Federal Government officially OWNS us now....

[DEERHUNT]

Well we are at the age of 236 this year so I think we are past apathy and in the first stage of dependencey

[Ster]

[/quote]
I wouldn't want to be an employee of a company that has 55 workers right now.[/quote]
I'd imagine a lot of construction companies with 50 or more in house employees will start laying off their in house crews and start using subs more to keep it under 50.[/quote]
Or create a separate company. For example you may have X and X construction company and then also have X and X resources and accounting that hires all of the office personnel.

[SNOT]

I wouldn't want to be an employee of a company that has 55 workers right now.[/quote]
I'd imagine a lot of construction companies with 50 or more in house employees will start laying off their in house crews and start using subs more to keep it under 50.[/quote]
Or create a separate company. For example you may have X and X construction company and then also have X and X resources and accounting that hires all of the office personnel.[/quote]
That's true - I guess x and x construction co. could turn into x and x plumbing, x and x roofing, x and x electrical.....

[augustus_65]

Another good quote from the close of Justice Roberts opinion:
The Framers created a Federal Government of limited powers, and assigned to this Court the duty of enforcingthose limits. The Court does so today. But the Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people.

[camlock]

The obvious obstacles of a logical/sensible person being an Ole Miss fan and the obvious association are on full display in this thread!

Or it could be that if he is upset about the denouncing of Col Reb and the Rebel persona, yet he presents a liberal viewpoint on this site, we might be dealing with conflicting viewpoint. Not doing what you think I'm doing, trying to prove a point. Maybe I should have asked "Did you vote for changing the face of Ole Miss, or are you mad at the liberal who changed it?"

I'm guessing he is about like 50% of ole miss fan sites membership and he is totally down with the idea Ole Miss will compete athletically now that we can recruit black athletes...you know, all the black players we've never had b/c of a mascot and that other schools will no longer negatively recruit against little old small town Oxford in MS and it's ole south campus...none of those logistics really mean anything, just the old man mascot...national champs 2012, we have had time for all this fairness to put us on the map...wouldn't you agree???

liberalism is a disease, Ole Miss is infected

[farmerc83]

Wow! I guess I just don't see this as the end of the world... Some poor kid gets to live and I help pay for it... I don't see how that is a terrible thing... Maybe my head is in the sand though...

What part of people being responsible for taking care of themselves and their kids are you so opposed to? Removing responsibility and consequence seems to be the essence of the current democrat party, so what the hell is so bad about personal responsibility and consequences?

umreb.....please respond to my post from page 2. You ignored my question about responsibility and chose to argue the use/definition of the term "non-swimmer"....typical. Do you believe in personal responsibility and if so, where do we need to draw the line between helping and enabling? Medicaid, unemployment and EBT card time restrictions/limits ok with you or should these "temporary" safety net programs be offered to individuals indefinitely, becoming their expected income?

Maybe if you explain your stance definitively, without deflecting to racism and victimizing poor children, the rest of us could make an honest assessment of your views. As seen during the threads on the MS abortion, this place isn't always blindly leaning to the right.

[jmj7583]

Are ya'll talking about the supreme court upholding romneycare? Don't forget that he is the one who introduced this in Massachusetts in 2006.

At least Romney has sense enough to run his election on repealing the law by recognizing 58% of Americans do not want this "reform." We are still a democracy aren't we?

[camlock]

Are ya'll talking about the supreme court upholding romneycare? Don't forget that he is the one who introduced this in Massachusetts in 2006.

At least Romney has sense enough to run his election on repealing the law by recognizing 58% of Americans do not want this "reform." We are still a democracy aren't we?

frightening ain't it

[Ster]

The obvious obstacles of a logical/sensible person being an Ole Miss fan and the obvious association are on full display in this thread!

Or it could be that if he is upset about the denouncing of Col Reb and the Rebel persona, yet he presents a liberal viewpoint on this site, we might be dealing with conflicting viewpoint. Not doing what you think I'm doing, trying to prove a point. Maybe I should have asked "Did you vote for changing the face of Ole Miss, or are you mad at the liberal who changed it?"

I'm guessing he is about like 50% of ole miss fan sites membership and he is totally down with the idea Ole Miss will compete athletically now that we can recruit black athletes...you know, all the black players we've never had b/c of a mascot and that other schools will no longer negatively recruit against little old small town Oxford in MS and it's ole south campus...none of those logistics really mean anything, just the old man mascot...national champs 2012, we have had time for all this fairness to put us on the map...wouldn't you agree???

liberalism is a disease, Ole Miss is infected

Regardless of the fact that umreb is completely wrong in his/her assessment of this situation.
As an Ole Miss fan and booster, I am disappointed to see you express this opinion so openly. I thought better of you as a poster.

[camlock]

Or it could be that if he is upset about the denouncing of Col Reb and the Rebel persona, yet he presents a liberal viewpoint on this site, we might be dealing with conflicting viewpoint. Not doing what you think I'm doing, trying to prove a point. Maybe I should have asked "Did you vote for changing the face of Ole Miss, or are you mad at the liberal who changed it?"

I'm guessing he is about like 50% of ole miss fan sites membership and he is totally down with the idea Ole Miss will compete athletically now that we can recruit black athletes...you know, all the black players we've never had b/c of a mascot and that other schools will no longer negatively recruit against little old small town Oxford in MS and it's ole south campus...none of those logistics really mean anything, just the old man mascot...national champs 2012, we have had time for all this fairness to put us on the map...wouldn't you agree???

liberalism is a disease, Ole Miss is infected

Regardless of the fact that umreb is completely wrong in his/her assessment of this situation.
As an Ole Miss fan and booster, I am disappointed to see you express this opinion so openly. I thought better of you as a poster.

sorry that's how you feel about my post...I'm not trying to make statements of personal opinion of these matters...rather as a long standing member of Ole Miss subscription sites, I read things regarding Ole Miss and issues at Ole Miss from people like him, with seemingly same agendas daily, far more than conservative views...I'm making a statement of fact based on what I see in those sites from OLE MISS fans, it is what it is...no reason to cover for it...I can only hope it's a representation of internet fans and not reality...but I'm not hopefully on that either.

My post was littered with sarcasm for the crap I read on internet...not really expression of opinion

[Plainsman04]

Chief Justice Roberts's Folly - http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... ly-editors

The dissent acknowledges that if an ambiguous law can be read in a way that renders it constitutional, it should be. It distinguishes, though, between construing a law charitably and rewriting it. The latter is what Chief Justice John Roberts has done. If Roberts believes that this tactic avoids damage to the Constitution because it does not stretch the Commerce Clause to justify a mandate, he is mistaken. The Constitution does not give the Court the power to rewrite statutes, and Roberts and his colleagues have therefore done violence to it. If the law has been rendered less constitutionally obnoxious, the Court has rendered itself more so. Chief Justice Roberts cannot justly take pride in this legacy.

The more I hear and read about this today, and let it soak in, the more I think Roberts truly thought he was doing the right thing by the American people. He didn't want to be seen as getting "in the way". The majority opinion seems to indicate that they didn't want to invalidate it because it was such a hot button issue. They have essentially sent it back to the American people and told them to rule on it. I plan to do that with my vote in November and then subsequently hold the fire to Congress and the (Lord willing) new President to repeal it in full.

[Ster]

sorry that's how you feel about my post...I'm not trying to make statements of personal opinion of these matters...rather as a long standing member of Ole Miss subscription sites, I read things regarding Ole Miss and issues at Ole Miss from people like him, with seemingly same agendas daily, far more than conservative views...I'm making a statement of fact based on what I see in those sites from OLE MISS fans, it is what it is...no reason to cover for it...I can only hope it's a representation of internet fans and not reality...but I'm not hopefully on that either.

I don't subscribe to College websites, but I would be willing to bet that I could find examples of liberal interpretation from just about any college campus and any college website if my peragative was to look upon those individuals with animosity. Regardless, umreb is more than likely a young college student who fails to recognize that liberalism repels the hard work equals reward mentality that made this nation great. Although, he/she sees the necessity of helping others as a virtuous position, he will find as I have, that the most effective compassion people in this nation do not hail from the left and the liberal agenda.

[Ster]

Chief Justice Roberts's Folly - http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... ly-editors

The dissent acknowledges that if an ambiguous law can be read in a way that renders it constitutional, it should be. It distinguishes, though, between construing a law charitably and rewriting it. The latter is what Chief Justice John Roberts has done. If Roberts believes that this tactic avoids damage to the Constitution because it does not stretch the Commerce Clause to justify a mandate, he is mistaken. The Constitution does not give the Court the power to rewrite statutes, and Roberts and his colleagues have therefore done violence to it. If the law has been rendered less constitutionally obnoxious, the Court has rendered itself more so. Chief Justice Roberts cannot justly take pride in this legacy.

The more I hear and read about this today, and let it soak in, the more I think Roberts truly thought he was doing the right thing by the American people. He didn't want to be seen as getting "in the way". The majority opinion seems to indicate that they didn't want to invalidate it because it was such a hot button issue. They have essentially sent it back to the American people and told them to rule on it. I plan to do that with my vote in November and then subsequently hold the fire to Congress and the (Lord willing) new President to repeal it in full.

I think to some extent you are correct. I disagree with Justice Roberts opinion but he added something in his Majority opinion that is very telling and really sends a message for the American people to consider.

He states the following:

Today, the restrictions on government power foremost in many Americans’ minds are likely to be affirmative prohibitions, such as contained in the Bill of Rights. These affirmative prohibitions come into play, however, only where the Government possesses authority to act in the first place. If no enumerated power authorizes Congress to pass a certain law, that law may not be enacted, even if it would not violate any of the express prohibitions in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the Constitution……..
Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

Justice Roberts essentially tells the American people that if they don't like the laws that are being passed then they need to quit electing the idiots that are bringing those laws. Don't keep electing these people and then sit back and pray that the Supreme Court is going to bail you out of the jam that ultimately you created in the polling booth.

[SNOT]

Chief Justice Roberts's Folly - http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... ly-editors

The dissent acknowledges that if an ambiguous law can be read in a way that renders it constitutional, it should be. It distinguishes, though, between construing a law charitably and rewriting it. The latter is what Chief Justice John Roberts has done. If Roberts believes that this tactic avoids damage to the Constitution because it does not stretch the Commerce Clause to justify a mandate, he is mistaken. The Constitution does not give the Court the power to rewrite statutes, and Roberts and his colleagues have therefore done violence to it. If the law has been rendered less constitutionally obnoxious, the Court has rendered itself more so. Chief Justice Roberts cannot justly take pride in this legacy.

The more I hear and read about this today, and let it soak in, the more I think Roberts truly thought he was doing the right thing by the American people. He didn't want to be seen as getting "in the way". The majority opinion seems to indicate that they didn't want to invalidate it because it was such a hot button issue. They have essentially sent it back to the American people and told them to rule on it. I plan to do that with my vote in November and then subsequently hold the fire to Congress and the (Lord willing) new President to repeal it in full.

Have far into Obamacare can the country get before it's too late to ever repeal it? As we all know, once an entitlement program starts it's impossible to stop.
I was talking to one of my friends the other day who's kind of liberal and he said we shouldn't require drug tests for people on welfare - I told him that's ridiculous and he said "half of them would fail the test then riot when they didn't get their check anymore so we can't drug test them and have chaos everywhere".....he still didn't change my mind but they damn sure would riot, just like Greece...and that's why once it starts it is impossible to stop.

[420 racin]

and that's why once it starts it is impossible to stop

No it isn't hard to stop, when the riot, just take your time, get a good aim and squeeze the trigger...there you just stopped part of it.
Once they see there are consequences for their actions, they will think twice.