U.S. Appeals Court Rules Against Obama's Health Care Law

Hit a little too close to home with the truth for your tate LJ? Change the Constitution in accord with the manner in which the laws of the land dictate? How utterly arechaic and messy. The progressive way, packing the Supreme Court with enough justices to impose their ideology and are willing to change the Constitution through the usurpation and condolidation of powers not delegated, is much cleaner and faster - a much more modern way of doing things. All you need is a large enough majority in one branch, a tyrant in another, and enough accomplices with seats on the court, and the Constitution can be interpreted to say anything you decide it should say, right?

Close to home? Not for me... You're the one who wants the change the Constitution to fit whatever insane cockamamie neo-nazi stuff you're drinking the Kool-Aid for this week.

Oooo.... Break out the check-off list:

regressives - check
despotism - check
tyranny/tyrant -- check
usurpation of liberty -- check


You forgot:

socialist
corrupt oligarchy
oppressive
seize power
"abolished by force of arms"


...and all the other usual trigger words of the Sovereign Citizen / Federalist / Original Intent / Constitution-worship bullsh*t checklist...

Just keep regurgitating them like the good little follower you are... You're so predictable I could practically write your posts myself.

Keep following that "Rules for Radicals" playbook girl. When you can't defeat the opposition's arguments because they are true, turn instead to an attack on the person who forwards the argument that your ideology can't defeat.

You want to break out the nazi argument? We can do that if you want, but I'm pretty sure I can draw a much more accurate parallel between FDR and Hitler than you can between Jefferson and Hitler. Give it your best shot LJ, let's see which form of governance more closely resembles facism - yours or mine. It won't even be a close contest.

PrintSmith wrote: Keep following that "Rules for Radicals" playbook girl. When you can't defeat the opposition's arguments because they are true, turn instead to an attack on the person who forwards the argument that your ideology can't defeat.

You want to break out the nazi argument? We can do that if you want, but I'm pretty sure I can draw a much more accurate parallel between FDR and Hitler than you can between Jefferson and Hitler. Give it your best shot LJ, let's see which form of governance more closely resembles facism - yours or mine. It won't even be a close contest.

rofllol rofllol rofllol rofllol

Keep the heat on Looney Jerk... she's an example of what's wrong with America....born and bred libtard.

PrintSmith wrote: Keep following that "Rules for Radicals" playbook girl. When you can't defeat the opposition's arguments because they are true, turn instead to an attack on the person who forwards the argument that your ideology can't defeat.

You want to break out the nazi argument? We can do that if you want, but I'm pretty sure I can draw a much more accurate parallel between FDR and Hitler than you can between Jefferson and Hitler. Give it your best shot LJ, let's see which form of governance more closely resembles facism - yours or mine. It won't even be a close contest.

rofllol rofllol rofllol rofllol

Keep the heat on Looney Jerk... she's an example of what's wrong with America....born and bred libtard.

You and your fantasy world aren't worth wasting the bandwidth on... But you keep regurgitating your drivel... I've got your playbook.

LadyJazzer wrote: You and your fantasy world aren't worth wasting the bandwidth on... But you keep regurgitating your drivel... I've got your playbook.

rofllol rofllol you've got my playbook...yeah, it ain't Rules for Radicals. :Snooze

LadyJazzer wrote: You and your fantasy world aren't worth wasting the bandwidth on... But you keep regurgitating your drivel... I've got your playbook.

Or are you simply unable to accomplish the task regardless of how much bandwidth you used - which is why you so quickly abandon your juvenile "nazi" rhetoric. Your earlier contribution -

You're the one who wants the change the Constitution to fit whatever insane cockamamie neo-nazi stuff you're drinking the Kool-Aid for this week.

almost precisely describes what FDR and a complicit Congress accomplished in their coup of the Supreme Court. They managed to change the Constitution to include their cockamamie ideas and ideology to destroy the system of coordinate government the Constitution ushered in.

If you don't think FDR is properly viewed through the lens of history as a tyrant, then tell us why the two term limit was so quickly added to the Constitution after he died in office - submitted to Congress and sent to the states for ratification less than 2 years after his death. It was deemed unnecessary prior to FDR and essential so quickly after his death because the nation loved him so much? Is that what you would have all of us believe? No, the truth of the matter is that his death broke the spell he had cast over the people of this nation and the nation wanted to put into place a protection for the posterity so that there would be a limit to the amount of time the next potential tyrant could hold onto executive power.

I doubt it was "the nation" that wanted to break the spell. It was more likely that the opposing party didn't want the same President in power for so long, essentially barring anyone else with Presidential aspirations from getting elected to office.

There was no coup, but thanks for playing.