Ted Cruz announces... wait, im still laughing...! LOL

newfie

newfie

Well-Known Member
The Other Side said:
What part of the ACT, didnt you understand?? Where do you think the Maritime hospitals came from??

Those were government run hospitals, with government provided healthcare.

Dont be a people.

Try to learn something for a change.

TOS.
Click to expand...

you could try to show him an example of a non -people but that would not be any fun.
 
The Other Side

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
JL 0513 said:
Why wasn't the whole population mandated? This argument is closer to the car insurance argument than the ACA. These seamen chose a dangerous job that required them to contribute to their specific care. Sickness and injuries were guarantees.

With the ACA, you are mandated to purchase a broad coverage policy that doesn't even apply to your life. Men and old women need a policy covering pregnancy related care for example.
Click to expand...

You havent the first clue what the Sick / Disabled seamans act was about. The only industry operating in 1792 was the maritime industry. This industry represented the largest organized workforce at the time.

You question... "Why wasn't the whole population mandated" is purely ridiculous at best.

Did you forget that slavery was still in existence at that time? Did you forget that women couldnt vote at that time or work? Did you forget that Chinese were being used as slaves?

How could the government at THAT time MANDATE the entire population be covered under the ACT when all citizens were not equal??

Are you this dense?

The entire maritime hospital system was a government run system, and it used DEDUCTIONS from those men working in the maritime industry. The ACT that President John Adams signed, was put together by the rest of the other founding fathers in 1792 and NOT ONE of them said this was unconstitutional.

Only todays Re-visionist wannabee experts believe that the ACA is something different from that of the seamans act. They are indentical with the exception that today we have a private health care system that DIDNT exist in 1792.

You can complain about coverage, but I have and pay for car insurance and I dont get into accidents, yet I make that premium every month without complaining, so do YOU (hopefully).

You in the right wing only know what you are told versus what you actually know.

That is the real problem in America.

TOS.
 
bottomups

bottomups

Bad Moon Risen'
JL 0513 said:
Yes, I'm aware that the Constitution doesn't list the above rights but they are inalienable rights that are supposed to be upheld by the court. The Declaration came first and already guaranteed these broad rights. The Constitution came later and outlined other specific rights. When people use "un/constitutional", it should be understood that it includes the basic unalienable rights. The Supreme Court cannot infringe these. Abortion is one of those unique cases with an admittedly impossible solution. Each way infringes the right of one of the individuals. Ultimately though, life takes precedent over a woman's rights to choose and have a baby killed out of convenience.
Click to expand...
Using your argument, doesn't a same sex couple have basic unalienable rights to marry? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness together?
 
newfie

newfie

Well-Known Member
The Other Side said:
You havent the first clue what the Sick / Disabled seamans act was about. The only industry operating in 1792 was the maritime industry. This industry represented the largest organized workforce at the time.

You question... "Why wasn't the whole population mandated" is purely ridiculous at best.

Did you forget that slavery was still in existence at that time? Did you forget that women couldnt vote at that time or work? Did you forget that Chinese were being used as slaves?

How could the government at THAT time MANDATE the entire population be covered under the ACT when all citizens were not equal??

Are you this dense?

The entire maritime hospital system was a government run system, and it used DEDUCTIONS from those men working in the maritime industry. The ACT that President John Adams signed, was put together by the rest of the other founding fathers in 1792 and NOT ONE of them said this was unconstitutional.

Only todays Re-visionist wannabee experts believe that the ACA is something different from that of the seamans act. They are indentical with the exception that today we have a private health care system that DIDNT exist in 1792.

You can complain about coverage, but I have and pay for car insurance and I dont get into accidents, yet I make that premium every month without complaining, so do YOU (hopefully).

You in the right wing only know what you are told versus what you actually know.

That is the real problem in America.

TOS.
Click to expand...

still trying to sell your weak argument
 
JL 0513

JL 0513

Well-Known Member
Just heard we will now be mandated as Americans to buy at least 3lbs of broccoli a week per household. This is for the good of the country. It betters everyone's health as well as creates jobs for broccoli producers. A win win. Otherwise pay a $1,000 "tax penalty".
 
bottomups

bottomups

Bad Moon Risen'
JL 0513 said:
Just heard we will now be mandated as Americans to buy at least 3lbs of broccoli a week per household. This is for the good of the country. It betters everyone's health as well as creates jobs for broccoli producers. A win win. Otherwise pay a $1,000 "tax penalty".
Click to expand...
Broccoli produces too much flatulence, which in turn contributes to global warming. I would not support this mandate.
 
JL 0513

JL 0513

Well-Known Member
bottomups said:
Using your argument, doesn't a same sex couple have basic unalienable rights to marry? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness together?
Click to expand...

Yup. And people can marry animals and inanimate objects as well. Or marry 12 women if so desired. Marriage already has a definition, if you want to set up other types of unions, you can call it something else.
 
MrFedEx

MrFedEx

Engorged Member
JL 0513 said:
Yup. And people can marry animals and inanimate objects as well. Or marry 12 women if so desired. Marriage already has a definition, if you want to set up other types of unions, you can call it something else.
Click to expand...


Yep. I see people requesting to marry animals and inanimate objects all the time. And in Utah, we already have polygamy. Just ask Warren Jeffs. Your "argument" is flaccid and weak, just like other parts of your anatomy. The marriage "definition" is the Christian one. Our Constitution guarantees us freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion, so you can't impose a Christian definition of marriage.

Simple.
 
JL 0513

JL 0513

Well-Known Member
DriveInDriveOut said:
The real question is, why do you use bestiality in an argument against gay marriage?
Click to expand...

Just using liberal like arguments. Marriage has been defined for millennia so if we are going to change it why not open it up to everyone for equality? Aren't the sickos going to feel left out and discriminated against?
 
bbsam

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
JL 0513 said:
Just heard we will now be mandated as Americans to buy at least 3lbs of broccoli a week per household. This is for the good of the country. It betters everyone's health as well as creates jobs for broccoli producers. A win win. Otherwise pay a $1,000 "tax penalty".
Click to expand...
It's to honor Justice Scalia.
 
bottomups

bottomups

Bad Moon Risen'
JL 0513 said:
Just using liberal like arguments. Marriage has been defined for millennia so if we are going to change it why not open it up to everyone for equality? Aren't the sickos going to feel left out and discriminated against?
Click to expand...
The earth being the center of the universe was believed to be true for millennia. Why not change the universe to make it so?
 
JL 0513

JL 0513

Well-Known Member
MrFedEx said:
Yep. I see people requesting to marry animals and inanimate objects all the time. And in Utah, we already have polygamy. Just ask Warren Jeffs. Your "argument" is flaccid and weak, just like other parts of your anatomy. The marriage "definition" is the Christian one. Our Constitution guarantees us freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion, so you can't impose a Christian definition of marriage.

Simple.
Click to expand...

The Constitution absolutely does not grant freedom FROM religion. Where did you hear that from? There is also no constitutional law that says "separation of church and state". A common misunderstanding. The state just can't establish an official religion. The display of religion cannot be infringed, even government displays. This has been twisted legally.
 
bbsam

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
JL 0513 said:
Just using liberal like arguments. Marriage has been defined for millennia so if we are going to change it why not open it up to everyone for equality? Aren't the sickos going to feel left out and discriminated against?
Click to expand...
It has not been defined for millennia as far as the United States and it's laws respecting the government's treatment of it's citizens.
 
Top