Andy Schlafly #fundie

Andy Schlafly #fundie conservapedia.com

What is the best prediction of the outcome in the ObamaCare decision expected to be issued Thursday, June 27, 2012? 85% of experts predict that ObamaCare will be upheld - can so many experts be so wrong?

Yes, the experts are wrong, and here's why:

* ObamaCare does violate the limits in the Commerce Clause, and it is difficult to overcome that logic

[...]

* 95% of those same experts deny that logic/conservatism advances over time for the same reason technology does

* ObamaCare could have been upheld more easily and quickly than to invalidate it

* virtually all of the "experts" missed the boat, and continue to miss the boat, on Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge. Wrong about that, why would anyone expect them to be right about anything else?

49 comments

old comment by Darwin

Um, I really hate to break this to you Andy...

NO I DON'T! BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!

"95% of those same experts deny that logic/conservatism advances over time for the same reason technology does"

Conservatism, by definition, cannot 'advance'. It acts as a sensible brake on runaway liberalism, but increasingly it just gets in the way of genuine progress. We need conservatism, but not your variety Andy. Just go back to living in a cave, without any of modern life's amenities. You'll soon realise what new ideas (liberalism) have done for you. But will you learn from the experience? Probably not, because you're too blinded by your ideology.

old comment by John

ObamaCare does violate the limits in the Commerce Clause, and it is difficult to overcome that logic

One doesn't "violate" the Commerce Clause. The CC gives the Federal Government certain powers. Either a law is justified under the CC or it isn't. If it is, that's the end of the matter: it's Constitutional. But if the law isn't justified under the CC, that doesn't make it unconstitutional. It still might be justified under some other provision of the Constitution - in this case the Federal Government's power to tax. The administration made both arguments. SCOTUS rejected the first argument (the CC argument) but accepted the taxation power argument.

old comment by Wehpudicabok

@Apatheist:

Schlafly is of the modern brand of ultra-revisionist conservatism, by which historical conservatism was never racist, and anyone saying otherwise is just a liberal playing the race card in order to win votes from minorities. Thus, social progress comes from conservatives, not liberals. (As a corollary, George Wallace and Strom Thurmond never existed.)

@Kevin Klawitter:

They didn't alter the Commerce Clause. They merely held that Obamacare created a new tax (the penalty for not following the individual mandate can be considered a tax as it is entirely financial; you can't go to jail for disobeying it), and that taxes fall within the Clause.

old comment by michael3ov

"logic/conservatism"

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

HA!

I just spit milk all over my monitor.

@Wehpudicabok

Thats not necessarily true. Social progress such as the civil rights act and the new deal was widely supported by liberals.

Democrats have not always historically been liberal and republicans have not always been conservative. The political landscape changed greatly when the southern democrats broke with the democrats and switched parties. Since then the GOP/conservatives have held the Southern strategy close to heart. The political landscape is far too complex for "conservatives promoted social progress" to follow the word thus in any argument.

old comment by Mister Spak

"* virtually all of the "experts" missed the boat, and continue to miss the boat, on Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge."

Biblical scientific foreknowledge is itself a missed boat. Remember when the bible described WWIII between the Soviet Union and the USA? How could the writers of the bible 2000 years ago know what history was going to be in the 1980s?

Then the Soviet Union went away and still the end of the world didn't happen. Where is your biblical foreknowledge now?

@michael3ov:

The change in parties happened before that.
The democratic party of 1850 was pro slavery. It gradually became more liberal until it broke into two parts, the real democrats and the dixiecrats(southern racist whites).

The change you spoke of was the dixiecrats, hating the civil rights laws enforced by real democrats in Washington, taking over the Republic party in 1980, and becoming the religious racist wing of that party.

old comment by Canadiest

"logic/conservatism"

You will notice when todays Republicans speak of the advancements and recognized improvements in society, they go back over 50 years to find their party member that at least gave it lip service. Reagans not that far back but most of his career is greatly fictionlized already.

The idea of conservatism is a common sense approach or even gradual change. If it's worked for years why stop it? We're moving to fast on this, let's give it time.

This worked years ago only because at least gradual change was implimented. And just how were the changes made by the W Administration conservative? They were quickly introduced and catered entirely to the rich and military. Reagan on Right-wing speed.

Any die-hard Republicans out there? Answer me this: How is the economy going to recover when the Republican leaders want to re-established the catastrophic W Bush economics?

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"Yes, the experts are wrong, and here's why:

* ObamaCare does violate the limits in the Commerce Clause, and it is difficult to overcome that logic"

The National Health Service here in the UK. Established in the late 1940s.

Maiontained by subsequent Labour and Conservative governments.

Conservative, Andy.

Never mind 'missing the boat', the leaky rowing boat that is US healthcare has been blasted out of the water by the Ekranoplan of British universal healthcare.

NHS: 1948 - today. As in it's still here. Annihilated argument much, Mr. Schaftafly?

...oh, and as for 'Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge', chapter and verse - even in your 'Conservative Bible Project' - about tissue regeneration via Stem Cells, or cybernetics (i.e. cochlear implants harwired into the hearing centres of the brain).

And while you're about it, Andy, please point out to us in your precious Bible - seeing as it gives exact, precise descriptions of scientific developments - what the next format will be that'll replace Blu-Ray...?

It's okay, I can wait...! [/hyper-sarcasm]

Andy Schlafly #fundie conservapedia.com

49 comments

Confused?