Las Vegas Advisor Menu
« LVA Forums « Vegas Free-for-All

Obamacare 2017

forkushV
forkushV
May 13, 2016
10:52am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: chefantwon
Quote
Originally posted by: DonDiego
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: jatki99
..."Ultimately, this could destabilize the marketplace resulting in higher premiums for everyone," Collins wrote...
Which is EXACTLY why the Republicans brought the lawsuit. And won't DonDiego enjoy starting a new thread if that happens!

Cause the government to fail and then complain about failing government. That's the whole Republican playbook.

The Republicans brought the lawsuit because of a perceived violation of the Constitution by The Obama.

In their haste to pass the Obamacare Law at any cost by a 100% partisan vote the Democrats neglected to authorize funds for the Government subsidies. The Obama Has been spending Government funds which the Congress never authorized Him to spend.

It's a separation of powers thing; Congress must appropriate all Government spending. The President cannot spend monies the Congress has not authorized him to spend.

That is the reasoning behind the Court decision today. DonDiego finds it in accord withe Constitution; he hopes it stands. He cannot know if it will or not.

DonDiego has repeatedly stated his preference that all Laws be enforced; he also suggests the Constitution should never be violated.



Forkie doesn't like that piece of paper, the Federal Government could do SO much more if it wasn't hindered by that 200+ year old bit of rag.......
Dude, you're planning on voting for a presidential candidate who wants the federal government to discriminate based on religion, and who wants to limit free speech with libel laws that he can use against his critics, like Ted Cruz and Rich Lowry. And who wants the federal government to censor parts of the internet. And who advocates eliminating due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. And who "loves" eminent domain for private gain. Oh, and who claims the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is - get this - unconstitutional!

Until you repudiate all of the above, you have no business talking about the Constitution. It was built by great Americans, unlike Donald Trump and anyone who supports his dismantling of it.
chefantwon
chefantwon
May 13, 2016
11:08am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: chefantwon
Quote
Originally posted by: DonDiego
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: jatki99
..."Ultimately, this could destabilize the marketplace resulting in higher premiums for everyone," Collins wrote...
Which is EXACTLY why the Republicans brought the lawsuit. And won't DonDiego enjoy starting a new thread if that happens!

Cause the government to fail and then complain about failing government. That's the whole Republican playbook.

The Republicans brought the lawsuit because of a perceived violation of the Constitution by The Obama.

In their haste to pass the Obamacare Law at any cost by a 100% partisan vote the Democrats neglected to authorize funds for the Government subsidies. The Obama Has been spending Government funds which the Congress never authorized Him to spend.

It's a separation of powers thing; Congress must appropriate all Government spending. The President cannot spend monies the Congress has not authorized him to spend.

That is the reasoning behind the Court decision today. DonDiego finds it in accord withe Constitution; he hopes it stands. He cannot know if it will or not.

DonDiego has repeatedly stated his preference that all Laws be enforced; he also suggests the Constitution should never be violated.



Forkie doesn't like that piece of paper, the Federal Government could do SO much more if it wasn't hindered by that 200+ year old bit of rag.......
Dude, you're planning on voting for a presidential candidate who wants the federal government to discriminate based on religion, and who wants to limit free speech with libel laws that he can use against his critics, like Ted Cruz and Rich Lowry. And who wants the federal government to censor parts of the internet. And who advocates eliminating due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. And who "loves" eminent domain for private gain. Oh, and who claims the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is - get this - unconstitutional!

Until you repudiate all of the above, you have no business talking about the Constitution. It was built by great Americans, unlike Donald Trump and anyone who supports his dismantling of it.


You of course remember the immigration policies from the 1910's to about 1930's? The federal government limited the amount of folks from Europe, during WWI, WWII, and the Iran hostage crisis the Government limited the number of immigrants from specific countries.

Please remember in order to change that "piece of paper" you despise, it does take a rather long and drawn out process to get stuff done.

Btw, your candidate wants more of the same and to run the deficit some where near $25 to $30 trillion...
forkushV
forkushV
May 13, 2016
11:45am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: chefantwon
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: chefantwon
Quote
Originally posted by: DonDiego
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: jatki99
..."Ultimately, this could destabilize the marketplace resulting in higher premiums for everyone," Collins wrote...
Which is EXACTLY why the Republicans brought the lawsuit. And won't DonDiego enjoy starting a new thread if that happens!

Cause the government to fail and then complain about failing government. That's the whole Republican playbook.

The Republicans brought the lawsuit because of a perceived violation of the Constitution by The Obama.

In their haste to pass the Obamacare Law at any cost by a 100% partisan vote the Democrats neglected to authorize funds for the Government subsidies. The Obama Has been spending Government funds which the Congress never authorized Him to spend.

It's a separation of powers thing; Congress must appropriate all Government spending. The President cannot spend monies the Congress has not authorized him to spend.

That is the reasoning behind the Court decision today. DonDiego finds it in accord withe Constitution; he hopes it stands. He cannot know if it will or not.

DonDiego has repeatedly stated his preference that all Laws be enforced; he also suggests the Constitution should never be violated.



Forkie doesn't like that piece of paper, the Federal Government could do SO much more if it wasn't hindered by that 200+ year old bit of rag.......
Dude, you're planning on voting for a presidential candidate who wants the federal government to discriminate based on religion, and who wants to limit free speech with libel laws that he can use against his critics, like Ted Cruz and Rich Lowry. And who wants the federal government to censor parts of the internet. And who advocates eliminating due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. And who "loves" eminent domain for private gain. Oh, and who claims the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is - get this - unconstitutional!

Until you repudiate all of the above, you have no business talking about the Constitution. It was built by great Americans, unlike Donald Trump and anyone who supports his dismantling of it.


You of course remember the immigration policies from the 1910's to about 1930's? The federal government limited the amount of folks from Europe, during WWI, WWII, and the Iran hostage crisis the Government limited the number of immigrants from specific countries...
If it was done based on religion, it was a violation of the First Amendment.

And so you're cool with calling the 14th Amendment "unconstitutional?" Eminent domain for private gain? Allowing Trump to sue Ted Cruz for libel? Having the FCC fine a Fox journalist for criticizing his debate performance? Eliminating due process? Shutting down houses of worship based on prejudice.

Chef, I bet you sometimes tell acquaintances that you wore a uniform to defend the Constitution. No you didn't; for you it was just a job.
hoops2
hoops2
May 13, 2016
12:08pm
Block User
Once again when in a losing argument forky changes the subject.

drmilled
drmilled
May 14, 2016
7:34am
Block User
forkie speaks with a forked tongue....
IndyBoilerman
IndyBoilerman
May 16, 2016
1:31am
Block User
And I thought Forkie was responding to a thought about Obama apparently taking unconstitutional actions. Silly me.


Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: chefantwon
Quote
Originally posted by: DonDiego
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: jatki99
..."Ultimately, this could destabilize the marketplace resulting in higher premiums for everyone," Collins wrote...
Which is EXACTLY why the Republicans brought the lawsuit. And won't DonDiego enjoy starting a new thread if that happens!

Cause the government to fail and then complain about failing government. That's the whole Republican playbook.

The Republicans brought the lawsuit because of a perceived violation of the Constitution by The Obama.

In their haste to pass the Obamacare Law at any cost by a 100% partisan vote the Democrats neglected to authorize funds for the Government subsidies. The Obama Has been spending Government funds which the Congress never authorized Him to spend.

It's a separation of powers thing; Congress must appropriate all Government spending. The President cannot spend monies the Congress has not authorized him to spend.

That is the reasoning behind the Court decision today. DonDiego finds it in accord withe Constitution; he hopes it stands. He cannot know if it will or not.

DonDiego has repeatedly stated his preference that all Laws be enforced; he also suggests the Constitution should never be violated.



Forkie doesn't like that piece of paper, the Federal Government could do SO much more if it wasn't hindered by that 200+ year old bit of rag.......
Dude, you're planning on voting for a presidential candidate who wants the federal government to discriminate based on religion, and who wants to limit free speech with libel laws that he can use against his critics, like Ted Cruz and Rich Lowry. And who wants the federal government to censor parts of the internet. And who advocates eliminating due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. And who "loves" eminent domain for private gain. Oh, and who claims the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is - get this - unconstitutional!

Until you repudiate all of the above, you have no business talking about the Constitution. It was built by great Americans, unlike Donald Trump and anyone who supports his dismantling of it.


Terry Locke
Terry Locke
May 16, 2016
4:13am
Block User
Welcome to the LVA message boards, IndyBoilerman.
Don
Don
May 16, 2016
5:08am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: chefantwon . . .
. . .
You of course remember the immigration policies from the 1910's to about 1930's? The federal government limited the amount of folks from Europe, during WWI, WWII, and the Iran hostage crisis the Government limited the number of immigrants from specific countries...

If it was done based on religion, it was a violation of the First Amendment.

The rights guaranteed in the Constitution apply to citizens of the United States, . . . as indicted in the Preamble which identifies the establishment of the Constitution by, "We the people", thus, clearly indicating that each of the rights and privileges as recorded by the Framers are for the citizenry of this country only.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution establishes the authority of Congress, "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." Thus from a Constitutional stand point it is the responsibility of Congress to establish all laws and rules of naturalization or immigration.
The Congress may decide who may enter the Country by whatever "Rule of Naturalization" Congress establishes.
Beyond that, Congress has the authority to regulate virtually any "economic activity" (defined broadly enough to cover most migration) and that it has the authority to restrict immigration. Much as, f'rinstance, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 prevented a specific ethnic group from immigrating to the United States. (n.b. The Chinese Exclusionary Act was repealed, but that was after it had withstood a challenge and was upheld as Constitutional on the basis of the Federal Government's inherent power to restrict international migration [Ref: Chae Chan Ping v. U. S.])


n.b. Nothing within the dissertation above is meant to suggest that DonDiego favors exclusion of immigrants based solely upon their religion. However, when significant numbers among members of a specific religion are known to harbor ill will against the United States, DonDiego suggests it is not imprudent for Congress to consider implementation of just such a policy.

DonDiego requests forkushV provide a citation of that portion of the Constitution or established Law by which discrimination against potential immigrants based upon religion is forbidden.
jatki
jatki
May 16, 2016
5:21am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: DonDiego
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: chefantwon . . .
. . .
You of course remember the immigration policies from the 1910's to about 1930's? The federal government limited the amount of folks from Europe, during WWI, WWII, and the Iran hostage crisis the Government limited the number of immigrants from specific countries...

If it was done based on religion, it was a violation of the First Amendment.

The rights guaranteed in the Constitution apply to citizens of the United States, . . . as indicted in the Preamble which identifies the establishment of the Constitution by, "We the people", thus, clearly indicating that each of the rights and privileges as recorded by the Framers are for the citizenry of this country only.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution establishes the authority of Congress, "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." Thus from a Constitutional stand point it is the responsibility of Congress to establish all laws and rules of naturalization or immigration.
The Congress may decide who may enter the Country by whatever "Rule of Naturalization" Congress establishes.
Beyond that, Congress has the authority to regulate virtually any "economic activity" (defined broadly enough to cover most migration) and that it has the authority to restrict immigration. Much as, f'rinstance, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 prevented a specific ethnic group from immigrating to the United States. (n.b. The Chinese Exclusionary Act was repealed, but that was after it had withstood a challenge and was upheld as Constitutional on the basis of the Federal Government's inherent power to restrict international migration [Ref: Chae Chan Ping v. U. S.])


n.b. Nothing within the dissertation above is meant to suggest that DonDiego favors exclusion of immigrants based solely upon their religion. However, when significant numbers among members of a specific religion are known to harbor ill will against the United States, DonDiego suggests it is not imprudent for Congress to consider implementation of just such a policy.

DonDiego requests forkushV provide a citation of that portion of the Constitution or established Law by which discrimination against potential immigrants based upon religion is forbidden.



and there you have the latest lesson from DD.

ecomstoc
ecomstoc
May 16, 2016
5:31am
Block User
The illusion of the U.S. having "open" borders is ridiculous. We kept Asians out for many years. A quota system was in effect from 1921-1965 that was very restrictive.

1920-1935
President Warren G. Harding signs the Immigration Quota Act into law in 1921, after booming post-war immigration results in 590,971 people passing through Ellis Island. According to the new law, annual immigration from any country cannot exceed 3 percent of the total number of immigrants from a country living in the U.S. in 1910. The National Origins Act of 1924 goes even further, limiting total annual immigration to 165,000 and fixing quotas of immigrants from specific countries.

In 1965, President Johnson signs a new immigration and naturalization bill, the Hart-Cellar Act, which abolishes the earlier quota system based on national origin and establishes the foundations for modern U.S. immigration law. The act allows more individuals from third-world countries to enter the U.S. (including Asians, who have in the past been barred from entry) and establishes a separate quota for refugees.

https://www.history.com/topics/ellis-island

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now