• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386, 590]

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

that would be licensed to drive WHAT exactly?

A vehicle on govt owned roads. It doesn't have to be your vehicle, and you do not, necessarily, have to insure it.

Why is this so difficult for you? Obamacare is not the same premise as car isurance. States require to have insurance to operate your vehicle on their roads, Obamacare requires you to have insurance to be alive.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

I admit that this wasn't my main point but it certainly does fit with it and I agree with it.

Sorry Hay, I was wrong. I misunderstood Kal's point.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Earlier you said I would lie when you had no proof. Now you stand before the world admitting you are a liar. You have indicted, tried and convicted yourself. All that remains is for you to be your own High Executioner.

Actually my proof about you is in my signature.

As for the rest...how the hell would you know if I was lying or not? You don't even know wtf state I live in.

But hey, just to prove it to you...

Idaho.gov ~ Registering and Licensing Vehicles in Idaho VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS

Sorry..no requirement there about insurance.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

What ideology would I have exactly?

Again, yours...how hard is that for you to understand?

What is the recognized political ideology for one who hates, loathes and despises what libertarianism would do to America and its citizens?

Recognized political ideology, I have no idea. If you think this is my assertion you are incorrect. Do you really not understand?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

When one of the most conservative justices in the last seventy years sides with the four more liberal judges, it says a whole lot more than that.

Didn't the swing vote Kennedy vote in favor of trashing the whole thing? Didn't he write the dissent opinion, calling the whole bill invalid and the court claiming it a tax just to keep it judicial activism?

I think that says a lot more right there.


Nonetheless we can certainly categorize it on today's political spectrum. Slavery is the most extreme end of the conservative spectrum. Total sacrifice of social freedom
Really? have some examples?

to economic freedom. Small government. State's rights. Staying out of the way of big business. It is the exact opposite of everything haymarket believes in. So what are you basing your accusation on?

You forgot individual freedom; you know, looking at the rights of everyone instead of just the group as a whole. :roll:


You can have the license as long as you do not use it to drive a vehicle. If you actually want to take the step to drive a vehicle - which is the whole point of the damn thing in the real world I live in - you must supply proof of insurance to get a plate for that vehicle.

Not true, at least in my state, you can drive someone else's vehicle without insurance.



that would be licensed to drive WHAT exactly?

Any insured vehicle. Doesn't mean you have to insure it. Before I bought my car when I was younger, I would drive my parent's car to get around. I would sometimes drive my grandparents car when I took them places. I also drove a shuttle for a local charity that provides transportation for the elderly. In all those cases, I didn't need to buy insurance. And yes, those were "in the real world."
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

that would be licensed to drive WHAT exactly?

If I drive my fathers car I do not have to insure that car.

BTW, I know i've said this before but apparently you "missed" it. You do not need a license or a license plate to own or drive a car. You just need those things if you plan to drive on public roads. You can drive around on your property all that you wish without those things.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

A vehicle on govt owned roads. It doesn't have to be your vehicle, and you do not, necessarily, have to insure it.

Somebody does have to insure it.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

If I drive my fathers car I do not have to insure that car.

BTW, I know i've said this before but apparently you "missed" it. You do not need a license or a license plate to own or drive a car. You just need those things if you plan to drive on public roads. You can drive around on your property all that you wish without those things.

your father pays to include you on his car. So out of all the hundred plus millions of drivers with a car and a license and a plate on that car, how many do you think NEVER drive on those government roads?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Somebody does have to insure it.

Irrelevant, and so not valuable to your point...as far as I understand it, anyway. You're not required to have vehicle insurance to be alive in America.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Not true, at least in my state, you can drive someone else's vehicle without insurance.





Any insured vehicle. Doesn't mean you have to insure it. Before I bought my car when I was younger, I would drive my parent's car to get around. I would sometimes drive my grandparents car when I took them places. I also drove a shuttle for a local charity that provides transportation for the elderly. In all those cases, I didn't need to buy insurance. And yes, those were "in the real world."

Do all states require car insurance?


Do all states require car insurance?

No, all states do not require car insurance, but all require financial responsibility to operate a vehicle on the roadway.

Every state requires that you meet financial responsibility requirements through insurance, a bond or some other approved means that show you are able to pay if you cause damages to another person or property in an automobile accident. (See "Got $30,000 and hate car insurers?")

Each state renews its laws annually, so some states that had no insurance requirements in the past now do. New Hampshire probably has the least amount of requirements -- and it still requires that you immediately show proof of financial responsibility if you've been involved in a car accident.

If you choose to buy insurance, as most drivers do, all 50 states have different minimum insurance requirements.

Almost every state requires you to have bodily injury liability insurance to pay for the treatment of anyone you injure; other states operating under no-fault laws will you require that you carry personal injury protection to pay for your own injuries. You usually will be required to buy property damage liability insurance to repair the vehicles of anyone you hit.

Those opposing me here should take note that when I posed the question I specially mentioned BOTH insurance as well as meeting financial responsibility with the state.

from my post #265

Do you know of any states where this is NOT the case that you have insurance or proof of financial responsibility?

Yes, you drove your parents car and they paid for your coverage to do so. Your driving on the roads in that vehicle with insurance was indeed paid for.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

You're not required to have vehicle insurance to be alive in America.

Who claimed you did?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

your father pays to include you on his car.

Sorry but again you are wrong. My father's insurance makes no mention of me. Neither do any of my friends cars when I drive them.

So out of all the hundred plus millions of drivers with a car and a license and a plate on that car, how many do you think NEVER drive on those government roads?

Irrelevent. You said that you HAVE to have insurance to drive a car. If I show even one instance where someone can legally drive without paying for insurance for the car they drive then you are obviously wrong.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Sorry but again you are wrong. My father's insurance makes no mention of me. Neither do any of my friends cars when I drive them.



Irrelevent. You said that you HAVE to have insurance to drive a car. If I show even one instance where someone can legally drive without paying for insurance for the car they drive then you are obviously wrong.

But you have not done so. I provided the Michigan law which clearly states that anyone caught driving without insurance has committed a civil infraction and is subject to a fine.

You provided only personal anecdotes without any proof at all. And you are a self admitted liar when it benefits yourself. Here are your very words in which you admitted doing so

My state still does not require proof of insurance in order to get a license plate or tags for your car. They might ASK you if you have insurance but they do not ask for proof of that insurance. There were several times in the past when I was younger that I took full advantage of that fact.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

When one of the most conservative justices in the last seventy years sides with the four more liberal judges, it says a whole lot more than that.

You are mistaken. The liberal judges published an opinion that affirmed the ACA under the Commerce clause. The conservative judges on the other hand published the dissenting opinion that the ACA was unconstitutional entirely. Roberts chose neither as you assert. He saw this for what it is, congressional authority to tax under article 1 section 8 and no more. IF the President hadn’t made the ‘tax pledge’ and pressed constitutionality under the Commerce clause I would suggest that this whole thing would have been avoided…or not.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Who claimed you did?

You're making the comparison. Obamacare, and the premise behind it are in no way similar to Automobile insurance laws.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Really? have some examples?

You want examples of how slavery sacrifices all social freedom? Are you serious?

You forgot individual freedom; you know, looking at the rights of everyone instead of just the group as a whole. :roll:

Individual freedom can be split into two categories- economic freedom and social freedom. The definition of a conservative is someone who favors lower regulation of economic matters and higher regulation of social matters. The definition of a liberal is someone who favors more regulation of economic matters and less regulation of social matters. Obviously in the US neither side favors either total regulation or zero regulation in either sphere. There are some economic areas where liberals want less regulation and conservatives want more. For example, unions. And there are some social issue where conservatives want less regulation and liberals more. For example guns. But, by and large, you find the liberal on the side of more economic regulation and less social regulation most often. For the economic side, you have environmental regulations, minimum wage, health care regulation, etc. For the social side you have the death penalty, abortion, birth control, separation of church and state, the use of torture, domestic spying, etc.

Allowing slavery is maxed out economic freedom. Such a strong concept of property rights that one can own other human beings. Government stays totally out of the way of business. On the other hand, it shows zero concern for the social freedom of the individual. The slaves are totally oppressed. So, it's a very conservative phenomenon.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Those opposing me here should take note that when I posed the question I specially mentioned BOTH insurance as well as meeting financial responsibility with the state.

Yes, you drove your parents car and they paid for your coverage to do so. Your driving on the roads in that vehicle with insurance was indeed paid for.

Switching strides again are we? So I take it that you have given up the bogus claim of all states requiring proof of insurance in order to license a person and/or their vehicle?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Switching strides again are we? So I take it that you have given up the bogus claim of all states requiring proof of insurance in order to license a person and/or their vehicle?

It's like duck hunting with a .22....
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

You are mistaken. The liberal judges published an opinion that affirmed the ACA under the Commerce clause. The conservative judges on the other hand published the dissenting opinion that the ACA was unconstitutional entirely. Roberts chose neither as you assert. He saw this for what it is, congressional authority to tax under article 1 section 8 and no more. IF the President hadn’t made the ‘tax pledge’ and pressed constitutionality under the Commerce clause I would suggest that this whole thing would have been avoided…or not.

My comments was NOT regarding the details of his reasoning but in the reality that his vote combined with the other four liberal judges decided the case in favor of the Constitutionality of the law.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Is it SO hard for you to admit error in your original assertion and/or rephrase it to be correct?

Not at all. I did not go far enough and should have stated that if you want to have a drivers license and drive a vehicle on the roads, then you must have insurance for that vehicle. I made the assumption that anyone with any sense would know that the purpose of a drivers license is to drive a vehicle on the roads. I thought that was part and parcel of getting the drivers license.

My error was also in taking far too much for granted in far too many ways.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Switching strides again are we? So I take it that you have given up the bogus claim of all states requiring proof of insurance in order to license a person and/or their vehicle?

And you still have not provided any verifiable proof of your claims or allegations as I did. You have only used your own personal life as support and we cannot accept that because you also confess to being a LIAR by your own word on this very topic.

Here are your own words where you admitted to being a LIAR on this very topic

My state still does not require proof of insurance in order to get a license plate or tags for your car. They might ASK you if you have insurance but they do not ask for proof of that insurance. There were several times in the past when I was younger that I took full advantage of that fact.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Bold: Yes you did provide that. One problem though. That is NOT what you argued and you know it. You argued that your state required proof of insurance in order to even get a license. (a bit later you got caught on that lie and tried to switch it to licensing a vehicle). Requiring proof to get licensed and requiring proof that you have insurance when in an accident or stopped by the cops are two completely different things.

Again you try to move the goal posts. You truely do not have any ethics do you?

But you have not done so. I provided the Michigan law which clearly states that anyone caught driving without insurance has committed a civil infraction and is subject to a fine.

You provided only personal anecdotes without any proof at all. And you are a self admitted liar when it benefits yourself. Here are your very words in which you admitted doing so

Apparently you mised my previous post were I did show proof.

Actually my proof about you is in my signature.

As for the rest...how the hell would you know if I was lying or not? You don't even know wtf state I live in.

But hey, just to prove it to you...

Idaho.gov ~ Registering and Licensing Vehicles in Idaho VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS

Sorry..no requirement there about insurance.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Not at all. I did not go far enough and should have stated that if you want to have a drivers license and drive a vehicle on the roads, then you must have insurance for that vehicle. I made the assumption that anyone with any sense would know that the purpose of a drivers license is to drive a vehicle on the roads. I thought that was part and parcel of getting the drivers license.

My error was also in taking far too much for granted in far too many ways.

Tsk, tsk.

This is not even close to what you said. In fact, you incorrectly stated that Michigan requires you to have insurance in order to have a driver's license. This is not true. The importance of the distinction seems to escape you, and that distinction lies squarely in what the state (or in this case Govt) has a right to do.

http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1627_8669_9040---,00.html

Please show me where Michigan requires you to have vehicle insurance in order to obtain a driver's license.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom