Is there a silver lining on the Supremes PPACA ruling

he doesn't smoke, or grow.

Originally Posted by cannabineer

At least somebody sold Facebook short. cn

Nope I bought a bunch of arena for 2.00 back in may on chance . They had a drug for obesity and the FDA passed it and it jumped up to 13 bucks so I sold and made me some good bucks. Bought bac in to other stocks and they sky rocketed today.

Originally Posted by RyanTheRhino

Nope I bought a bunch of arena for 2.00 on chance . They had a drug for obesity and the FDA passed it and it jumped up to 13 bucks so I sold and made me some good bucks. Bought bac in to other stocks and they sky rocketed today.

Nnnnnice! Back in the day, one of my best scores was shorts and puts on a little piggie called ZITL. That was fun. A bit scary, but fun. cn

Originally Posted by Scrotie Mcboogerballs

One more thing DD, so i'm checking out your history log and can't find a single thread about marijuana that you've responded to lately. Except the politics of it of course. And your grow journal is empty. Did you come here just because you thought you could actually stand a chance debating "dumb stoners" or what? Cause you still get fucking schooled here too bro, so do us all a favor and peace out. If you can't even contribute to the welfare of this community, GTFO.

Are we really supposed to talk about marijuana here? If so I am going to have to go elsewhere, I don't have a clue about growing pot and likely I never will.

Originally Posted by canndo

I've not yet read the entire ruling - it is too damn long, but I believe Roberts claimed that the mandate was simply another tax?

And your saying there may be a silver lining indicates that guaranteeing consumers certain reasonable "rights" is not a "silver lining"?

The final draft is not as horribly long as has been claimed by detractors of the law. Legislative publications have very wide margins, so page counts can be misleading.

What makes reading the ACA so difficult is also one of the things that gives it so much strength. If you start reading Public Law 111-148, one of the first things you will notice is that each and every clause has one or more references to a prior law. So truly understanding the law involves research into the laws that form its basis. (And all of those laws are presumably acceptable, which is why a declaration of "unconstitutional" was NEVER in the cards!)

I do wish more people would at least make an attempt to read this law. It's written mainly in plain English, and what it actually says may surprise you if all your information about it has been given to you second hand (especially if you've listened to its detractors, or even its supporters who often repeat misinformation).

The law would be much shorter if they took out the 150 amendments the republicans put in there

Originally Posted by ChesusRice

The law would be much shorter if they took out the 150 amendments the republicans put in there

Even then republicans said this was a bad idea, saying this will not reduce deficit only increase and the numbers were wrong........

Originally Posted by nontheist

Even then republicans said this was a bad idea....

their own idea?