1. ClevelandSideSlapper

    …because your parents have good jobs that provide healthcare for your family. Good luck getting an entry level job for any corporation that will offer a healthcare package. I guess it’s lucky you can stay on your parents’ awesome coverage til you’re 26.

    13 years ago at 3:42 pm
    1. Alotta_Fratgina

      Because individual health care plans for college age students is so expensive? It’s about two dirty thirties a month for a good plan

      13 years ago at 4:06 pm
    2. superwayne

      ^^^ I am fully covered under my job where I started 3 months ago. Including life, health, dental, and everything. For like $71 a month. It is possible.

      13 years ago at 6:26 pm
    3. Fratterson Howard

      ^^^^ You obviously don’t know a thing. It costs me 86 bucks a month for great healthcare plus dental, life, vision etc.

      ^ nevermind, you already proved my point.

      Conclusion: You’re a fuck Cleveland.

      13 years ago at 8:11 pm
    1. PIKEpledge

      ^ well it was done at the state level since no where in the constitution does it give the federal government power to control health care policy. Romney’s liberal state wanted this policy and it was popular there so you have the give the constituents what they want. This Obamacare policy is very unpopular among Americans not want wanted but it was forced down our throats anyways.

      13 years ago at 6:20 pm
    2. nubro

      It’s actually not “very unpopular among Americans.” Check the facts, kid. The support for it is actually the plurality.

      13 years ago at 10:30 pm
    3. Master_Chicken_WIng

      ^^ The facts actually side with the statement that the Pikepledge made dipshit. The obamacare legislation has a plurality against it in approval ratings and its approval added to Congress’ lowered approval rating. Check the facts before you claim your bullshit as fact, boy. I curse you for making me side with the Pikepledge due to your ignorance. Oh and when you try to say the shit is popular again, its because health care reform and specific ideas in the policy are popular but not this specific policy.

      13 years ago at 11:25 am
    4. nubro

      ^ Sorry, kiddo, but that’s just not true. I’m not sure where you’re getting your “facts,” but perhaps you should sit the next one out.

      13 years ago at 11:23 pm
    5. Master_Chicken_WIng

      I’m sure you’re right with your lack of explanation and simple “nuh uh you’re wrong”. Take a lap and hopefully you’ll actually read some shit on the way and know what your talking about, the Gallup polls are a good starting place.

      13 years ago at 12:24 pm
  2. Joran van der Frat

    Fuck John Roberts. Bush appointed him but he’s turned his back on Republican principles and votes with the pinko wing of the SC half the time now.

    13 years ago at 4:13 pm
    1. PIKEpledge

      ^ seriously I hope Roberts gets hit by a bus. He turned his back on America today.

      13 years ago at 4:24 pm
    2. RushFratbaugh

      No, he did his job by upholding a law that conflicted with his personal views. The supreme court’s job is to referee, not to be a player. The ACA was a constitutional law and therefore was enforced by the supreme court. If you really loved America so fucking much, you’d actually be happy that the only institution whose function is to be free of politicization is still functioning as such. If you want to repeal the ACA, perform your obligation as a citizen and cast a fucking vote for someone who will vote to do so.

      13 years ago at 6:34 pm
    3. Fratthew_Sperry

      Fundamentally, it is unconstitutional. The Obama campaign said themselves that “the ACA is in no way a tax”. Chief Justice Roberts took it upon himself to say, no, it is a tax. That is judicial activism, the opposite of being a referee.

      13 years ago at 7:26 pm
    4. PIKEpledge

      ^^ Rush Fratbaugh. You have the name of the most conservative talk show host in America and you are making liberal comments on the most conservative web site on the web! Fuck you.

      13 years ago at 8:55 pm
    5. Fratthew_Sperry

      ^What RushFratbaugh said was completely spot on with conservative principles. The Supreme Court and all of its proceedings are a conservative philosophy (checks and balances). But the issue with his argument is that nothing like that was seen in this case. Roberts did not act as a referee here, but as a lawmaker.

      13 years ago at 9:06 pm
    6. PIKEpledge

      ^ exactly. He named a mandate a “tax” so it’s legal if you call it a tax and illegal if you call it a mandate. That’s like me murdering someone(which is obviously illegal) but if someone says I “killed” him it’s somehow legal all of the sudden given a different word. It’s the same fucking thing!

      13 years ago at 9:29 pm
    7. Fratthew_Sperry

      ^Which he had no right to do,because as a judge, he takes the current law, whose authors said multiple times “it was not a tax”, reviews it, and makes a decision. He is not supposed to make his own definitions to any of the clauses.

      13 years ago at 9:39 pm
    8. elizabeth1

      ^^Actually, he did have the right to do that. Current constitutional law says that the Court can disregard the designated name Congress gives an exaction (whether they call it a penalty or a tax) and look at the substance and application to determine what it is. It’s called federalism and checks and balances. If Congress could call an exaction whatever they wanted and the Court, an equal branch, was powerless to say otherwise, Congress would have an unchecked power. Appreciate the fact that there are nuances in the law that you know nothing about unless you study this stuff and have some respect for the Supreme Court.

      13 years ago at 10:04 pm
    9. nubro

      Forgive me if I trust a Supreme Court Justice’s interpretation of the Constitution over your community college level understanding of it.

      13 years ago at 10:31 pm
    10. PhrattyPrep

      In regard to the “tax vs. mandate” ruling, there could be unforeseen advantages for the Republican Party both in the upcoming election and throughout the next four years. A few would be:
      1. A galvanization of the party along with a strong draw to the moderates to vote with the GOP.
      2. Because it is a tax it may be found to be much easier to repeal by congress alone than by having to go through two branches of government.
      3. Financially it will fail rapidly and force by its failure alone a repeal of its own legislation.
      4. It has the potential to turn many non-liberal/financially conservative Democrats to the GOP in November after two months of having their incomes stifled.

      13 years ago at 9:11 am
    11. sperryville

      One of Obama’s major arguments in getting moderates to support it was that it would not be a tax on the middle class. The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the ACA is indeed, a tax on the middle class, thus proving Obama to be a liar. Their decision might actually provide a brilliant opportunity for the Republicans this election season and it would be great if they could capitalize on it.

      13 years ago at 6:09 pm
    1. PIKEpledge

      ^ oh yeah. Vote for Obama he’s so fratty you fucktard. And voting for anyone other than Mitt is a vote for Obama cocksucker.

      13 years ago at 8:54 pm
    2. Mitch Comstein

      Mitt Romney = John Kerry: Two unappealing, flip flopping New England douchebags willing anything and everything to appeal the Anyone But the Incumbent crowd. Gary Johnson 2012

      13 years ago at 10:26 pm
    3. RushFratbaugh

      If the GOP really wanted to win this election, Mitt Romney would not have gotten the nominee and they would have ran their rising stars including Cantor, Rubio, Ryan, Jindal and Christie. The GOP hates Mitt Romney. There is no real support for him. I mean sure they are throwing money at him, but the base of the party is not enthusiastically behind him. It really seems as if they are waiting until 2016 they can make a push legitimate push for the White House. Its not like congress will get anything done within the next four years anyways.

      13 years ago at 12:59 pm
    1. Joran van der Frat

      I hope that ring still looks good while you’re swinging from the end of a rope.

      13 years ago at 6:02 pm
  3. Tarheel Blue

    Chief Justice Roberts’ decision makes the November election all about ObamaCare – and the President will have to defend his lies about it not being a tax, about it not raising premiums, about its costs to the Treasury, about being able to keep your own doctor. Unlike the last round Mr. President, we’ve read the bill this time – and sir we are pissed. Chief Justice Roberts’ decision will re-energize Conservatives, Tea Partiers, Libertarians, and Republicans – because now the ballot box is all that stands in the way of ObamaCare’s full implementation in 2014. Vote with your dollars and your ballot. For as of today, your government can tax you if you don’t eat your broccoli.

    13 years ago at 7:56 pm