They sure need the help.


http://www.navytimes.com/article/20140801/NEWS08/308010074/DoD-may-send-personnel-Africa-help-fight-Ebola-epidemic?sf29285208=1

 

[Red1966]

The Supreme Court upheld the legality of slavery in the Dred Scott case, despite the equal protection clause and various state laws, further stating that blacks, whether free or in bondage, were not, and never could be, citizens. So the courts clearly do not always abide by the Constitution.

 

[UncleBuck]

The Supreme Court upheld the legality of slavery in the Dred Scott case, despite the equal protection clause and various state laws, further stating that blacks, whether free or in bondage, were not, and never could be, citizens. So the courts clearly do not always abide by the Constitution.

you clearly don't get the concept that whatever the SCORUS says is constitutional, is constitutional. period. end of debate.

 

[UncleBuck]

DoD might save Africa from Ebola. They sure need the help.


http://www.navytimes.com/article/20140801/NEWS08/308010074/DoD-may-send-personnel-Africa-help-fight-Ebola-epidemic?sf29285208=1

nice job at trying to change the subject.

i just got done reading the thread where you kept declaring obamacare to be unconstitutional, that it was not a tax, that you had "destroyed" abandonconflict's arguments.

but i bet you totally have it right this time.

white supremacist hope springs eternal.

 

[desert dude]

The supreme court decided an Ohio farmer could not grow wheat on his own farm to feed to his farm animals because the commerce clause allows the federal government to regulate commerce within the states. I have increased the font size of the operative word for our myopic, and fascist acquaintances on the left. If not for this ruling, the war on drugs would not have happened.

Who is to blame for this? The great and infamous Democrat, FDR.
“to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”

Following his reelection, President Roosevelt responded to these attacks on his legislation by proposing what is known as the “Court-packing plan,” which would have expanded the size of the Supreme Court from nine to up to fifteen justices. Although the plan was defeated and the composition of the Court soon changed, the proposal was credited with changing the Court’s view on New Deal legislation.

Now, along comes another infamous Democrat to try to further expand the commerce clause to also encompass not-commerce, i.e. you are engaging in interstate commerce if you, a private citizen, decide to NOT buy insurance, a requirement under ACA.

That's right, according to our Democratic leaders you engage in commerce when you buy stuff and when you fail to buy stuff. Why, it seems as if the federal government wants complete power to regulate every decision made in every state. Welcome to the nanny state.

 

[desert dude]

you clearly don't get the concept that whatever the SCORUS says is constitutional, is constitutional. period. end of debate.

Whatever Putin says is legal, is legal. You're an obsequious little weasel. I will be watching to see how your attitude might change when a Republican is president.

 

[UncleBuck]

The supreme court decided an Ohio farmer could not grow wheat on his own farm to feed to his farm animals because the commerce clause allows the federal government to regulate commerce within the states. I have increased the font size of the operative word for our myopic, and fascist acquaintances on the left. If not for this ruling, the war on drugs would not have happened.

Who is to blame for this? The great and infamous Democrat, FDR.
“to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”
Following his reelection, President Roosevelt responded to these attacks on his legislation by proposing what is known as the “Court-packing plan,” which would have expanded the size of the Supreme Court from nine to up to fifteen justices. Although the plan was defeated and the composition of the Court soon changed, the proposal was credited with changing the Court’s view on New Deal legislation.

Now, along comes another infamous Democrat to try to further expand the commerce clause to also encompass not-commerce, i.e. you are engaging in interstate commerce if you, a private citizen, decide to NOT buy insurance, a requirement under ACA.

That's right, according to our Democratic leaders you engage in commerce when you buy stuff and when you fail to buy stuff. Why, it seems as if the federal government wants complete power to regulate every decision made in every state. Welcome to the nanny state.

you're just mad because civil rights were found to be constitutional under the commerce clause.

and just because you don't buy health insurance doesn't mean you'll never need medical care. you will. especially if you let that signature white supremacist bitterness and anger consume you like you are letting happen.

 

[desert dude]

nice job at trying to change the subject.

i just got done reading the thread where you kept declaring obamacare to be unconstitutional, that it was not a tax, that you had "destroyed" abandonconflict's arguments.

but i bet you totally have it right this time.

white supremacist hope springs eternal.

It was Obama and the Democrats who said it was not a tax. The legislation itself never mentioned a tax. A tax would have been legal under the constitution but it would not have been politically popular.

 

[UncleBuck]

Whatever Putin says is legal, is legal. You're an obsequious little weasel. I will be watching to see how your attitude might change when a Republican is president.

the SCOTUS' decisions will define what is constitutional no matter what party holds the executive branch, you smarmy white supremacist ball of shit.

 

[UncleBuck]

It was Obama and the Democrats who said it was not a tax. The legislation itself never mentioned a tax. A tax would have been legal under the constitution but it would not have been politically popular.

well, we're sure that you have it all figured out this time, just like last time when you "destroyed" everyone else's arguments.

snort any meth off your fellow white supremacists' cocks lately?

 

[desert dude]

the SCOTUS' decisions will define what is constitutional no matter what party holds the executive branch, you smarmy white supremacist ball of shit.

Maybe Putin will let you lick the sweat off his balls after he wrestles a polar bear?

 

[SnapsProvolone]

... So the courts clearly do not always abide by the Constitution.

At least we still have the dude.

 

[desert dude]

the SCOTUS' decisions will define what is constitutional no matter what party holds the executive branch, you smarmy white supremacist ball of shit.

Thanks to you power hungry democrats the US, and the world, has been under siege for most of the twentieth century in your conduct of the war on drugs.

Thanks Obama!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

The Supreme Court has since relied heavily on Filburn in upholding the power of the federal government to prosecute individuals who grow their own medicinal marijuana pursuant to state law. The Supreme Court subsequently held that, as with the home-grown wheat at issue in the present case, home-grown marijuana is a legitimate subject of federal regulation because it competes with marijuana that moves in interstate commerce. As the Court explained in Gonzales v. Raich (2005):

"Wickard thus establishes that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself 'commercial', in that it is not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity."

One commentator has written that "In the wake of New Deal era Supreme Court jurisprudence it has become clear that Congress has acquired the authority to regulate private economic activity in a manner near limitless in its purview."[4] Justice Rehnquist's opinion in United States v. Lopez explains:

Jones & Laughlin Steel, Darby, and Wickard ushered in an era of Commerce Clause jurisprudence that greatly expanded the authority of Congress beyond what is defined in the Constitution under that Clause.

 

[desert dude]

Why am I not surprised that UncleBuck is a huge supported of the war on drugs? During the bad early days of Obama's reign of terror over the state-legal MMJ operations, there wasn't a single DEA raid that UB didn't cheer!

While not trolling the dating sections of white supremacist web sites, and creating false accounts under the names of various RIU members, UB is jacking off to snuff films and kiddie porn.

 

[UncleBuck]

Why am I not surprised that UncleBuck is a huge supported of the war on drugs?

then why is my sig of snitches exclusively right wingers like you?

why did you say FDD deserved to be "hoisted on his own petard" when he went to prison?

that clearly makes you the supporter of the war on drugs and the DEA cheerleader.

wasn't your last job working for the united states government by the way?

During the bad early days of Obama's reign of terror over the state-legal MMJ operations, there wasn't a single DEA raid that UB didn't cheer!

i only pointed out that not a single one of the busts was on a state compliant grow, which were the ones obama said he was gonna leave alone.

if you can prove otherwise and cite your assertion though, i'll stop calling you a white supremacist, even though you are one.

by the way, the raids were at the behest of local DAs and AGs, not obama.

don't let facts confuse you too much, white supremacist dude.

 

[desert dude]

Why do you want to continue the war on drugs, UB? Is it because it lines your pockets with tax free income?

 

[desert dude]

then why is my sig of snitches exclusively right wingers like you?

why did you say FDD deserved to be "hoisted on his own petard" when he went to prison?

that clearly makes you the supporter of the war on drugs and the DEA cheerleader.

wasn't your last job working for the united states government by the way?



i only pointed out that not a single one of the busts was on a state compliant grow, which were the ones obama said he was gonna leave alone.

if you can prove otherwise and cite your assertion though, i'll stop calling you a white supremacist, even though you are one.

by the way, the raids were at the behest of local DAs and AGs, not obama.

don't let facts confuse you too much, white supremacist dude.

Nice of you to admit it. Why are you such a racist, fascist drug warrior?

 

[UncleBuck]

Why do you want to continue the war on drugs, UB?

i don't, unlike you.

meanwhile, you're wishing federal prison time upon growers left and right and with your utmost conviction.

does it feel good when your wishes come true, desert rat?

Wishing hypocrites to be hoisted on their petard seems legit to me.