DescentBB

*SilverFJ wrote:Or the armed insurrection...

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.

\"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

The 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.

Bet51987 wrote:

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

woodchip wrote:Whatever happened to Obama's pledge that he would allow 5 days before signing a bill in law?

Bet51987 wrote:You just don't get it do you.

*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.

AlphaDoG wrote:

woodchip wrote:Whatever happened to Obama's pledge that he would allow 5 days before signing a bill in law?

3 days (72 hours) passed before the vote was held + 2 days (48 hours) passed before signage = 5 days.

Me wrote:I'm absolutely freakin' serious.

woodchip wrote:

AlphaDoG wrote:

woodchip wrote:Whatever happened to Obama's pledge that he would allow 5 days before signing a bill in law?

3 days (72 hours) passed before the vote was held + 2 days (48 hours) passed before signage = 5 days.

Umm...no, 5 days after the vote"

" 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.

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.

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?

Insurrectionist wrote:

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?

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.

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

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.

Bet51987 wrote:

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!!

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. ...
Bee

Bet51987 wrote:

SilverFJ wrote:....then you can know how the real working man feels.

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.

Bee

Bettina wrote:Then let them have cake!

*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.

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

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

its amazing that some people on this forum Idolize this man.

(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.

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

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

its amazing that some people on this forum Idolize this man.

(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.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/24/ ... index.html

Whew, thank God I can now go back to idolizing the man.

Bet51987 wrote:

AlphaDoG wrote:It's boiling, I'm looking. WE THE PEOPLE are about to throw some water on a grease fire. So there!

Trying to destroy something that can actually help families in distress is something to be proud of isn't it.

TechPro wrote:You're not seeing the whole picture (or else you're ignoring the things people are concerned about).

Bettina wrote:Republicans have never had any intent to do anything to fix healthcare for the millions who need it.