[Clielldub]

:

"Let’s make clear that we understand what the Court did and did not do," said today, speaking in Washington, D.C. "What the Court did today was say that Obamacare does not violate the Constitution. What they did not do was say that Obamacare is good law or that it's good policy."

added: "Obamacare was bad policy yesterday. It's bad policy today. Obamacare was bad law yesterday. It’s bad law today."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ma_647937.html


Notice what the Republican standard bearer DIDN'T SAY...

[themsrsdude]

He didn't say "I'll have a ham sandwich!" Why not just post what you're thinking instead of asking open questions.

[JeorgeNoxeref]

He didn't say "I'll have a ham sandwich!" Why not just post what you're thinking instead of asking open questions.

Because I'm wondering who else noticed that Mitt didn't call Obamacare UNCONSTITUTIONAL..

You see, the precedent is key here.. The idea that the government can't force you to buy things.

He didn't say that..

[YabbaIn]

I guess he didn't say that because the Supreme Court just ruled that it is Constitutional.

[Buincchotourb]

Good luck with Willard.

[lzwha]

Because I'm wondering who else noticed that Mitt didn't call Obamacare UNCONSTITUTIONAL..

You see, the precedent is key here.. The idea that the government can't force you to buy things.

He didn't say that..

He didn't say that because SCOTUS didn't say that. It's unconstitutional to most thinking people, but to libtards, other socialists and politicians, they don't care if it's constitutional. They care about grabbing more power. When the high court allows that it's a good day for big government and politicians. Mitt is a big politician and wants power, in that way he is no different. How he will get and use that power is the difference.

[7kitthuptarill]

Because I'm wondering who else noticed that Mitt didn't call Obamacare UNCONSTITUTIONAL..

You see, the precedent is key here.. The idea that the government can't force you to buy things.

He didn't say that..

Its no secret has been trying to temper his remarks to attract the so-called "independents."

SCOTUS just ruled obammycare constitutional, for all intents and purposes, and for to keep hounding on the "its unconstitutional" schtick would give the left further ammo to point and say..."look how out of touch he is, thinking he knows more than the SC."

Also, the "unconstitutional" card has been played. It lost. Perhaps is just presenting the factual choices.

[pedFlicle]

Mitt isn't a Constitutional scholar nor a Constitutional attorney, and he has no legal experience. The SCOTUS, for better or worse, just deemed the tax Constitutional. Why would say it's not Constitutional if they think it is? That would be foolish of him. If a doctor said that a patient needed a heart transplant, does have the expertise to disagree?

[teergoBissono]

is doing exactly the right thing here. He's calling it what it is - bad policy. It's the only argument that can be made now. He would look foolish if he kept the Constitutionality argument going. The ruling is in.

[Maserati]

is doing exactly the right thing here. He's calling it what it is - bad policy. It's the only argument that can be made now. He would look foolish if he kept the Constitutionality argument going. The ruling is in.

Yea, he's a politician. And he's never been too much of a loose cannon like that. I actually think this will help Mitt. Too bad this didn't happen sooner, so some real damage could have be done. Damage that Obama can't blame Bush for.

[Corporal White]

:

"Let’s make clear that we understand what the Court did and did not do," said today, speaking in Washington, D.C. "What the Court did today was say that Obamacare does not violate the Constitution. What they did not do was say that Obamacare is good law or that it's good policy."

added: "Obamacare was bad policy yesterday. It's bad policy today. Obamacare was bad law yesterday. It’s bad law today."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ma_647937.html


Notice what the Republican standard bearer DIDN'T SAY...

He didn't say "YEA!!!! Now I can make people by a copy of the Morman bible!!!!"

Since he didn't want to use the word 'unconstitutional'.........

[picinaRefadia]

Yea, he's a politician. And he's never been too much of a loose cannon like that. I actually think this will help Mitt. Too bad this didn't happen sooner, so some real damage could have be done. Damage that Obama can't blame Bush for.

the hell you say. this is all Bush's fault and you know it.

[Rqvtwlfk]

Why would say it's not Constitutional if they think it is?

Because it's absolutely imperative that the Republican nominee denounce the entire concept of Government forcing you to buy things as unconstitutional... Because it IS Unconstitutional.

[DavidQD]

Because it's absolutely imperative that the Republican nominee denounce the entire concept of Government forcing you to buy things as unconstitutional... Because it IS Unconstitutional.

if thats so then Bush shouldnt have done this.

[23InetrySypekek]

Mitt is a moderate nothing.. There's no proof AT ALL that he's a conservative..

He may even believe this is constitutional.

[Verriasana]

MITT MANDATES IS A DEMPUBLICAN RADICAL PROGRESSIVE.





WE HAVE TO FIRE THIS CONGRESS...


THEY LICKED OBAMA'S BUTT...

AND THEY'LL LICK ROMNEY'S BUTT, TWICE

AS HARD.

[Anteneprorid]

Its no secret has been trying to temper his remarks to attract the so-called "independents."

SCOTUS just ruled obammycare constitutional, for all intents and purposes, and for to keep hounding on the "its unconstitutional" schtick would give the left further ammo to point and say..."look how out of touch he is, thinking he knows more than the SC."

Also, the "unconstitutional" card has been played. It lost. Perhaps is just presenting the factual choices.

The problem isn't just Obamacare.. It's the precedent.

That must be knocked down flat..

Can you imagine where this will lead in 20 years? All the shit you will "need" to be forced to buy?

[FinanseMikky]

Mitt is a moderate nothing.. There's no proof AT ALL that he's a conservative..

He may even believe this is constitutional.

Then he falls right in line with the SC.

Whats to be gained by him spouting "unconstitutional" in the face of a SC ruling saying its not?

[CaseyFronczekHomie]

Then he falls right in line with the SC.

Whats to be gained by him spouting "unconstitutional" in the face of a SC ruling saying its not?

It's not constitutional for the government to force people to buy shit it thinks they "need"

[amusaasyday]

This isn't a fucking basketball game, either.. The ruling was NOT unanimous..

The court has reversed itself before. The court can be influenced and make mistakes.