So this is what it has come to...
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
Re:
Actually, I think that might be more Constitutionally correct than the health care bill(s).*SilverFJ wrote:Or the armed insurrection...
- CUDA
- DBB Master
- Posts: 6482
- Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: A Conservative Man in the Liberal bastion of the Pacific Northwest. in Oregon City. Oregon
such eloquence and truth in those words. truly brilliant men that wrote them. it is a shame what our leaders of today have become.IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
the time might be drawing near\"But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.\"
Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of America is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world
- CUDA
- DBB Master
- Posts: 6482
- Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: A Conservative Man in the Liberal bastion of the Pacific Northwest. in Oregon City. Oregon
well that didnt take long
I'm guessing that this one might be found unconstitutionalThe proverbial ink had yet to dry on the nation's new health care reform law Tuesday before two states -- Virginia and Florida -- filed lawsuits and more scrambled to put up legislative barricades between themselves and the bill requiring Americans to purchase health insurance or face stiff penalties.
The tactics, employed everywhere from Arizona to Virginia, are the strongest sign that the health care reform fight is far from over.
Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum announced he dropped off his challenge at the court at 12:02 p.m. ET, minutes after President Obama's signing ceremony to usher in the massive overhaul. Virginia Solicitor General E. Duncan Getchell walked the six blocks from the state attorney general's office in Richmond to the U.S. District Court to file his claim that the federal law conflicts with recently passed Virginia law saying no resident shall be required to \"maintain or obtain\" personal coverage.
At least 36 state legislatures so far have proposed measures to challenge the constitutionality of the new federal bill, while 29 states are also calling for ballot questions to amend their constitutions and 13 are looking to change state law.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
― Theodore Roosevelt
― Theodore Roosevelt
- CUDA
- DBB Master
- Posts: 6482
- Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: A Conservative Man in the Liberal bastion of the Pacific Northwest. in Oregon City. Oregon
Re:
I dont dislike you Bee, I actually feel sorry for you, for you see ALL of us are born Ignorant, you unfortunately have chosen to stay that wayBet51987 wrote:
- Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10133
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
Too bad the bill they passed didn't just stop with those provisions you cherry picked from it Bee because if it did you wouldn't have to pretend there are no other reasons, nor reasonable people, to object to it!!
I know you don't want to think about it in real terms so please continue your idealogical fantasy now...if nothing else you serve as reminder of just how he got this done.
I know you don't want to think about it in real terms so please continue your idealogical fantasy now...if nothing else you serve as reminder of just how he got this done.
4 of those listed items will drive up the cost of premiums, but I guess if you can afford the best coverage money can buy, that really doesn’t mean much.
And, I counted many more in that new law.
This new law in going to drive the cost of buying insurance out of the roof, and I guarantee that a lot of businesses will stop covering people, possibly leading to the end of employer provider insurance.
Almost like it was planned that way?
And, I counted many more in that new law.
This new law in going to drive the cost of buying insurance out of the roof, and I guarantee that a lot of businesses will stop covering people, possibly leading to the end of employer provider insurance.
Almost like it was planned that way?
Re:
Amen sister! Abolish income tax, too!Bet51987 wrote:I have to go do some lab work but I wanted to say this before I go. If the party of no are successful at refusing health reform for their individual states by claiming it's a violation of the 10th, or any other ammendment, then they should also be required to give up Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and any other Democrat championed social programs for their state that are in same violation.
You shouldn't be allowed to be selective in what violations you find acceptable or not.
Bee
Re:
3 days (72 hours) passed before the vote was held + 2 days (48 hours) passed before signage = 5 days.woodchip wrote:Whatever happened to Obama's pledge that he would allow 5 days before signing a bill in law?
It's never good to wake up in the shrubs naked, you either got way too drunk, or your azz is a werewolf.
Re:
Well, if you are talking about proper health care…you got that right!Bet51987 wrote:You just don't get it do you.
And, I don’t see anything changing.
They're not giving me free money. They're sharing my money with everybody else.
Income tax? Federal taxes? Don't tell me you don't love it that we have a ★■◆●-load of big bombs and we hardly get messed with?
This isn't like car insurance, where you get to choose if you want to buy a car and drive it on the federal roads or not, this is existence tax. While you, Bettina, (as you've insinuated) might be crazy rich, people like me aren't, and I'm both fine and happy with our respective decisions and positions.
It's easy to forget about personal responsibility and freedom when you're already accustomed to getting anything you want. But leave us, the simple-living folk, the hell alone.
I have a challenge for you, Bett. I'll hire you on my Alaska crew for a summer where you'll have a 112 hour workweek for months on end and no days off. Then you grab that check and look at it, and feel what it's like to have it and hold it, then you can know how the real working man feels about having his check melt into the hands of people who have no business with it. I'll even give you a $1000 bonus out of my own pocket and buy your plane ticket home. What'd'ya say? I know people who would take a man's life for that opportunity.
Income tax? Federal taxes? Don't tell me you don't love it that we have a ★■◆●-load of big bombs and we hardly get messed with?
This isn't like car insurance, where you get to choose if you want to buy a car and drive it on the federal roads or not, this is existence tax. While you, Bettina, (as you've insinuated) might be crazy rich, people like me aren't, and I'm both fine and happy with our respective decisions and positions.
It's easy to forget about personal responsibility and freedom when you're already accustomed to getting anything you want. But leave us, the simple-living folk, the hell alone.
I have a challenge for you, Bett. I'll hire you on my Alaska crew for a summer where you'll have a 112 hour workweek for months on end and no days off. Then you grab that check and look at it, and feel what it's like to have it and hold it, then you can know how the real working man feels about having his check melt into the hands of people who have no business with it. I'll even give you a $1000 bonus out of my own pocket and buy your plane ticket home. What'd'ya say? I know people who would take a man's life for that opportunity.
Re:
I'm absolutely freakin' serious.*SilverFJ wrote:I have a challenge for you, Bett. I'll hire you on my Alaska crew for a summer where you'll have a 112 hour workweek for months on end and no days off. Then you grab that check and look at it, and feel what it's like to have it and hold it, then you can know how the real working man feels about having his check melt into the hands of people who have no business with it. I'll even give you a $1000 bonus out of my own pocket and buy your plane ticket home. What'd'ya say? I know people who would take a man's life for that opportunity.
Re:
Umm...no, 5 days after the vote"AlphaDoG wrote:3 days (72 hours) passed before the vote was held + 2 days (48 hours) passed before signage = 5 days.woodchip wrote:Whatever happened to Obama's pledge that he would allow 5 days before signing a bill in law?
" Obama promised five days for public consideration, discussion, and informed opinions about bills reaching the President before he would sign them into law."
Nice math tho.
Re:
You forget, there WAS a VOTE to hold a VoTe!woodchip wrote:Umm...no, 5 days after the vote"AlphaDoG wrote:3 days (72 hours) passed before the vote was held + 2 days (48 hours) passed before signage = 5 days.woodchip wrote:Whatever happened to Obama's pledge that he would allow 5 days before signing a bill in law?
" Obama promised five days for public consideration, discussion, and informed opinions about bills reaching the President before he would sign them into law."
Nice math tho.
It's never good to wake up in the shrubs naked, you either got way too drunk, or your azz is a werewolf.
- CUDA
- DBB Master
- Posts: 6482
- Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: A Conservative Man in the Liberal bastion of the Pacific Northwest. in Oregon City. Oregon
Re:
now this is a foolish statement, the ONLY way you could know exactly how they feel would be to have gone through exactly what they went through,Bet51987 wrote:I know exactly how they feel.
Bee
bleeding heart
n.
A person who is considered excessively sympathetic toward those who claim to be underprivileged or exploited.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
― Theodore Roosevelt
― Theodore Roosevelt
Bettina, I don’t think we are on the same page….
I don’t have insurance, so no…there is nothing I am willing or going to give up to them.
There is no “it” I pay for, other than the health care I can afford. (which ain’t much)
And, I already face many serious health issues…(T2 Diabetes, Cataracts, Serious Neuropathy & some unknown in my abdomen)
When my time comes, I will die.
I don’t have insurance, so no…there is nothing I am willing or going to give up to them.
There is no “it” I pay for, other than the health care I can afford. (which ain’t much)
And, I already face many serious health issues…(T2 Diabetes, Cataracts, Serious Neuropathy & some unknown in my abdomen)
When my time comes, I will die.
- Insurrectionist
- DBB Captain
- Posts: 557
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:01 am
- Location: SE;JHFs
- Contact:
I really think there is something wrong with this statement. Could it be if the insurance drops you and you have to pay everything out of your pocket would you not be losing everything to the Hospital or other medical practitioners and not to the Insurance company you are trying to demonize with that statement. You will only lose what you have paid in to the insurance company not everything.Bettina wrote:Should something serious happen that would require expensive medications are you willing to lose everything you ever worked for to the insurance companies?
*Edit* I wouldn't mind losing everything I work for because I really don't need it when I'm dead. *Edit*
Re:
Wouldn't matter, I have lost EVERYTHING more than once. How is that possible, you might ask. I lost everything when I lost my DoG, he meant the world to me. I lost everything when I lost my wife, she took EVERYTHING!Insurrectionist wrote:I really think there is something wrong with this statement. Could it be if the insurance drops you and you have to pay everything out of your pocket would you not be losing everything to the Hospital or other medical practitioners and not to the Insurance company you are trying to demonize with that statement. You will only lose what you have paid in to the insurance company not everything.Bettina wrote:Should something serious happen that would require expensive medications are you willing to lose everything you ever worked for to the insurance companies?
So Take me to jail, I worked all my life to provide for me, my DoG, AND my wife. I deserve a break today!
It's never good to wake up in the shrubs naked, you either got way too drunk, or your azz is a werewolf.
- CUDA
- DBB Master
- Posts: 6482
- Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: A Conservative Man in the Liberal bastion of the Pacific Northwest. in Oregon City. Oregon
well it apperas that President Obeyme even lied to members of his own party in order to get Healthcare passed. why am I not shocked
its amazing that some people on this forum Idolize this man.President Obama signed the Senate health care bill into law Tuesday. He did not sign the executive order on abortion negotiated with Michigan Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak in an 11th-hour arrangement that may well have saved the entire health care reform effort
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
― Theodore Roosevelt
― Theodore Roosevelt
*this* is exactly why I am glad the Bill passed, as ugly as it was, the hand has been forced to actually do something instead of kicking the can down the road.
As much as you guys hate which way the ball is rolling, thank God its rolling.
If the Reps. actually did something with Social security, I am sure by now the Dems would have tweaked it, in 2011 the Repubs would have tweaked it again, etc. etc.
Instead of the situation where we have now where the pot is still boiling, but no one is looking.
As much as you guys hate which way the ball is rolling, thank God its rolling.
If the Reps. actually did something with Social security, I am sure by now the Dems would have tweaked it, in 2011 the Repubs would have tweaked it again, etc. etc.
Instead of the situation where we have now where the pot is still boiling, but no one is looking.
Re:
It's boiling, I'm looking. WE THE PEOPLE are about to throw some water on a grease fire. So there!Gooberman wrote:*this* is exactly why I am glad the Bill passed, as ugly as it was, the hand has been forced to actually do something instead of kicking the can down the road.
As much as you guys hate which way the ball is rolling, thank God its rolling.
If the Reps. actually did something with Social security, I am sure by now the Dems would have tweaked it, in 2011 the Repubs would have tweaked it again, etc. etc.
Instead of the situation where we have now where the pot is still boiling, but no one is looking.
It's never good to wake up in the shrubs naked, you either got way too drunk, or your azz is a werewolf.
- Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10133
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
Re:
Well, Bee, we don't like the bill because we are considering ALL OF IT and the parts you like for this year look a lot like ideas the republican party has offered going back as far as the 1990's when Hillary Care was shut down.....so the 'Party of No' as you so mindlessly continue to chant are really the original authors of much of what you like. But you didn't know that because you don't think outside of the published democrat talking points.Bet51987 wrote:I picked those because those are the one's that will take place this year. I'll say thank you again in the following years. It doesn't matter anyway. The Party of No would reject those even if they stood separate. But, you already knew that didn't you. ...Will Robinson wrote:you cherry picked from it Bee because if it did you wouldn't have to pretend there are no other reasons, nor reasonable people, to object to it!!
Bee
Re:
Climb down from where?? My foreman position at my fish processing plant?? I was at the bottom rung position in the bottom rung industry long enough to know there's no down from there. You wanna poke cattle for $800 a month? I dunno whats down from there, either. And you have absolutely no freakin idea what it's like until you're about to pass out from sweating yourself. That's why I challenged you to come do it. Money has a whole different face when you go to those lengths to make it. Just because someone relayed to you how hard it was doesn't mean you know.Bet51987 wrote:I know exactly how they feel. At least the one's in my church who I've personally talked to and that's why I'm for health care reform. Maybe if you climbed down and talked to some of them it may humble you enough to act more humanly.SilverFJ wrote:....then you can know how the real working man feels.
Bee
Bettina wrote:Then let them have cake!
Re:
you think you had it bad? try sucking portable toilets out for a while.*SilverFJ wrote:Climb down from where?? My foreman position at my fish processing plant?? I was at the bottom rung position in the bottom rung industry long enough to know there's no down from there. You wanna poke cattle for $800 a month? I dunno whats down from there, either. And you have absolutely no freakin idea what it's like until you're about to pass out from sweating yourself. That's why I challenged you to come do it. Money has a whole different face when you go to those lengths to make it. Just because someone relayed to you how hard it was doesn't mean you know.
Re:
CUDA wrote:well it apperas that President Obeyme even lied to members of his own party in order to get Healthcare passed. why am I not shocked
its amazing that some people on this forum Idolize this man.President Obama signed the Senate health care bill into law Tuesday. He did not sign the executive order on abortion negotiated with Michigan Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak in an 11th-hour arrangement that may well have saved the entire health care reform effort
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/24/ ... index.html(CNN) -- President Obama will sign an executive order Wednesday that ensures that existing limits on the federal funding of abortion remain in place under the new health care overhaul law.
Unlike the signing of the health care bill into law Tuesday, which was conducted under the glare of media cameras, the event Wednesday will be closed to the news media.
It will be attended by Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan and 12 of his anti-abortion Democratic House colleagues, without whose help the landmark overhaul bill would not have passed, political observers say.
The White House said the executive order reaffirms longstanding restrictions on the federal funding of abortion in the new law.
"While the legislation as written maintains current law, the executive order provides additional safeguards to ensure that the status quo is upheld and enforced, and that the health care legislation's restrictions against the public funding of abortions cannot be circumvented," the White House said.
Stupak said the order makes very clear that the current law applies to the new law.
"I have said from the start that my goal was to see health care pass while maintaining the principle of the sanctity of life," he said Tuesday.
Whew, thank God I can now go back to idolizing the man.
- CUDA
- DBB Master
- Posts: 6482
- Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: A Conservative Man in the Liberal bastion of the Pacific Northwest. in Oregon City. Oregon
Re:
Ya read that this morning, havent had the chance to correct my post. I still wonder WTF didn't he sign it when it was right there infront of him when he was signing the original bill,Gooberman wrote:CUDA wrote:well it apperas that President Obeyme even lied to members of his own party in order to get Healthcare passed. why am I not shocked
its amazing that some people on this forum Idolize this man.President Obama signed the Senate health care bill into law Tuesday. He did not sign the executive order on abortion negotiated with Michigan Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak in an 11th-hour arrangement that may well have saved the entire health care reform efforthttp://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/24/ ... index.html(CNN) -- President Obama will sign an executive order Wednesday that ensures that existing limits on the federal funding of abortion remain in place under the new health care overhaul law.
Unlike the signing of the health care bill into law Tuesday, which was conducted under the glare of media cameras, the event Wednesday will be closed to the news media.
It will be attended by Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan and 12 of his anti-abortion Democratic House colleagues, without whose help the landmark overhaul bill would not have passed, political observers say.
The White House said the executive order reaffirms longstanding restrictions on the federal funding of abortion in the new law.
"While the legislation as written maintains current law, the executive order provides additional safeguards to ensure that the status quo is upheld and enforced, and that the health care legislation's restrictions against the public funding of abortions cannot be circumvented," the White House said.
Stupak said the order makes very clear that the current law applies to the new law.
"I have said from the start that my goal was to see health care pass while maintaining the principle of the sanctity of life," he said Tuesday.
Whew, thank God I can now go back to idolizing the man.
EDIT: still I have a problem with an "executive order" that can be changed at a whim without any legislature involvement. there is nothing to stop him or any future president from in effect making new law without the input of the people IE: their representatives.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
― Theodore Roosevelt
― Theodore Roosevelt
Re:
You're not seeing the whole picture (or else you're ignoring the things people are concerned about).Bet51987 wrote:Trying to destroy something that can actually help families in distress is something to be proud of isn't it.AlphaDoG wrote:It's boiling, I'm looking. WE THE PEOPLE are about to throw some water on a grease fire. So there!
It's like some of these "questionable" non-profit organizations that put forth a lot of effort to raise money for a good cause ... when in reality most (greater than 50%, if not as much as 90%) of the funds raised are actually spent on lining certain people's pockets, administration, advertising, that organization's internal structure, etc. instead of the good cause they proclaim to be benefit. (you remember all those celebrity actions and performances in the name of raising money to help earthquake devastated Chile? Chile didn't actually get much at all from their performances)
Just because it's primarily claiming a good cause, doesn't mean the way it's going about doing it is a good thing. In this case it's pretty sure a LOT of it is seriously flawed and/or the wrong way to do it.
Doing it the wrong way doesn't make it right.
- CUDA
- DBB Master
- Posts: 6482
- Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: A Conservative Man in the Liberal bastion of the Pacific Northwest. in Oregon City. Oregon
Re:
It's CLEARLY both. and its by choiceTechPro wrote:You're not seeing the whole picture (or else you're ignoring the things people are concerned about).
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
― Theodore Roosevelt
― Theodore Roosevelt