Comments on: The Supremes and the individual mandate at the federal level https://thenewneo.com/2012/03/19/the-supremes-and-the-individual-mandate-at-the-federal-level/ A blog about political change, among other things Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:20:12 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0 By: Ymarsakar https://thenewneo.com/2012/03/19/the-supremes-and-the-individual-mandate-at-the-federal-level/#comment-333840 Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:20:12 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/?p=14741#comment-333840 Beverly, as I said before about that issue, everything the Left does is a sleeper weapon designed for Final Hour. People can discount and call it harmless, but Bush and Reagan aren’t in power, while the Left is. It doesn’t matter what Bush and Reagan did with those Executive Orders. Give Bush Fast and Furious, and what did he do with it? Give evil bureaucrats Fast and Furious and what did they do with it? One had some benefit to law and order, while the other one…

This comparison is something Americans continue to refuse to accept, because it would force them to see the truth of the Left. And the truth of their own selves.

]]> By: Ymarsakar https://thenewneo.com/2012/03/19/the-supremes-and-the-individual-mandate-at-the-federal-level/#comment-333837 Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:17:47 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/?p=14741#comment-333837 Totalitarian regimes are very creative when it comes to justifying their own aristocratic fetishes.

]]> By: Steve https://thenewneo.com/2012/03/19/the-supremes-and-the-individual-mandate-at-the-federal-level/#comment-333607 Tue, 20 Mar 2012 05:12:30 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/?p=14741#comment-333607 P.S. I know Paul Tsongas is one of the rare exceptions.

]]> By: Beverly https://thenewneo.com/2012/03/19/the-supremes-and-the-individual-mandate-at-the-federal-level/#comment-333600 Tue, 20 Mar 2012 05:00:48 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/?p=14741#comment-333600 FrontPage magazine has a hair-raising article about Obama’s drastic expansion of the Defense Powers Act of 1950 —

“The new executive order gives the president and his executive branch agency heads far more power than was contemplated by Congress in the Defense Production Act (“Act”).”

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/03/19/another-obama-power-grab/

They’re pointing out some major things that the WND overlooked in its article downplaying the threat. Check it out: if FP is right, we’re in deep trouble.

]]> By: Steve https://thenewneo.com/2012/03/19/the-supremes-and-the-individual-mandate-at-the-federal-level/#comment-333598 Tue, 20 Mar 2012 04:56:49 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/?p=14741#comment-333598 Didn’t the fact that all the usual suspects were behind AGW tip you off that this might be the latest in the series of scares by the malthusian luddite left? Again, if Newt and Romney were neophytes I would understand that they might take things on face value but they lived through peak oil, population explosion, etc. How could they not see that this was yet another attempt to scare the masses into submission? My view is that NE breeds idiots for politicians and that DC corrupts anyone who goes there (insider trading).

]]> By: neo-neocon https://thenewneo.com/2012/03/19/the-supremes-and-the-individual-mandate-at-the-federal-level/#comment-333592 Tue, 20 Mar 2012 04:32:23 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/?p=14741#comment-333592 Steve: but I’m talking about AGW. Changed opinions on that probably have nothing to do with age or dumbness, and everything to do with new information. Many people who believed it was true a few years ago are having serious doubts now.

]]> By: Steve https://thenewneo.com/2012/03/19/the-supremes-and-the-individual-mandate-at-the-federal-level/#comment-333582 Tue, 20 Mar 2012 04:14:51 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/?p=14741#comment-333582 neo, if Newt and Romney were young and inexperienced I could see them changing their minds on topics that involve 1/7 of the US economy and an attempt to impose world government. They are old enough to know better though. Here is a simple test to gauge the wisdom (not knowledge but judgment) of a conservative candidate: are they intrinsically skeptical of solutions that call for a greater role of government? Do they smell a rat? If they lead with the politically correct answer, guess what they are old, dumb and not conservative.

]]> By: Don Carlos https://thenewneo.com/2012/03/19/the-supremes-and-the-individual-mandate-at-the-federal-level/#comment-333578 Tue, 20 Mar 2012 04:02:58 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/?p=14741#comment-333578 The coming Gotterdammerung (excuse umlaut absence) is the inevitable result of Constitutional flaws: Supremes, the ultimate arbitrators, endure for life; prior SCOTUS errors/wrongs are essentially never undone (Wickard, a patently indefensible ruling, is still with us 70 years later), and there basically are no realistic mechanisms for enforcement of even brazen Constitutional violations. Sure, there’s impeachment, but how often and how well has that worked for us? The last Federal District judge removed by impeachment for flagrant corruption on the bench became and remains a Dem congressman. What happens if Obama and the Senate Dems just ignore an adverse SCOTUS ruling?
The fate of >300 million citizen lives depend on 9 life-tenured judges, with the so-called DOJ in the malevolent Holder’s hands? Insane. A quite forseeable disaster looms, and the American Republic will end. I am not at all sure there will come a righteous uprising, however, so Gotterdammerung may not be applicable.

]]> By: neo-neocon https://thenewneo.com/2012/03/19/the-supremes-and-the-individual-mandate-at-the-federal-level/#comment-333563 Tue, 20 Mar 2012 03:12:38 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/?p=14741#comment-333563 Steve: as a person who has changed politically, I probably have more tolerance—and more respect—than you do for candidates changing their minds on a subject. Yes, of course, sometimes they just do it as weathervanes to pander to the blowing winds of the moment. But sometimes we learn new facts and gain new insights and change our opinions because of those facts and insights. I have never really understood why “flip-flopper” is a charge leveled at candidates every time they change their minds. Some mind changes are meaningless flip flops, and some are not.

In the case of global warming, I’d have to have the old quotes and the new quotes side by side, and not just the single sentence quotes either—the context and reasoning around them. Were the candidates speaking of global warming in one instance and AGW (anthropocentric global warming) in the other, for instance? There’s quite a difference. Plus, when were the first quotes given and when the second? In the last couple of years, a lot of people who used to be convinced of AGW have become much less convinced—I, for example, am one of them—because of new information.

Never changing your mind is not necessarily a good thing. It can be an example of a stubborn refusal to integrate new information.

]]> By: Steve https://thenewneo.com/2012/03/19/the-supremes-and-the-individual-mandate-at-the-federal-level/#comment-333551 Tue, 20 Mar 2012 02:37:30 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/?p=14741#comment-333551 neo, Newt and Romney have also walked back their previous support for global warming hooey. I think their natural instinct is to support a bigger role for government. They are part of the problem not part of the solution. Santorum too. We have a triumvirate of mediocrity to choose from.

]]>