Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: U.S. Supreme Court Obamacare Decision Makes Individual Mandate A Fact & Universal Healthcare Coverage A Fiction

Posted 2 years ago on June 30, 2012, 1:21 p.m. EST by vvv0630 (-63)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Individual Mandate

Supreme Court ruling re "National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius" means corporations can use federal law to force people to buy their products.

SCOTUS OBAMACARE DECISION MAKES INDIVIDUAL MANDATE A FACT & UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE COVERAGE A FICTION

If you want to read all 974 pages of the deceptively-titled "Patient Protection And Affordable Healthcare Act" (the actual Obamacare law) you can do so here:

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/

If you want to read all 193 pages of the obscurely-styled "National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius" U.S. Supreme Court decision (the actual Obamacare ruling) you can do so here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

As was the case with F. James ("Fat Jim") Sensenbrenner Jr.'s USA Patriot Act, NDAA 2012, HR347, HR658, HR3606 and so many other corporate-backed bills that have taken us down the slippery slope from freedom to fascism and widened the gap between our ruler Haves (the 1%) and serf Have Nots (the 99%), there's a good chance your Senators and Representative in Washington didn't read the law before they passed it. There's a better chance the television talking heads tripping over themselves to tell you what to think about the SCOTUS Obamacare decision didn't read that either...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-28-2012/cnn---fox-news-report-supreme-court-decision

...and it's a sad certainty that the vast majority of the American Sheeple (a) will never look up from their iPhones or away from their Fakebook pages long enough to read either the new "healthcare" rules or the ruling that proclaimed them "Constitutional" and (b) wouldn't understand all the deliberately obfuscated legalspeak if they did.

So where can Average Joe get the plain and simple truth about the "Affordable Healthcare Act (ACA)" and the Supreme Court's "NFIB v. Sebelius (11-393)" ruling?

Well according to the "truth in politics" (ugh!) watchdogs at FactCheck.org, he won't get it from Barack Obama (a.k.a. Odrona the Indefinite Detainer), and he won't get it from Mitt Romney (a.k.a. the Godfather of Obamacare)...

'With the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act on June 28, voters are guaranteed to continue hearing the same old false claims about the law from politicians. And President Barack Obama and presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney wasted little time in taking to the airwaves to rehash plenty we've fact-checked before. Obama even threw in a few new claims.

  • Obama reiterated his "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan" refrain, despite the fact that at least a few million workers won't keep their employer-sponsored plans, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

  • The president also exaggerated the benefits of the law, such as the number of young adults who were able to join their parents' plans, thanks to the law, and the number of individuals who will receive rebates issued by insurance companies that didn't spend enough premium dollars on health care.

  • Romney repeated a number of distortions, saying that the law would "cut Medicare" by $500 billion and that it "adds trillions to our deficits." That's a reduction in the future growth of Medicare spending over 10 years. And CBO says the law would reduce the deficit.

  • Romney said the law is a "job-killer." But CBO says the law would have a "small" impact on jobs, mainly affecting the amount of labor workers choose to supply. Those getting subsidies, for instance, might work less hours since they're paying less for health care.

  • Romney claimed the law "puts the federal government between you and your doctor." The law would set minimum benefits packages, but medical services will not be government-run, nor does the law allow for rationing of care.'

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/romney-obama-uphold-health-care-falsehoods/

Average Joe won't get the plain and simple truth about what the SCOTUS Obamacare decision really means from Congress, from TV coverage, or from the corporate-sponsored political puppets representing either side of the "Two-Party Tyranny" the global elite use to keep us divided and fighting each other rather than united and attacking them. Fortunately, however, he can get a glimpse of it here:

"A deeply divided Court held that the individual mandate, which requires that virtually all Americans either obtain health insurance or pay a penalty by 2014, is constitutional... Defending the constitutionality of the mandate, the government's primary argument was that Congress can require everyone to buy health insurance using its power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, because the failure to buy insurance shifts the costs of health care for the uninsured to health-care providers, insurance companies, and everyone who does have health insurance. Five Justices - the Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito - all rejected that argument. But the government still won, because a different set of five Justices – the Chief Justice and Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan – agreed that the mandate was constitutional, but for a different reason... Although the Chief Justice rejected the government's Commerce Clause argument, he agreed with one of the government's alternative arguments: the mandate imposes a tax on people who do not buy health insurance, and that tax is something that Congress can impose using its constitutional taxing power."

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/todays-health-care-decision-in-plain-english/

The bottom line is this:

As were "Citizens United v. FEC" (which allows global and even foreign corporations to buy our elections) and "AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion" (which makes consumer class actions against corporations infinitely more difficult), the SCOTUS "NFIB v. Sebelius" decision is a BIG WIN for corporations in general and health care and insurance companies in particular. Contrary to the claims of clueless Obamapologists from coast to coast, neither Obamacare nor this ruling "paves the way for Universal Healthcare Coverage". Instead, they set the precedent for more individual mandates by which the corporations that control our politicians and through them our government can order us to order their products.

REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS: ALL PROBLEMS, NO SOLUTION.

END TWO-PARTY TYRANNY: OUR SECOND REVOLUTION!


NOTE TO TWITTER USERS: Since our recent unrelated disclosures that (a) eating a bowl of Cheerios is no more "heart healthy" than eating a bowl of dirt ( http://bit.ly/zDYa45 ) and (b) many American Bikers suffer from Sensenbrenner Syndrome ( http://bit.ly/MBBIBQ ), tweets from @VVVPR are being blocked from the Twitter search stream. If you are a Twitter user, we ask you to contact @Support and demand this corporate fascist censorship be ended:

https://support.twitter.com/forms/general?subtopic=web_search


IronBoltBruce via VVV PR ( http://veritasvirtualvengeance.com | http://twitter.com/vvvpr )

Related Image: http://veritasvirtualvengeance.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/individual_mandate.jpg

Related Video (A MUST SEE): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuvkXqE8HDw

Tag: #obamacare, #romneycare, #healthcare, #scotus, #sebelius, #aca, #universalhealthcare, #sensenbrenner, #democrats, #republicans, #gop, #demopublicans, #bushbamney, #obama, #romney, #fascism, #fascists, #kleptocracy, #anonymous, #ows, #revolution

Key: obamacare, romneycare, healthcare, health care, scotus, supreme court, nfib v. sebelius, affordable healthcare act, affordable care act, aca, sebelius, single payer, universal healthcare, universal health care, sensenbrenner, democrats, republicans, gop, bushbamney, obama, romney, fascism, fascists, kleptocracy, anonymous, ows, revolution

101 Comments

101 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 8 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I have to side with Judge Clarence Thomas who wrote the dissenting opinion:

“What is absolutely clear, affirmed by the text of the 1789 Constitution, by the Tenth Amendment ratified in 1791, and by innumerable cases of ours in the 220 years since, is that there are structural limits upon federal power, upon what it can prescribe with respect to private conduct, and upon what it can impose upon the sovereign States.”

“To say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute, but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling. Taxes have never been popular, see, e.g., Stamp Act of 1765, and in part for that reason, the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Representatives. See Art. I, §7, cl. 1. That is to say, they must originate in the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at their next election, which is never more than two years off.”

“The values that should have determined our course today are caution, minimalism, and the understanding that the Federal Government is one of limited powers. But the Court’s ruling undermines those values at every turn. In the name of restraint, it overreaches. In the name of constitutional avoidance, it creates new constitutional questions. In the name of cooperative federalism, it undermines state sovereignty.”

“The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our Government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty at peril. Today’s decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead, our judgment today has disregarded it.”

[-] 1 points by enough (589) 2 years ago

Totally agree.

John Roberts is more concerned about the integrity of the Supreme Court and his self-importance than the integrity of our Constitution. The ObamaCare bill is dishonest and so is Roberts. It is amazing how much damage one unelected individual can wreck on our liberty just because he can. Roberts lied his way onto the Court by swearing he would not legislate from the bench. He thinks he is clever twisting our Constitution into a pretzel for some crass political purpose. Instead, he proved that he a coward and complete idiot. The integrity of the Supreme Court has been irrevocably undermined by Roberts bonehead decision. The other four judges who voted along with Roberts are clearly party hacks not worth a warm bucket of piss.

Listen to Peter Schiff rip him a new one with his clear-eyed analysis of the Roberts decision:

http://www.europac.net/media/video_blog/supreme_court_wrong_obamacare_unconstitutional

[-] 1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

You have to remember that Roberts was a Bush appointee. The Constitution must be judged conservatively in respect to the preservation of that verbiage intended to afford some maximum permissible freedom. Here it was not judged conservatively; it was rewritten. And what I want to know is who got to Roberts, and how, because he has TURNED; he's been BOUGHT. And I am not liking it.

[-] 2 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

You don't get the big picture here, pal. The corporations wanted the Individual Mandate precedent set, and their puppet Roberts got it done in a way that both parties could come away with something: The "Obamacare!" brag for the Democrats, and the "It's a tax!" consolation for the Republicans.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Hmm... well we know which corporations wrote the healthcare bill, so let's get on it! Let's find out how they bought Roberts because I really want to know. This is NOT merely partisan and we know this because we lost in Arizona, too. The history of immigration politics and legislation has always been one of restrictionism weighed against an open door or open border policy but in the past even those organizations most liberal have agreed to the exclusion and deportability of the criminal; this is the first time in our nation's history that the alien criminal has been deemed to be admissible, as a landmark decision by the Obama administration with the support of the Court - Roberts has been bought; I want to know how.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by enough (589) 2 years ago

You're right. Anyone reading Roberts' argument can see he changed his mind after first agreeing to shoot down ObamaCare in its entirety. Either someone got to him as you suggest, or he decided to become a politician instead of a jurist, or he showed himself to be cowardly idiot, or all of the above. The result is same either way. He did back-flips to find a way to uphold ObamaCare with specious reasoning. Roberts placed his heavy thumb on the scales of justice and made a mockery of our Constitution.

Only uninformed individuals would hail Roberts decision as a victory of sorts. All others know a colossal travesty of justice occurred here and are rightfully angry. Roberts, in a single stroke, has transformed the third branch of government, composed of unelected jurists, into another political body and, therefore, stripped it of its originally intended function as an important check and balance. Roberts has showed us that a village idiot can qualify as a Constitutional scholar.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

In both cases, Roberts and Ginsburg, they cite Filburn which everyone knows was bogus... Ginsburg's entire argument is bogus even down to the analogies he makes use of in reference to "inactivity"; they're just not apt analogies or examples. And everything about the AFA from its creation, to the unconstitutional twist of budget reconciliation, to the arbitrary expansion of the Commerce Clause, which is now completely divorced from its original intent, is bogus and disturbing. We don't have a Constitution in this country anymore; there is no need of a Supreme Court to decide this nonexistent Constitution, and anybody who believes we do, and that there is, is an absolute fool. We now serve at the King's pleasure.

[-] 1 points by enough (589) 2 years ago

I agree. Notice how coward Roberts waited until the last day of the Court session to announce his bogus ruling, after which he immediately took off for Europe. He can run be he can't hide. He will forever be linked to judicial malpractice he committed in the AFA case because he thought it was more important to uphold the integrity of the Court than to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The only thing this half-ass politician accomplished was to show himself to be a liar who legislates from the bench. This is a case of a pseudo-judge trying to be too clever by half. We have enough politicians littering the White House and the Congress. We don't need more bullshit politicians on the Supreme Court. The Court's function as a critical check and balance on the other two branches of government has been severely undermined.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

wow

will this get people angry enough to ignore the wars?

will the fact the bill pays of unnecessary insurance companies by lost in the (tax/penalty) print?

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by Shule (2036) 2 years ago

The image referring to a pack of gum is misleading. Unlike gum, health care is not an option. It is a necessity like water. Sooner or later, as part of the aging process, one comes to health care, or die early. It is not unreasonable to have everyone step up to the responsibility of helping collectively pay for something everyone eventually will use.

I'm not a big fan of Obama-care, but to infer that one should have the option to opt out of helping pay for health care is simply irresponsible.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Sooner or later, as part of the aging process, one comes to health care

which is why healthcare does not make much sense as an insurance

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

nice

[-] -2 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

You are methodically dumbing down this forum and thereby any respect others might give it, MattLHolck. If you are being paid to do so, you will no doubt continue. If you are not, please post your moronic one-liners elsewhere. Thanks.

[-] -1 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

Healthcare is a necessity. But just like packs of gum, private health insurance policies are not. No cigar...

[-] 2 points by Shule (2036) 2 years ago

How do you pay for your health care?

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

how do we pay for everyone's healthcare

[-] 0 points by Shule (2036) 2 years ago

Mostly private health care insurance right now, along with some government funded medicare for the elderly, and disabled. And also not everybody is getting what can be called adequate healthcare right now.

[-] 1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

I did it initially by serving in the Armed Forces; that led to employment in the defense industries followed by civil service because all of these offered free or less costly healthcare as an incentive. This has been the American way for the working class since WWII. This bill does not in any way alter the formula; it merely drives up the cost of our health insurance, expands medicaid rolls while lessening benefit to those elderly on Medicare, and increases both Federal and State taxes. Try telling your rant of shared responsibility to those so responsible and see what they tell you. I'd also be very curious to see that first 1040 complete with it's Opt-out box for those self employed head of households who cannot afford a $15,000 family policy and have but little choice to pay the fee, without criminal penalty; you're kidding, right?

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Bet u a Dollar, I bet you a C note that your analysis is off. The reason health insurance keeps going up is because it is a against the law for a hospital to turn a way those with out insurance, and medical bills do not effect ones FICA score; therefore those of you who pay their premiums are seeing your cost go up because there is a demographic using hospital services and not paying their fair share.

Most people say that the young should have a choice whether they want to buy insurance or not, but, speaking from experience, the young play it fast and loose with their physical well being, so they are most likely to end up in the emergency room. Whether you are in good health or not, the probability that you will end up in the emergency room is high. Fighting over whether it should be the individual, the states, or the Federal government who makes the decision for something we should all have is silly in my mind. You are forced to buy home insurance, car insurance and many other insurances.

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Health insurance must necessarily increase due to the expanded coverage; the gradated fee which none must pay will not offset this cost, let alone the expansion of medicaid. And you're wrong; no one has a shared responsibility regarding healthcare for any demographic; nor is access to healthcare to be considered an unalienable right; those unalienable end with "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This is not merely an ideal; it's philosophical "truth." We have no responsibility, nor will I accept any responsibility.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2036) 2 years ago

I suppose that gets into to why we have so many problems in this country. You do not feel responsible....

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

I am not responsible and find it rather offensive that you would even suggest that I am.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2036) 2 years ago

Then I don't feel responsible either. So should I see your bleeding head lying on the side of the road should you have the misfortune of an accident, (but I'll still pray to God that you won't), I'll just drive on by.

Cheerio

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

To suggest that those who are paying taxes are responsible for the healthcare of those capable yet poor is rather absurd. If this feeling of a shared responsibility is the opinion of some minority (51 votes) of elitist Congressmen, then they should pay for healthcare. But they don't; they pass this along to working class comfortable and the middle class.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Shule (2036) 2 years ago

I can understand some concern about the "mandate" in the APPACC legislation, but the legislation does provide consideration for those who cannot pay, Tax credits and financial assistance are available to households making up to $88,000/yr; that covers about 99% of everybody. I can only conclude a lot of this "mandate" hubbub is nothing more than right wing political rhetoric in an election year.

[-] 1 points by enough (589) 2 years ago

John Roberts did the biggest belly flop in the history of U.S. jurisprudence. It has been confirmed by CBS that he switched his initial position from throwing out ObamaCare in its entirety to the twisted contradictory ruling he wound up with.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/roberts-switched-health-care-reform-vote-cbs-reports-153056293.html

Roberts thought he was clever playing politics with the Constitution instead of being a jurist like he is supposed to be. At his confirmation, he said he would call balls and strikes like he sees them. Instead, he threw a wild pitch that took out his own team in the dugout. We have enough politicians littering the White House and the Congress. Now we have a half-ass politician on the Supreme Court. To make matters worse, he is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

[-] 1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

A lot of what you write here is a bunch of crap; to start with Roberts threw out the Commerce Clause. Secondly it was not just Congress that failed to read the bill; the Supreme Court never read it either. Thirdly, it will be ten years plus before anyone knows what this bill means. But there are definite certainties: the price of health insurance is going up and benefits derived will necessarily continue to diminish; Federal taxes are increasing, as well as most State taxes (but not all, since Obama cut a lot of deals) as a result of both expanded medicaid rolls and the addition of tens of thousands of employees. And thanks to Roberts in divorcing tax from commerce, we can now be taxed for inactivity. The other thing we should add to this is that with a growing population this country will never, ever, be able to afford the single-payer many suggest, especially in light of continuously expanding unemployment.

[-] -3 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

Nothing I wrote here is "crap". I never said Roberts didn't throw out the Commerce Clause, prick. I also never said it wasn't just Congress that didn't read the bill. And who the hell are you to say "it will be ten years plus before anyone knows what this bill means"?

If you want to pontificate, knock yourself out. Just don't open up with a bunch of lies about this posting. Asshole...

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Everything U write is crap.

[-] 1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Go fuck yourself, dooshbag... and I can tell from your post that not only have you not read the 193 page decision but you have no intention of reading it, do you? Talk about pontification... and yes, it will be decades before the full impact of this bill is hammered out by the Fed, states, municipalities, employers, employees, self employed, unemployed, the medicated and medi-caided, the medi-cared... as determined by judges and attorneys through innumerable court cases. In the meantime. I think I'm just gonna sit here on my couch indefinitely and pay my fine for the inactivity without penalty (as if doing nothing was heretofore ever illegal).

[-] 1 points by CentralPaFarm (4) from Thompsontown, PA 2 years ago

"OBAMACARE" because Obama Cares

[-] -1 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

Why the Health Care Mandate is a TAX on the Lower Class:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-the-health-care-mandate-is-a-tax-on-the-lower-/

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

You mean to tell me that it is only 974 pages? I must have heard a hundred GOP Congressmen and 500 GOP talking head railing about it being over 2,000 pages. I am sure you heard the same thing. And now I am hearing rumors that there isn't any death panels in it?

Why, what is a citizen to believe? Were those Congressmen actually lying? And all of those talking heads and pundits lying also? It makes you wonder what else they might have been lying about. I am chagrined.

[-] 2 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 2 years ago

how do you know when a politian is lying? when he/she opens their mouth

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

And that is true.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

That is not the full act. That is just the first section. There are 10 sections to download.

The full version is 2409 pages and can be found in a single PDF file here. http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/authorities/patient-protection.pdf

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Gosh, thanks. I am sure glad they were telling me the truth, the whole....

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

Wrong. The entire act is downloable in a couple of ways from the link we provided, including the ten titles separately.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Well wrong depends on what you are talking about.

There are many varieties using many fonts and spacing and downloads however the official document used by the congress with line numbers on every page is 2409 pages.

The person was questioning why everyone was saying it was over 2,000 pages. I was giving an honest answer. It is because the document with the line numbers is 2409 pages. It allows them to refer to a clause or section as "page 1204 line 21" when debating the bill.

[-] -2 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

FWIW, they played the same reformat to change the page-count game on the USA Patriot Act and we were finally forced to go to word count. Guess we're headed there again...

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I was not claiming you were posing anything that was false I was just trying to clear up the "why did they say" issue.

I just looked and the bottom of the page you provided a link to and there is a link the the 2409 page version.

[-] -2 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

Point proven...

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

What point was proven?

[-] -2 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

What point do you think was proven?

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

That there are various formats of the Healthcare Act out there and only one of them was used by congress.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

Spin away, but the problem is not the Republicans OR the Democrats. The problem is the Democrats AND the Republicans.

Republicans and Democrats: All Problems, No Solution.

End Two-Party Tyranny: Our Second Revolution!

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Rebublicans and Democrats don't have any solutions. The Republicans want to repeal and replace. I don't have a problem with repeal if the replace part is right. The replace part that the Republicans offer is absolutely unacceptable.

In essence, what you are saying is revolution and replace. First, have you actually known anybody who has been through a revolution? It isn't the same as repeal. It involved a whole lot of death and destruction. Not just destruction of physical assets, but destruction of culture, and systems and relationships and technology and families and friends and a lot of glue that hold a society together. It is pretty cavalier to say, "Well, we will have a revolution and then things will be great." The best revolution is like having three incurable diseases at the same time. You can't expect to live through it and if you do, you will probably never be well enough to use a wheel chair.

And if you do live through it, the solutions still have to come from us. Not from old book or manuscript or a fanticized account or version from someone who wasn't there. It is invented and sold to real people one little move at a time.

So far , neither you nor no one associated with your philosophy, has convinced me that you really know how to put the unique pieces of OUR society back together. This ain't my first rodeo and a slogan or a couple of references to Paris experiments are not going to get it. You have a very fat, very contemporary instruction manual to write before you convince me and a 100 million Americans to light a match with only half a can of Diet Coke to put it out if something goes wrong. You have some dues to pay before the Second Revolution gets any foot soldiers.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Repair what is broken - revolution - the bloody kind - ends up swapping one set of abusers for another set of abusers.

Social reform does not need to be violent - Do Not Be Suckered into VIOLENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Here is what I just finished writing ion another thread. I would link to it but I forgot which one it is. The posted said Repubs and Dems don't have any solutions.... so the second Revolution ..... My answer:

Rebublicans and Democrats don't have any solutions. The Republicans want to repeal and replace. I don't have a problem with repeal if the replace part is right. The replace part that the Republicans offer is absolutely unacceptable.

In essence, what you are saying is revolution and replace. First, have you actually known anybody who has been through a revolution? It isn't the same as repeal. It involved a whole lot of death and destruction. Not just destruction of physical assets, but destruction of culture, and systems and relationships and technology and families and friends and a lot of glue that hold a society together. It is pretty cavalier to say, "Well, we will have a revolution and then things will be great." The best revolution is like having three incurable diseases at the same time. You can't expect to live through it and if you do, you will probably never be well enough to use a wheel chair.

And if you do live through it, the solutions still have to come from us. Not from old book or manuscript or a fanticized account or version from someone who wasn't there. It is invented and sold to real people one little move at a time.

So far , neither you nor no one associated with your philosophy, has convinced me that you really know how to put the unique pieces of OUR society back together. This ain't my first rodeo and a slogan or a couple of references to Paris experiments are not going to get it. You have a very fat, very contemporary instruction manual to write before you convince me and a 100 million Americans to light a match with only half a can of Diet Coke to put it out if something goes wrong. You have some dues to pay before the Second Revolution gets any foot soldiers.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

The original is just above and what I added to in agreement with:

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (9762) from Coon Rapids, MN 17 minutes ago

Repair what is broken - revolution - the bloody kind - ends up swapping one set of abusers for another set of abusers.

Social reform does not need to be violent - Do Not Be Suckered into VIOLENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


It is also why I added the move to amend update ( just below ).

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I agree with your sentiments.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Time to stop feeding this corpoRAT SHILL posting of that loser RustyButtBruce. {:-])

[-] -1 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

More false "corporate shill" accusations from DKAtoday, the worst lying troll on this forum.

[-] -2 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

Thanks for the bump. Please bump us again quoting the specific section of our original post above which leads you to believe we are corporate shills.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Move to Amend - update.

The National Campaign to End Corporate Personhood and Demand Real Democracy! Move to Amend

Dear Supporters,

We want to send out a big THANK YOU to everyone who called - or tried to call - Sen. Dick Durbin's office yesterday to ask that MTA be invited to speak at the Senate hearing next month!

We don't know how many calls were made, but Durbin's lines were jammed ALL DAY LONG, so rest assured - whether you got through or not - we made our voices heard!

You called in from all over the U.S. (including Hawaii and Alaska!) to report on your calls, and that was very helpful.

Towards the end of the day, we started to get some very interesting report backs from people who actually did get through to Durbin's office. Durbin's staffers started to tell callers that THEY had reached out to MTA, and that MTA either: has been invited; will be invited; or, that discussions are ongoing about MTA's participation.

That's not exactly true -- WE reached out to Durbin's office, not the other way around; and, we have NOT been formally invited to participate in the hearing, YET . . . but it is a hopeful sign!

We will let you know, immediately, if we do get an invite.

So, on behalf of the entire Executive Committee, I want to thank you again for responding so overwhelmingly to our call for help!

ONWARD!

Steve Justino

MOVE TO AMEND

PO Box 610, Eureka CA 95502 | (707) 269-0984 |

[-] -2 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

Our system is FUBAR and cannot be repaired from within:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."--Thomas Jefferson

It's that time again...

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Are you working for Homelandsecurity now as an instigator?

You are such a corpoRAT SHILL.

[-] 0 points by m4trix87 (71) 2 years ago

So, is the whole anarchist movement in the US (who wants to overthrow the system as it is), including Adbusters who started OWS, employed by Homeland Security?

By your reasoning, yes.

[-] -2 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

Thanks for the bump. Please bump us again quoting the specific section of our original post above which leads you to believe we work for Homeland Security or otherwise are corporate shills.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

a call for blood

[-] -2 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

Our system is FUBAR and cannot be repaired from within:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."--Thomas Jefferson

It's that time again...

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Are you working for Homelandsecurity now as an instigator?

You are such a corpoRAT SHILL.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the call for violence

[-] -1 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

Thanks for the bump. Please bump us again quoting the specific section of our original post above which leads you to believe we work for Homeland Security or otherwise are corporate shills.

[-] 1 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

You used the word.... "WE"... who is WE??????????????

ha...

[-] 0 points by Shule (2036) 2 years ago

When the many of us say revolution, some of us are saying revolution in thought; that is to radically alter our way of thinking about things. Things about how we live, what we value, how we should govern ourselves, and what we as individuals should do. That does not necessarily mean making a violent revolution to oust a government. We can very easily morph our government into something else, something better, once we have revolutionized our thought.

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

We're already a country at war. But this is not revolution; it's civil war as states opt out, secede and nullify. Which is exactly what New York will do because our counties are broke and we can't afford the increased medicaid match.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

This isn't war and anyone who has been in one will tell you. This is corruption and posturing. There won't be any secessions, although there are some that I would like to see go..

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

No, you are quite wrong; this is an internal cultural war. And I think we will see some secessions, the Constitutionality of which has already been decided; nullification though is one subject the Supremes have never had the audacity to broach, because it's definitely Constitutional.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

War is war. People not killing each other, that is what war isn't. Other things are metaphores, which aren't wars. They are things that resemble, in some distant way, some aspect of war. There is nothing that isn't killing that is like killing on a very large scale, like thousands, tens of thousands and millions. which is what war is. One is Lake Huron and the other is a glass of water.

I am not "quite wrong." You will see a lot of posturing, and breast beating and whining and even though the country would be better of without maybe a dozen or so, we will never be so fortunate over the next decade or so.

[-] -2 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

"So far , neither you nor no one associated with your philosophy, has convinced me that you really know how to put the unique pieces of OUR society back together."

You posted this in the wrong thread, cowboy. I am a Jeffersonian - which among other things means I am a philosophical anarchist who accepts government as a necessary evil but believes the best government is less government. It also means that - for the sake of my grandchildren and not myself - I believe what our greatest founding father wrote over two hundred years ago is more timely now than ever before:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."--Thomas Jefferson

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

My mistake was in group ropin' one too meany beeves.

However, loving Jefferson as I do, I realize that he also made a mistake occasionally and that is one quote that is being abused a great deal more and in ways that he never anticipated or intended. His biggest mistake in this respect was inventing a machine that copied every thing he wrote. And if you interpret it the way that our fringe folk popularly are, my challenge to you to deal with the consequences of spilling the blood of patriots and tyrants would apply. Many of those who feature themselves as patriots would don the other mantle in a heart beat. That is not a solution.

[-] -2 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

Before I give you a serious reply, please post a link to a substantial authoritative source that validates your claim that the quote in question is "...being abused a great deal more and in ways that he never anticipated or intended". References to psychic mediums, séances or Ouija Board sessions do not count.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I am not responsible for your education but my family came to America in 1634 and my ancestor signed the charter for the first 13 militias in Mass. and was the officer in charge of one of them. My line line was living very near Daniel Shays and must have been involved in the Rebellion that Jefferson supported and resulted in 12 amendments 10 of which became the Bill of Rights. That was what he was talking about. The farmers of Mass. (and several of my relatives were farmers in the area) were being ripped off by the Eastern Mass. banks very much in the same way as we are today.

He did not take revolution lightly, but they were in the closing stages of one and he was trying to come out of it with something that would work. Since the Mass. Bay Company had incorporated a list of liberties very similar (and more extensive) to the Bill of Rights. So, he knew it should have been in the original draft and that it shouldn't be ratified without it. It shows his passion about the issue. The context is the same in some respects and very different in others. But those words should not be thrown around casually. I will let you do your own further research but don't bother with your serious reply, I have reason to doubt it.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jefffed.html

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants"

Writing to William Smith (1755-1816), John Adams' secretary and future son-in-law, Thomas Jefferson seemed to welcome Shays' Rebellion in Massachusetts: "god forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion . . . the tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it's natural manure." Jefferson was confident that rather than repression, the "remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them."

"Jefferson objects to absence of Bill of Rights

Thomas Jefferson's December 20, 1787, letter to James Madison contains objections to key parts of the new Federal Constitution. Primarily, Jefferson noted the absence of a bill of rights and the failure to provide for rotation in office or term limits, particularly for the chief executive. During the writing and ratification of the constitution, in an effort to influence the formation of the new governmental structure, Jefferson wrote many similar letters to friends and political acquaintances in America. Jefferson objects to absence of Bill of Rights"

"Thomas Jefferson's December 20, 1787, letter to James Madison contains objections to key parts of the new Federal Constitution. Primarily, Jefferson noted the absence of a bill of rights and the failure to provide for rotation in office or term limits, particularly for the chief executive. During the writing and ratification of the constitution, in an effort to influence the formation of the new governmental structure, Jefferson wrote many similar letters to friends and political acquaintances in America."

[-] -2 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

Your genealogy adds nothing to the discussion and your references betray you: Nothing you post here suggests Jefferson did not intend his advice for future generations of Americans. Quite the contrary.

Who are you working for?

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I don't think he was given to conversing with the future. The letter clearly wasn't addressed to future generations. It was addressed to a single person whom he new well.and was one of many pleadings he wrote to influence his peers to support the inclusion of them the case for inclusion of enumerated rights.

My family were among the many who had lost most of their wealth by having to accept Continental dollars for their farms in Northern Connecticut and having bought others when the moved back to Berkshire County, we then being threatened with foreclosure by the Boston Banks, which ui what gave rise to the rebellion and it's demands that Jefferson was supporting as a means to the Bill of Rights adopted and included in the Constitution which was failing to achieve ratification in states in addition to Massachusetts.

It was his unique practice to save copies of his personal correspondence, unlike any of his contemporaries and he invented the means to do it.

I am retired and work for no one and speak for no one and make no pretense of doing so. And who do you work for, as if either were relevant? I know what I know because I have an interest that long predates this poor discussion.

Did you know Jefferson well? And why would you conclude that a personal letter addressed to a friend of his was secretly addressed to you in some future time?

[-] -2 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

How well did I know Jefferson? At least as well if not better than you did. And I agree: This is a poor discussion. I participate in it only to bump the post.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

An empty gesture.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

A democrat who is against the democrats. Would only make sense to RustyButBruce the PR loser.

Jeffersonian Ideology [ushistory.org] www.ushistory.org/us/20b.asp Jefferson's experience of Federalist repression in the late 1790s led him to more clearly define a central concept of American democracy. Jefferson's stature as ...

[-] -2 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

There is absolutely no correlation between the "democrats" of the Jeffersonian era and the corporate-controlled "Democrats" who comprise one wing of our contemporary Two-Party Tyranny. Are you a Democratic Party plant, or just another narrow-eyed low-Q forum troll?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Hey RustyButt hows the PR loser doin today? Don't feel the need to answer as - Looks like you are just as screwed-up as ever.

[-] -2 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

I don't know who RustyButt is and don't care to know slime like you, but please do keep posting to this thread. You not only bump our post but prove our point re clueless Obamapologists.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Bingo. Anyone who doesnt agree is really only getting in the way of real change.

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

What's the difference? Neither Congress or the Supremes read it.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

What they said about it? What they want to do about it?

[-] 0 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

ha... BUT IT DOES PROVIDE THE POOR... WITH FREE HEALTHCARE.... so it may not be universal... but it will be free.. or almost free for all the poor. THAT... is the point.... The guy who started this thread... is clearly a republican working for Romney.

[-] 1 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

Ill say it again..... ha... BUT IT DOES PROVIDE THE POOR... WITH FREE HEALTHCARE.... so it may not be universal... but it will be free.. or almost free for all the poor. THAT... is the point.... The guy who started this thread... is clearly a republican working for Romney.

[-] 0 points by m4trix87 (71) 2 years ago

"Congress can require everyone to buy health insurance using its power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, because the failure to buy insurance shifts the costs of health care for the uninsured to health-care providers, insurance companies, and everyone who does have health insurance. "

Basically they're saying that we should be forced to buy healthcare to not force the health-care providers, insurance companies etc (1%) to take the costs of healthcare.

This is anti-economic equality, thus conservative and reactionary and also fascist.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

insurance is unnecessary book keeping that automation and communication can eliminate

[-] -2 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

What you posted here is semiliterate nonsense, as are most of your posts.

[-] -1 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

Your quote is irrelevant. The Commerce Clause argument lost. Did you not read before you typed?

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

Here you will find a despicable distortion of the truth:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/damn-communists-marxists-socialists/

[-] -2 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

Noam Chomsky on Obama: Worse than Bush and Blair:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/noam-chomsky-on-obama-worse-than-bush-and-blair/

[-] -2 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

Obamacare is Corporate Welfare For Private Insurance:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/obamacare-is-corporate-welfare-for-private-insuran/

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

good luck getting rimrod to pick that up

[-] -2 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

The fact that a state government is getting away with an individual mandete does not justify letting the federal government get away with the same crime:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/good-bye-democracy-the-supreme-court-has-sealed-it/#comment-774601

[-] -2 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

Good bye Democracy. The Supreme Court has sealed it's fate:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/good-bye-democracy-the-supreme-court-has-sealed-it/

[-] -3 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

Worth re-reading in context of the actual decision:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-demand-real-healthcare-99/

[-] -3 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

VQkag2 is lying here, as the posting above proves:

http://occupywallst.org/article/we-demand-real-healthcare-99/#comment-773975