Magox

False. The main goal was to provide subsidies. The mechanism was a secondary issue and a woeful incompetent miscalculation from the government and the writers of the law.

I'm not going to disagree with part of what you were saying, but more important than that was providing subsidies.

You don't do your side any favors when you post. Just sayin'

That wasn't the intent that I was referring to...Like I said earlier, that was a miscalculation from the writers of the law due to their incompetence, but the real intent was providing subsidies. That's what it was about more so than who provides the subsidies.

Well, yes and no. I'm on record here for how I feel about the law, so let's keep that in mind, but having said that there are two cases that can be made for judicial activism, and they both have in my view equal merit. Yes, you can make the argument that DC Tom made about what Justice Roberts made and then you can make the argument that the law was intended to provide subsidies, the miscalculation that the administration made was that they believed that the States were going to create the exchanges, but none the less, it was always about a mechanism to provide subsidies. In my view, there would have been more a case of judicial activism by ruling against the subsidies, because basically even though we know the intent was primarily more so about the subsidy itself rather than how you provide the subsidy, you would decide to basically gut the law because of either a technical hiccup or incompetent miscalculation from the writers of the law and administration. I know I'm just repeating myself but it's important to remember the intent was always to provide subsidies.

You are entitled to your opinion and my opinion is that your view if that is your view that the Civil War did more harm than good is much closer to being a fairy tale.

This thread has gotten absurd. According to some, we've now reached the point that the results of the Civil War did nearly as much or more harm than good. And that we can declare with full certainty that slavery would have ended in 20-30 years.

And how many of those guns are purchased illegally? And again, Why the !@#$ am I talking to you??

You have come to a very sensible conclusion.

It's just an opinion piece, they have opinion writers from both the left and the right, this one is from a regular contributor from the ROOT. So, it's not "The Hill" who is throwing a fit, it's this particular dude.

If he remains healthy, he'll have a big year. Good coaching would have brought out the best in him, rather we had the Marrone era plow up the middle with no blocking. My guess is if healthy, he'll have 1200 yards rushing 500 yards receiving and 8 td's.

Oh, you do. Sorry, but my entire argument came from my personal experiences and how it helped form my thoughts, the article that you just happened to google and post was almost entirely about the historical context of the flag and it's meaning. Try again. Oh, and just because you are too pig-headed to not accept my view as legitimate doesn't make it any less so. I often find your posts to be rigid, devoid of any sense of reality, but I accept them as how you perceive things to be. See how that works?

You aren'tfixed on singular issue? Now that's a laugh, look in the mirror bud, you are as rigid as they come. Oh, and that link you just happened to google up and post, in no way shape or form mirrors the point I made. Quick, google up another Huffington Post article, maybe the next one will come a little closer to what I was saying. The article you linked, and I'm guessing you didn't read (at least I hope so, because if not, it seriously speaks to your inability to comprehend what you are reading), speaks to the history of the flag. Which ironically, was the point that you were attempting to make in that helps form your thoughts and opinions. No where in my statements did I make the case from a historical standpoint, but rather from how I formed my own thoughts from my own personal experiences and how I believe that the flag is a symbol that divides many people. Try again.

I tell you man, you are a complete tool.

That is mind-numbingly bat-schit crazy. You think that this is all some sort of conspiracist attempt to delegitimize State's rights? You do realize that it's the state that is going to decide to take down the flag from the Capitol grounds, don't you?

Why were you reading the Huffington Post? And could you please link me the part of the article that mirrored my sentiments. Thanks in advance.

It's not about feeling, ya nitwit. It's how I saw things and how I formed my thoughts on this matter, contrary to your shallow attempt to categorize it as simply another case of being Huffingtonpostonized.

Are you seriously this shallow to believe that anyone that doesn't fit your narrow world-view is someone that you can neatly put in a box and categorize it with the drivel you just spouted? It doesn't work that way, hard-head. Believe it or not, some people do think for themselves, and MY OWN personal view of the confederate flag has just about always been one of intolerance and division. My views were formed as someone who lived in the deep south for almost two decades, and I witnessed the sort of characters who burnished the flag as a symbol of pride and defiance. These individuals FROM MY EXPERIENCES were typically racist bigots, and I specially saw this first hand when I moved to Kannapolis N.C when I was a young teenager. My skin complexion is darker than most white people, but not so dark that I look like your typical Mexican field worker. However, I was relentlessly mocked by these individuals as a spik, fence jumper, etc. I saw how they spoke about black people, it was very common that they called them !@#$s and had some very hateful views. But make no bones about it, this wasn't just some one-off sort of instance, it was endemic, widespread. Now, I'm not saying that the confederate flag for all or even most people who supported it are racist or bigots, I have no way of knowing this, but from my point of view, many of the people who did support this flag enough to have it plastered in the back of their pick up truck or raised in front of their homes, were unseemly people that did hold these sentiments. That was my view, that was from my experiences. So for me, this is an issue and decision that I felt was long overdue. I never agreed with the notion of having the confederate flag, which I view as a symbol of division and intolerance should be raised on government property. If you want to raise the flag on your property or have a bumper sticker of it on the back of your truck or even put in a historical museum, that's fine by me. But in my view, never belonged on government property that could in any way or shape could possibly be misconstrued as a symbol that represented the folks of any state.

Yeah, sorta reminds me of just a few years ago when Obama said he believed that marriage should be between a man and a woman and that he was not in favor of gay marriage and then all of a sudden his view evolved. Weird.

Oh No! Tasker, you must be devastated! Rand Paul must be an avid reader of the Huffington Post.

Oh, so if you agree with the removal of the confederate flag from government property, you are now in lock step with the Huffington post? I tell you what, next time you vote, vote for someone who supports placing the Confederate flag on government property. Problem solved. No, you are wrong.

Absolutely Bman. The speech she made, in my view was about as well said as could have possibly been made. The elected officials of South Carolina disagree with you.

That's your opinion that is not shared by many others. The elected officials that represent the state of South Carolina made a decision to remove the flag from government property, and I support that decision. If it's not that important to you, then why get so upset? Clearly for many African Americans and others its an important symbolic move, that in my view was long over due.

I don't see why you are so defiant about this issue. Clearly for many people it's an important symbolic step that will help with some of the racial divide. You may not see it that way, but others do and it's clear to anyone who has been watching that this tragedy has helped bring people together, including the decision to remove this divisive symbol from government property.