SCOTUS agrees to hear challenge to obummercare

[First]

Hey dimwit, I wasn't talking about it being liberal or not,

.....

The shortsighted left simply doesn't understand that it won't stop with one mandate they like.

Oh yeah, of course you weren't. lol.

I'm talking about setting a precedent for future such mandates that you might not like as much as this one. Liberal or conservative is irrelevant. But hey, keep on trolling.

There will always been mandates I don't like. For example, not being able to buy wine or alcohol after a certain time during the day to me strikes at the heart of personal freedom. But we're a democracy and it's not just up to me, you completely dimwitted, obvious hack of a troll.

 

[PokerGuy]

Oh yeah, of course you weren't. lol.

Sigh. Logical thinking is clearly not your strong suit. Lets try this again for the slow witted (ie, you). I think the whole thing is a bad idea and it's the liberals that pushed it's current incarnation. I disagree with the mandate no matter who pushes it, because it sets a bad precedent. You might like the current reason for it, but it will inevitably be used for other mandates you don't like.

There will always been mandates I don't like.

Can you share with us another federal mandate that forces every private citizen to purchase a product from a private company without any option to opt-out of that purchase? And no, don't even throw out the auto insurance BS, you don't have to get that if you don't drive (and there are other ways to legally opt out of that even if you do drive).

 

[HomerJS]

People should have a big problem with this...

Scalia and Thomas dine with healthcare law challengers as court takes case

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-scalia-thomas-20111114,0,7978224.story?track=lat-pick