HeyYou Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 What? We wandered off topic? Oh come on, we both are fully aware that never happens here.... :blink: Really, it IS mincing words.... Sure, if you do X, and violate some law, there is a penalty to be paid. But, that's pretty standard in any event. All actions have consequences. Don't wanna pay the consequence, don't do the action. Simple really. (unless, of course, you are in congress, then nothing has consequences.......) The laws that state you WILL do X, or will be penalized in some fashion, THAT I would agree is coercion. But, as already has been stated, that is pretty much par for the course as well. If there aren't consequences, no law would have any teeth. My major malfunction here is, the Federal Government telling me I WILL purchase X product, or I will be "taxed"...... I think that particular ruling was a real stretch..... The problem, as I see it, is you can insert damn near anything at all for X, and it would appear the supreme court seems to think that congress can indeed force you to buy X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 What? We wandered off topic? Oh come on, we both are fully aware that never happens here.... :blink: Really, it IS mincing words.... Sure, if you do X, and violate some law, there is a penalty to be paid. But, that's pretty standard in any event. All actions have consequences. Don't wanna pay the consequence, don't do the action. Simple really. (unless, of course, you are in congress, then nothing has consequences.......) The laws that state you WILL do X, or will be penalized in some fashion, THAT I would agree is coercion. But, as already has been stated, that is pretty much par for the course as well. If there aren't consequences, no law would have any teeth. My major malfunction here is, the Federal Government telling me I WILL purchase X product, or I will be "taxed"...... I think that particular ruling was a real stretch..... The problem, as I see it, is you can insert damn near anything at all for X, and it would appear the supreme court seems to think that congress can indeed force you to buy X.Yes we... Never go off topic here... :sick: I agree with your end premise and thought that the bill would fail due to the Commerce Clause,,but the nine wise men have spoken and only the general election will stand a chance of settings things aright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Yeah, if we put a republican majority in the senate, and Romney gets elected........ that isn't what I consider a good plan either.... Republicans have already demonstrated that their fiscal, foreign, and economic policies just don't work....... not that there has been all that much difference with the dems.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 HeyYou, seems as though Aurielius got lectured in an above post for attempting to help out. Sometimes one cannot win. Ah well. I will attempt to clarify what he was saying to you in agreement with that other person. (and I do not really agree with your thought that it is mincing of words here).Maybe you missed the part were he insulted me. I don't care if he wants to agree with me or not, but he currently has me ignored and I don't appreciate him acting like that in every single post in which he refers to me. He ignored me because he didn't like me or my posts. Now he just wishes to reply to me with insulting terms without having to deal with a counter argument. You are right, sometimes one cannot win. My overall point here is that everything the government does has something to do with force. Acting like that is always a bad thing is incorrect. Simply because the government requires you to do something for society, does not mean it is bad. I used taxation and laws as examples, that wasn't my overall point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grannywils Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Ok, ya'll, time for me to go have some grits again.... See ya later. BTW, for those with any interest, I'll be out of town for a little over a week, and not on Nexus very much. Hope you don't all miss me. LOL :tongue: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Ok, ya'll, time for me to go have some grits again.... See ya later. BTW, for those with any interest, I'll be out of town for a little over a week, and not on Nexus very much. Hope you don't all miss me. LOL :tongue: Have fun Granny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Ok, ya'll, time for me to go have some grits again.... See ya later. BTW, for those with any interest, I'll be out of town for a little over a week, and not on Nexus very much. Hope you don't all miss me. LOL :tongue: Je suis désolée grand-mère , je vais attendre votre retour. Sentiers heureux. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagrant0 Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 My major malfunction here is, the Federal Government telling me I WILL purchase X product, or I will be "taxed"In my state, I am required to maintain auto insurance in order to legally drive a vehicle. The thing is that in most of the state, having a reliable means of transportation is a requirement in order to get any sort of job. If I don't have it, I don't get "taxed" I get slapped with a heavy fine and have my drivers license taken away, so it is not really a "choice" beyond deciding which company I end up buying from. Even if these laws serve only to give these companies business, they have been on the books for well over 30 years now, and nobody has seemingly challenged their legality. Many other states have similar laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 (edited) My major malfunction here is, the Federal Government telling me I WILL purchase X product, or I will be "taxed"In my state, I am required to maintain auto insurance in order to legally drive a vehicle. The thing is that in most of the state, having a reliable means of transportation is a requirement in order to get any sort of job. If I don't have it, I don't get "taxed" I get slapped with a heavy fine and have my drivers license taken away, so it is not really a "choice" beyond deciding which company I end up buying from. Even if these laws serve only to give these companies business, they have been on the books for well over 30 years now, and nobody has seemingly challenged their legality. Many other states have similar laws. That tired argument has been used to justify a universal tax by the left. You do not have to own a car, you can take public transportation, you can walk...if you elect to own a car then you pay for the privilege and abide by each state's regulation of that privilege. However if you elect not to own a car then those fees and regulations are not applicable to you....your choice .The Health Care tax is not elective.....it is mandated. Edited July 9, 2012 by Aurielius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverDNA Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 (edited) I think the general health care debate much in similar state in context with the picture in the spoiler. http://i808.photobucket.com/albums/zz6/Silver-DNA/Signs%20for%20Posting/Commonsense.jpg Edited July 9, 2012 by SilverDNA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts