Nullification of ObamaCare sought
Dionysus
HEAD: Nullification of HCR sought in several States
The Republican Senate caucus and at least ten attorneys general are
preparing political, procedural, and legal challenges to the health-care
reform legislation proposed by President Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi (D-CA-8), and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). But freedom
activists are trying to encourage State legislatures in as many States as
possible to present another challenge: nullification.
Nullification is any action taken by a particular government that makes the
laws passed and enacted by a higher-level government null and void within
the lower-level government's jurisdiction, or at least causes enforcement of
the higher-level law to be ineffective. The relevant context is a State
action to nullify a federal law.
The authority that makes nullification possible is the US Constitution's
Tenth Amendment, which reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people.
The "delegated powers" are listed in Article 1, Section 8. The key power
that federal authorities cite in saying that their proposed health-care
reform is constitutionally authorized is clause 3, which reads:
The Congress shall have power...to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,
and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.
This "interstate commerce clause" has been the source of expansion of
federal power since the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt,
according to FreeRepublic.com.
Nullification has a long and rich history, beginning in 1798 with
resolutions in Virginia and Kentucky passed to protest the original Alien
and Sedition Acts, according to the Tenth Amendment Center. Arguably, States
have taken effective nullification action as recently as this decade, when
multiple States passed their own legislation expressly forbidding their
respective Divisions of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to upgrade drivers' licenses in
accordance with the REAL-ID Act of 2005.
In response, the Obama administration recently announced that it would
quietly drop the Act. In addition, thirteen States have passed legislation
allowing State residents to use marijuana (Cannabis sativa) for medicinal
purposes. (Tetrahydrocannabinol, the active ingredient in marijuana, is a
powerful antiemetic that, some say, can greatly alleviate the nausea that
plagues patients who undergo chemotherapy in the treatment of cancer.)
This year, the States of Montana and Tennessee have passed laws stating that
firearms manufactured within their borders, for sale to State residents, are
not subject to regulation by federal authorities. No binding court precedent
exists to resolve the issue.
Nullification has never resulted in armed conflict, though several
pre-War-Between-the-States nullification initiatives came close.
(Technically, the War Between the States began with secession, not
nullification.) Usually, one side or the other has backed down. In the
REAL-ID case, perhaps federal authorities backed down for one reason only: a
change in administration, to one that probably regards such stringent
identification procedures as discriminatory against the most likely
perceived targets, which are Arab citizens and lawful residents.
However, the backdown in the REAL-ID case has emboldened libertarian
activists who see this as a precedent for effective nullification action
against federal health-care reform, if any health-care form bill actually
becomes law.
In June of this year, the Arizona Senate gave its approval to HCR 2014, a
concurrent resolution to amend the State constitution to prohibit the
enforcement of any law that requires individuals to purchase health-care
insurance, or that forbids them to buy such insurance directly rather than
through any federal exchange. That proposed amendment will appear on the
ballot in November of 2010. At that time, five other States were considering
similar measures.
More recently, according to the Tenth Amendment Center, Missouri is now
considering similar legislation. RedState.com expects at least twenty States
to consider nullification legislation in 2010. In fact, Arizona is the only
State that has placed nullification on the ballot; it has been introduced in
Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. It has failed
in Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, and West Virginia.
Health-care reform nullification is only one issue that the Tenth Amendment
Center is tracking. Many States are considering generic Tenth Amendment
resolutions. (New Jersey is one.) In addition to the issues previously
mentioned, the Center is also tracking movements to allow State governors to
recall their National Guard contingents from overseas and to enable States
to make gold or silver legal tender within their borders.
The Lectric Law Center contains multiple case-law citations bearing on the
Tenth Amendment and the viability of any Tenth-Amendment-based challenge to
federal power. More broadly, the Tenth Amendment Movement as such has drawn
mixed reaction from commentators that might be sympathetic to the basic
premise. Larry Elder suggested, in April 17, 2009, that such efforts were "a
day late and a dollar short," saying that health-care reform is only one of
many federal programs that, he says, activists should have challenged long
before this. Matt Ross at The Conservative Hideout cited several pitfalls,
such as cutoffs of highway and other funds, but suggests that States could
and should cope with such cutoffs by learning how to run their States
without such funds.
Other activists, like the Populist Party, insist that nullification is a
necessary step toward restoring to the American federal system the
relationship between federal and State governments that the framers of the
Constitution originally intended, and one that conforms to the strict
definition of a republic, in which governments at various levels have their
own areas of responsibility, with which the higher-level governments are not
supposed to interfere.
************
Interesting,eh! It may not be too late to reclaim our republic, after all.
"The people can never wilfully betray their own interests; but they may
possibly be betrayed by the representatives of the people." --Federalist No.
63
Happy New Year.
No Surrender!
Dionysus
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
Great. Let as many states as want to nullify the HCR. The result
would be a gradual migration of people from those states to the states
that decided to get serious about health insurance reform. That
migration would, over time, result in:
-- Census changes that would take away Congressional representation
from the losing states and adding to the gaining states;
-- More federal $$$ flowing to the complying states at the expense of
the nullifying states.
And, as we all know, the nullifying states would be red states, mostly
in the South -- all of which would drive them deeper into depression.
Go for it.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> Great. Let as many states as want to nullify the HCR. The result
> would be a gradual migration of people from those states to the states
> that decided to get serious about health insurance reform. That
> migration would, over time, result in:
The States that attract those fine citizens you speak of, will be like
the inner cities of America..... crime ridden and going broke.
I applaud all the States that want to attract the people to get free
health care. They will get what they deserve. It's like offering free
Government liquor to all the alcoholics in the Nation... This I can't
wait to see.
I'd rather struggle and work and pay my way in a FREE STATE than to lay
around with the lazy worthless in a State where everything is free from
the Government.
Please start your system working to drain the rest of the States of the
lazy people that want to live for free and have zero imagination and
can't survive in a world where you have to produce something.
I want to see the unemployment rates of your FREE health care States....
"COME TO CALIFORNIA AND LIVE FOR FREE" How long till California is
broke, OOooooopppsss they are Broke already from giving away all the
money of those that work to those that don't. What a success.
Dusty
news:ph5fj59g8if7jpfd4...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:44:01 -0500, "Dionysus"
> <no.sur...@never.net> wrote:
>
>>FROM EXAMINER.COM
>>
>>HEAD: Nullification of HCR sought in several States
>>
[snip]
> Great. Let as many states as want to nullify the HCR. The result
> would be a gradual migration of people from those states to the states
> that decided to get serious about health insurance reform. That
> migration would, over time, result in:
>
> -- Census changes that would take away Congressional representation
> from the losing states and adding to the gaining states;
>
> -- More federal $$$ flowing to the complying states at the expense of
> the nullifying states.
>
> And, as we all know, the nullifying states would be red states, mostly
> in the South -- all of which would drive them deeper into depression.
>
> Go for it.
You do of course realize, this can cut both ways.. Should enough people pack
up and leave for those states that do not mandate the purchase of
Obooboo-care, they could well tilt the census, and thereby Congress,
in -their- favor..
How do you like your crow?
Dave Heil
> In article <hh8cvt$brs$02$1...@news.t-online.com>, "Dusty" <No....@home.org>
>
>> You do of course realize, this can cut both ways.. Should enough people pack
>> up and leave for those states that do not mandate the purchase of
>> Obooboo-care, they could well tilt the census, and thereby Congress,
>> in -their- favor..
>
> rest of us pay for their medical care, I say don't let the door hit your butt on
> the way out.
It really doesn't matter what you say. Both the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution guarantee my freedom. West Virginia's
state motto, "Montani Semper Liberi" confirms it. The Congress cannot
create a law which mandates that I must buy something.
pbj
That's good, because I don't want to buy any war in Iraq.
Dionysus
"pbj" <postittoth...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:c9qdnXiNVsKzpKXW...@supernews.com...
Now that's just silly...juvenile. Do grow up, little man.
pbj
The principle's the same: If the government can make me buy a war I
don't want, it can make you buy insurance you don't want.
> Happy New Year.
Reminds me, I need to go buy some black powder for my cannon.
> No Surrender!
Good. Prisoners are such a pain in the ass.
galen...@rcn.com
> The Congress cannot create a law which mandates that I must buy
> something.
What are taxes?
--
Galen Boyer
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Sueki Tartridge
>
> - Show quoted text -
Good !! You can have all the welfare drawing white/black/latin
deadbeats and illegal mexxkins. Now,how ya' gonna pay for it??
Oh,that's right. Tax the "rich". But what happens when there are no
more "rich" to tax because they've fled your high tax,big gubmint,free
healthcare state for a more business freindly environment?? They can
come to Texas. We have plenty of room for businesses.
Dionysus
What childish nonsense you dribble like so much pablum. You didn't "buy the
war," but you will have to buy health insurance under Da Li'l Prick's
maggot-treat ugliness. As I wrote before, "Do grow up, little man.
Happy New Year.
No Surrender!
Dionysus
>
pbj
Of course I "bought" the war in Iraq - I'm being forced to pay for it
(even though I didn't want it).
> As I wrote before, "Do grow up, little man.
Still upset over that little election thing last November?
Dionysus
Apples and oranges, little man, apples and oranges.
As I wrote before, "Do grow up, little man.
Happy New Year.
No Surrender!
Dionysus
>
Sueki Tartridge
wrote:
> In article <33486733-0591-4747-9e75-aaf3120b1...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> Sueki Tartridge <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Oh,that's right. Tax the "rich". But what happens when there are no
> > more "rich" to tax because they've fled your high tax,big gubmint,free
> > healthcare state for a more business freindly environment?? They can
>
>
China,Japan and Korea?
> --
> Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to be.
> Silver silverware - Where is the love? At least I can stay in character.
> Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> Damn the living - It's a lovely life. We support you, Sarah.
ray
pbj <postittoth...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>>> Since the people who don't want to buy insurance are deadbeats
> >>>> planning to make rest of us pay for their medical care, I say don't
> >>>> let the door hit your butt on the way out.
> >>>
> >>> It really doesn't matter what you say. Both the Declaration of
> >>> Independence and the Constitution guarantee my freedom. West
> >>> Virginia's state motto, "Montani Semper Liberi" confirms it. The
> >>> Congress cannot create a law which mandates that I must buy something.
> >>
> >> That's good, because I don't want to buy any war in Iraq.
> > **********
> > Now that's just silly...juvenile. Do grow up, little man.
>
> The principle's the same: If the government can make me buy a war I
> don't want, it can make you buy insurance you don't want.
I'll give you a hint here: One is in the Constitution, and the other is
not. Need more help figuring it out? Write back.
--
Barock Insane Obama: The greatest joke America ever played on itself.
John Q Public
> On Dec 28, 12:29�pm, My China Blue Heaven <chine.b...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> In article <33486733-0591-4747-9e75-aaf3120b1...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.
> com>,
>> �Sueki Tartridge <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Oh,that's right. Tax the "rich". But what happens when there are no
>>> more "rich" to tax because they've fled your high tax,big gubmint,free
>>> healthcare state for a more business freindly environment?? They can
>>
>> Three guesses where some of the biggest businesses are located.
>>
>
>
>
> China,Japan and Korea?
Gee, and in China you pay fer healthcare, if you no pay you no get!
Japan and its entitlements are making it broke and Korea isn't far behind!
Japan housing is so expensive you have to have children because you actually
bequeath them your mortgage (100-150 year mortgages are common!)
China over 95% people live below our poverty level!
Yep, yer little eutopia seems so appealing!
>
Luke
> It really doesn't matter what you say. Both the Declaration of
> Independence and the Constitution guarantee my freedom. West Virginia's
> state motto, "Montani Semper Liberi" confirms it. The Congress cannot
> create a law which mandates that I must buy something.
This is where the American people should see thru this ridiculous
"bill". It's unconstitutional, immoral and an overall bad idea. I
hope people fight it until it's extinguished!
pbj
No, I already have insurance so mandatory insurance won't affect me. It
will only affect those who lack health insurance. They're probably the
same ones doing all the hollering - and most of the hollering I hear on
this is coming from the right.
>>
>> Of course I "bought" the war in Iraq - I'm being forced to pay for it
>> (even though I didn't want it).
> **********
> Apples and oranges, little man, apples and oranges.
Then can I get a refund on the war in Iraq, because I never agreed to it,
never wanted it, and in fact strenuously opposed it?
> As I wrote before, "Do grow up, little man.
Sticks and stones may break my bones,
but your impotent name-calling is SO amusing. :-)
pbj
If rightwingers really believed that, they'd keep their mouths shut and
let the Democrats hang themselves.
Dionysus
What'll really break your "bones," Little Man, as well as your bank account,
will the ever growing amount of taxes and the ever increasing loss of
freedom you'll 'enjoy' if Da Li'l Prick and his maggot-treat criminal
co-conspirators get their way. Too bad you're too little a man to see that
yet. Someday you might, to your regret.
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it
can bribe the public with the public's money." --Alexis de Tocqueville
The intellectual establishment [is] so busy demanding more power for
government, more bureaucracy, regulation, spending and -- oh, yes -- more
and more taxes, they forgot all about the secret of America's success --
opportunity for people, for all the people...."--Ronald Reagan
ray
pbj <postittoth...@nospam.com> wrote:
It doesn't matter if you believe it or not. It's in writing and anybody
can look it up. The Democrats are going to hang themselves, but that
doesn't mean the Republicans should sit back and let a group of
government obsessed representatives ruin this country. It's their job
to stop this bill anyway possible be it through court or through voting
it down because once something like this is in place, it's virtually
impossible to rescind.
Daniel
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:58:21 -0500, Dionysus wrote:
> >news:c9qdnXiNVsKzpKXW...@supernews.com...
> >> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 04:05:34 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:
>
> >>> My China Blue Heaven wrote:
> >>>> <No....@home.org> wrote:
>
> >>>>> You do of course realize, this can cut both ways.. Should enough
> >>>>> people pack up and leave for those states that do not mandate the
> >>>>> purchase of Obooboo-care, they could well tilt the census, and
> >>>>> thereby Congress, in -their- favor..
>
> >>>> Since the people who don't want to buy insurance are deadbeats
> >>>> planning to make rest of us pay for their medical care, I say don't
> >>>> let the door hit your butt on the way out.
>
> >>> It really doesn't matter what you say. Both the Declaration of
> >>> Independence and the Constitution guarantee my freedom. West
> >>> Virginia's state motto, "Montani Semper Liberi" confirms it. The
> >>> Congress cannot create a law which mandates that I must buy something.
>
> >> That's good, because I don't want to buy any war in Iraq.
> > **********
> > Now that's just silly...juvenile. Do grow up, little man.
>
> The principle's the same: If the government can make me buy a war I
> don't want, it can make you buy insurance you don't want.
Actually, the military IS about the only thing the Constitution says
you must pay for.
pbj
Where was all this almighty concern for my welfare when Republicans were
in control of the government, spending money like a bunch of drunken
sailors, putting off the bills until some later administration or
shifting costs off the shoulders of the rich and onto the middle class,
and generally destroying the economy to satisfy their unending greed?
> "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers
> that it can bribe the public with the public's money." --Alexis de
> Tocqueville
"I cannot help fearing that men may reach a point where they look on
every new theory as a danger, every innovation as a toilsome trouble,
every social advance as a first step toward revolution, and that they
may absolutely refuse to move at all." --Alexis de Tocqueville
Now how did he know 170 years ago about the "Party of NO"?
> The intellectual establishment [is] so busy demanding more power for
> government, more bureaucracy, regulation, spending and -- oh, yes --
> more and more taxes, they forgot all about the secret of America's
> success -- opportunity for people, for all the people...."--Ronald
> Reagan
"We should declare war on North Vietnam. We could pave the whole country
and put parking strips on it, and still be home by Christmas." --Ronald
Reagan
Dionysus
Sweet Jay-sus (as my sainted Irish grandmother would say), where did you get
the idea that I or any conservative approve of how the republicans
mis-handled their responsiblities when they had Congress and the Executive
Branch?
Do yo honestly think thjat becasue one pasrtyu did it to the country'u'
pbj
> In article <HLidncy1fZ92u6TW...@supernews.com>,
> pbj <postittoth...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:17:21 -0500, ray wrote:
>>
>> > In article <hqidndPYOcwDXKXW...@supernews.com>,
>> > pbj <postittoth...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >>>> Since the people who don't want to buy insurance are deadbeats
>> >> >>>> planning to make rest of us pay for their medical care, I say
>> >> >>>> don't let the door hit your butt on the way out.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> It really doesn't matter what you say. Both the Declaration of
>> >> >>> Independence and the Constitution guarantee my freedom. West
>> >> >>> Virginia's state motto, "Montani Semper Liberi" confirms it.
>> >> >>> The Congress cannot create a law which mandates that I must buy
>> >> >>> something.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That's good, because I don't want to buy any war in Iraq.
>> >> > **********
>> >> > Now that's just silly...juvenile. Do grow up, little man.
>> >>
>> >> The principle's the same: If the government can make me buy a war I
>> >> don't want, it can make you buy insurance you don't want.
>> >
>> > I'll give you a hint here: One is in the Constitution, and the other
>> > is not. Need more help figuring it out? Write back.
>>
>> If rightwingers really believed that, they'd keep their mouths shut and
>> let the Democrats hang themselves.
>
> It doesn't matter if you believe it or not.
It doesn't matter if you believe it, either. The issue will be settled
in the USSC, not on Usenet, and by people who really do understand the
Constitution on levels that I doubt anyone here is capable of.
That, is, provided that your claim has enough substance to make it that
far. If I were a betting man I'd put my money on the case not getting any
farther in court than the birthers did.
> It's in writing and anybody can look it up.
Don't need to. From the Right's panic over the mandatory insurance
requirement it's immediately obvious that none of them actually believe
it's unconstitutional. This is just more of the same old fear-mongering
we've come to expect from rightwingers when they have nothing else to
offer.
> The Democrats are going to hang themselves, but that doesn't mean the
> Republicans should sit back and let a group of government obsessed
> representatives ruin this country. It's their job to stop this bill
> anyway possible be it through court or through voting it down because
> once something like this is in place, it's virtually impossible to
> rescind.
Yeah, Republicans didn't do squat about our broken-down health care
system when *they* were in power, but now that someone else is trying to
fix it Republicans will do everything they can to block any and all
progress.
Dionysus
"Dionysus" <no.sur...@never.net> wrote in message
news:WPKdnXBwn-hY76TW...@giganews.com...
Do you honestly think that because one party did it to the country's
detriment, it's okay for the other party to do it also? Do you realize how
truly stupid that is?
As I have written before, "Grow up, little man." There's much more at stake
here than mere partisan advantage.
"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in
human hands, will ever be liable to abuse." --James Madison
"The function of socialism is to raise suffering to a higher
level." --Norman Mailer
Happy New Year.
No Surrender!
Dionysus
>>> "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers
pbj
I don't know, maybe because conservatives voted Republican, supported
Republicans, and took the Republican side on political issues?
> Do you honestly think that because one party did it to the country's
> detriment, it's okay for the other party to do it also? Do you realize
> how truly stupid that is?
If you want to see stupid, look in the mirror. The right has almost no
credibility left with the swing voters and you fools are continuing to
drive them even farther away with the very same bullshit that alienated
them in the 2008 election.
> As I have written before, "Grow up, little man." There's much more at
> stake here than mere partisan advantage.
You can take that straw man and shove it up your ass.
> "The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in
> human hands, will ever be liable to abuse." --James Madison
The same could be said of corporate power, especially when corporations
start taking control of the government as they have here in the US.
> "The function of socialism is to raise suffering to a higher level."
Socialism is state ownership of all industry, land, and the means of
production. Democrats seek no such thing except in a few essential areas
where the marketplace has failed to do the job. Even then, most
Democrats strongly prefer solutions that involve a healthy dose of
marketplace competition. That's why single-payer was ruled out so early
in the game and has received only token support when its fans tried to
re-introduce it.
Stephen Sprunk
> Sueki Tartridge <hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Oh,that's right. Tax the "rich". But what happens when there are no
>> more "rich" to tax because they've fled your high tax,big gubmint,free
>> healthcare state for a more business freindly environment?? They can
>
"Some of" is very vague.
Texas is already home to more Fortune 100/500/1000 companies than any
other state, and more every year. Real estate is cheap, taxes are low,
the cost of living in general is low, business regulations are sane,
health care is cheap, education is decent, etc. Aside from the climate,
we win on everything vs. California, and we beat most other blue states
on climate too. That's why our economy is still strong, we never had a
stupid housing bubble, and half a million people per year are moving here.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Sueki Tartridge
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:17:21 -0500, ray wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
The progressives have fucked themselves(again). They don't need help
from (R)s to blow both of their feet off. They do it every time they
gain power. Of course they know if they don't get their marxist/
utopian dream of socialised medicine/spread the wealth/global warming
agenda pushed through before November they're fucked for another
20+years. It's do or die,balls to the wall,damn the torpedoes,full
speed ahead matey !!
Sueki Tartridge
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:14:51 -0500, Dionysus wrote:
> >news:BN-dnX1osZESuaTW...@supernews.com...
> >> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:33:33 -0500, Dionysus wrote:
>
> >>>news:6bKdnc6wO81mdqXW...@supernews.com...
> >>>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:32:16 -0500, Dionysus wrote:
>
> >>>>>news:hqidndPYOcwDXKXW...@supernews.com...
> >>>>>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:58:21 -0500, Dionysus wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>news:c9qdnXiNVsKzpKXW...@supernews.com...
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 04:05:34 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> My China Blue Heaven wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUTWHADDABOUTREAGAN ???!!!! Obama/
Pelosi/Reid/Fwank/Biden are spending $TRILLIONS like a shipload of
drunken sailors on methamphetamines,tequila,mushrooms and spray paint
BUTWHADDABOUTEISENHOWER??!! The progressives are hellbent to destroy
the framework of the country and rebuild it in the image of Venezuela
BUTWHADDABOUTMYNEIGHBOR'S CAT??!!
Sueki Tartridge
> > Sueki Tartridge <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Oh,that's right. Tax the "rich". But what happens when there are no
> >> more "rich" to tax because they've fled your high tax,big gubmint,free
> >> healthcare state for a more business freindly environment?? They can
>
> > Three guesses where some of the biggest businesses are located.
>
> "Some of" is very vague.
>
> Texas is already home to more Fortune 100/500/1000 companies than any
> other state, and more every year. Real estate is cheap, taxes are low,
> the cost of living in general is low, business regulations are sane,
> health care is cheap, education is decent, etc. Aside from the climate,
> we win on everything vs. California, and we beat most other blue states
> on climate too. That's why our economy is still strong, we never had a
> stupid housing bubble, and half a million people per year are moving here.
>
> S
>
> --
> Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
> CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
> K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
(SSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH dammit) We don't need another flood of fucking
lazt assed snowbirds coming here like they did in the 70s FFS!! Not
only that we don't need millions of tree hugging california progessive
prunepickers stinking up our clear.clean Texas air !!
Dionysus
"Sueki Tartridge" <hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3d42bdf7-c1cb-4fa1...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
**************
Yep, right over the cliff like the lib loon lemmings they are. Let's none of
them can swim.
ray
pbj <postittoth...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> >> The principle's the same: If the government can make me buy a war I
> >> >> don't want, it can make you buy insurance you don't want.
> >> >
> >> > I'll give you a hint here: One is in the Constitution, and the other
> >> > is not. Need more help figuring it out? Write back.
> >>
> >> If rightwingers really believed that, they'd keep their mouths shut and
> >> let the Democrats hang themselves.
> >
> > It doesn't matter if you believe it or not.
>
> It doesn't matter if you believe it, either. The issue will be settled
> in the USSC, not on Usenet, and by people who really do understand the
> Constitution on levels that I doubt anyone here is capable of.
Certainly not you if you don't realize that funding for the military is
in the Constitution and healthcare is not.
> That, is, provided that your claim has enough substance to make it that
> far. If I were a betting man I'd put my money on the case not getting any
> farther in court than the birthers did.
>
> > It's in writing and anybody can look it up.
>
> Don't need to. From the Right's panic over the mandatory insurance
> requirement it's immediately obvious that none of them actually believe
> it's unconstitutional. This is just more of the same old fear-mongering
> we've come to expect from rightwingers when they have nothing else to
> offer.
Oh, so now you know Republicans so well that you can predict their
actions? Depending on how bad this bill is once it gets to Osama's
desk, you can bet your last dollar they will fight it to the Supreme
Court.
> > The Democrats are going to hang themselves, but that doesn't mean the
> > Republicans should sit back and let a group of government obsessed
> > representatives ruin this country. It's their job to stop this bill
> > anyway possible be it through court or through voting it down because
> > once something like this is in place, it's virtually impossible to
> > rescind.
>
> Yeah, Republicans didn't do squat about our broken-down health care
> system when *they* were in power, but now that someone else is trying to
> fix it Republicans will do everything they can to block any and all
> progress.
They aren't trying to fix it, they are just shifting the cost from one
entity to another while at the same time, protecting their trial lawyer
buddies who donate generously to the DNC come campaign time. You can't
pay off the $10,000 you owe on your credit card with another credit
card; you've solved nothing.
When you look at our healthcare system, about 10% of people don't have
coverage. That doesn't warrant it being broken down. And most of those
10% can get some sort of coverage if they so desire. So you are
correct, Republicans did nothing about it.
Khemyst
nullifying states would change the census which would increase
representation and federal funding...but that would not be until 2020. The
states where the freeloaders move to would be more bankrupt and in debt.
"Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names" <PopUl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ph5fj59g8if7jpfd4...@4ax.com...
> Great. Let as many states as want to nullify the HCR. The result
> would be a gradual migration of people from those states to the states
> that decided to get serious about health insurance reform. That
> migration would, over time, result in:
>
> -- Census changes that would take away Congressional representation
> from the losing states and adding to the gaining states;
>
> -- More federal $$$ flowing to the complying states at the expense of
> the nullifying states.
>
> And, as we all know, the nullifying states would be red states, mostly
> in the South -- all of which would drive them deeper into depression.
>
> Go for it.
>
Khemyst
the 5 or $6 per patient from the government will probably move so nullifying
states to continue their practice.
"Dusty" <No....@home.org> wrote in message
news:hh8cvt$brs$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
> "Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names" <PopUl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ph5fj59g8if7jpfd4...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:44:01 -0500, "Dionysus"
>> <no.sur...@never.net> wrote:
>>
>>>FROM EXAMINER.COM
>>>
>>>HEAD: Nullification of HCR sought in several States
>>>
>
> [snip]
>
>> Great. Let as many states as want to nullify the HCR. The result
>> would be a gradual migration of people from those states to the states
>> that decided to get serious about health insurance reform. That
>> migration would, over time, result in:
>>
>> -- Census changes that would take away Congressional representation
>> from the losing states and adding to the gaining states;
>>
>> -- More federal $$$ flowing to the complying states at the expense of
>> the nullifying states.
>>
>> And, as we all know, the nullifying states would be red states, mostly
>> in the South -- all of which would drive them deeper into depression.
>>
>> Go for it.
>
> You do of course realize, this can cut both ways.. Should enough people
> pack up and leave for those states that do not mandate the purchase of
> Obooboo-care, they could well tilt the census, and thereby Congress,
> in -their- favor..
>
> How do you like your crow?
>
pbj
> In article <pI-dnYBeSbH17qTW...@supernews.com>,
> pbj <postittoth...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >> The principle's the same: If the government can make me buy a war
>> >> >> I don't want, it can make you buy insurance you don't want.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'll give you a hint here: One is in the Constitution, and the
>> >> > other is not. Need more help figuring it out? Write back.
>> >>
>> >> If rightwingers really believed that, they'd keep their mouths shut
>> >> and let the Democrats hang themselves.
>> >
>> > It doesn't matter if you believe it or not.
>>
>> It doesn't matter if you believe it, either. The issue will be settled
>> in the USSC, not on Usenet, and by people who really do understand the
>> Constitution on levels that I doubt anyone here is capable of.
>
> Certainly not you if you don't realize that funding for the military is
> in the Constitution and healthcare is not.
You say it isn't. The Democrats seem to think otherwise. As experienced
legislators whose necks are on the line here I suspect they know far
more about it than you do.
>> That, is, provided that your claim has enough substance to make it that
>> far. If I were a betting man I'd put my money on the case not getting
>> any farther in court than the birthers did.
>>
>> > It's in writing and anybody can look it up.
>>
>> Don't need to. From the Right's panic over the mandatory insurance
>> requirement it's immediately obvious that none of them actually believe
>> it's unconstitutional. This is just more of the same old fear-mongering
>> we've come to expect from rightwingers when they have nothing else to
>> offer.
>
> Oh, so now you know Republicans so well that you can predict their
> actions?
I've been observing Republicans for decades. Their tune is monotonous
and their basic dishonesty never changes.
> Depending on how bad this bill is once it gets to Osama's desk, you
> can bet your last dollar they will fight it to the Supreme Court.
Doesn't matter how *good* it is, either, they'll still fight it just to
keep the Democrats from making them look bad.
>> > The Democrats are going to hang themselves, but that doesn't mean the
>> > Republicans should sit back and let a group of government obsessed
>> > representatives ruin this country. It's their job to stop this bill
>> > anyway possible be it through court or through voting it down because
>> > once something like this is in place, it's virtually impossible to
>> > rescind.
>>
>> Yeah, Republicans didn't do squat about our broken-down health care
>> system when *they* were in power, but now that someone else is trying
>> to fix it Republicans will do everything they can to block any and all
>> progress.
>
> They aren't trying to fix it, they are just shifting the cost from one
> entity to another while at the same time, protecting their trial lawyer
> buddies who donate generously to the DNC come campaign time. You can't
> pay off the $10,000 you owe on your credit card with another credit
> card; you've solved nothing.
If every other country in the civilized world can afford cradle-to-grave
coverage for every last one of their citizens, then the United States of
America is capable of doing the same for every last one of ours.
> When you look at our healthcare system, about 10% of people don't have
> coverage. That doesn't warrant it being broken down. And most of those
> 10% can get some sort of coverage if they so desire. So you are
> correct, Republicans did nothing about it.
And lost the election because voters don't want bullshit denials, they
want solutions.
ray
pbj <postittoth...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> It doesn't matter if you believe it, either. The issue will be settled
> >> in the USSC, not on Usenet, and by people who really do understand the
> >> Constitution on levels that I doubt anyone here is capable of.
> >
> > Certainly not you if you don't realize that funding for the military is
> > in the Constitution and healthcare is not.
>
> You say it isn't. The Democrats seem to think otherwise. As experienced
> legislators whose necks are on the line here I suspect they know far
> more about it than you do.
No. What they do is try to reword the Constitution to fit their needs.
They say Church and State is in the Constitution, yet those three words
do not exist in the document. When they want to get away from equal
treatment of all citizens, they use phrases like Affirmative Action or
Hate Crimes. When they want to assault States Rights, they just
threaten states that don't comply with their demands with highway funds.
Liberals are pros at getting around the Constitution.
> >> That, is, provided that your claim has enough substance to make it that
> >> far. If I were a betting man I'd put my money on the case not getting
> >> any farther in court than the birthers did.
> >>
> >> > It's in writing and anybody can look it up.
> >>
> >> Don't need to. From the Right's panic over the mandatory insurance
> >> requirement it's immediately obvious that none of them actually believe
> >> it's unconstitutional. This is just more of the same old fear-mongering
> >> we've come to expect from rightwingers when they have nothing else to
> >> offer.
> >
> > Oh, so now you know Republicans so well that you can predict their
> > actions?
>
> I've been observing Republicans for decades. Their tune is monotonous
> and their basic dishonesty never changes.
>
> > Depending on how bad this bill is once it gets to Osama's desk, you
> > can bet your last dollar they will fight it to the Supreme Court.
>
> Doesn't matter how *good* it is, either, they'll still fight it just to
> keep the Democrats from making them look bad.
Nope. They will fight it because they are well aware of the problems
government entities are in with the ones we have. Republicans don't
need to make the Democrats look bad. They are doing a fine job without
us.
> >> > The Democrats are going to hang themselves, but that doesn't mean the
> >> > Republicans should sit back and let a group of government obsessed
> >> > representatives ruin this country. It's their job to stop this bill
> >> > anyway possible be it through court or through voting it down because
> >> > once something like this is in place, it's virtually impossible to
> >> > rescind.
> >>
> >> Yeah, Republicans didn't do squat about our broken-down health care
> >> system when *they* were in power, but now that someone else is trying
> >> to fix it Republicans will do everything they can to block any and all
> >> progress.
> >
> > They aren't trying to fix it, they are just shifting the cost from one
> > entity to another while at the same time, protecting their trial lawyer
> > buddies who donate generously to the DNC come campaign time. You can't
> > pay off the $10,000 you owe on your credit card with another credit
> > card; you've solved nothing.
>
> If every other country in the civilized world can afford cradle-to-grave
> coverage for every last one of their citizens, then the United States of
> America is capable of doing the same for every last one of ours.
They are not capable. In fact, Canada spends over one billion dollars
every year in the US to treat the citizens they can't get to. Our
northern hospitals are filled with Canadians trying to get some sort of
relief. Canada is now building facilities that accept cash or medical
insurance which is now the new trend there. So now they have socialized
medical care, but are drifting to our way of doing things because the
government can't do it alone.
> > When you look at our healthcare system, about 10% of people don't have
> > coverage. That doesn't warrant it being broken down. And most of those
> > 10% can get some sort of coverage if they so desire. So you are
> > correct, Republicans did nothing about it.
>
> And lost the election because voters don't want bullshit denials, they
> want solutions.
Wrong again. Republicans lost because they started to behave like
Democrats. Doing favors for their friends instead of the benefit of the
country. Spending like whore Democrats on crap like bridges to nowhere
and debit cards for Katrina victims. Being lax on the southern borders.
Contributing to the housing crisis by instituting 0% down for home
purchases. This last batch of Republicans were no different than todays
Democrat. So why not vote them out?
In the future, look for Republicans to turn to conservative ideas; ideas
that Reagan came up with and Newt Gangrich. Pragmatic solutions instead
of figuring out how they can manipulate tax dollars to benefit
themselves. Sarah Palin is selling books off the shelves. Why?
Because she is a conservative person, and a poster child for the
conservative movement. This is what America needs so badly right now.
Sueki Tartridge
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:51:25 -0500, ray wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wrong. Your Messiah was elected because of the color of his skin,he
said was the anti-Bush and he had a $BILLION of Arab and George Soros
money to buy the Whitehouse. Now,how's that hopey/changey thing
working for you?? I know. "You have to give him time to fix the mess
Bush left him" right? So,when does he plan to start??
Michael Coburn
> My China Blue Heaven wrote:
>> In article
>> <33486733-0591-4747...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>> Sueki Tartridge <hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Oh,that's right. Tax the "rich". But what happens when there are no
>>> more "rich" to tax because they've fled your high tax,big gubmint,free
>>> healthcare state for a more business freindly environment?? They can
>>
>> Three guesses where some of the biggest businesses are located.
>
> "Some of" is very vague.
>
> Texas is already home to more Fortune 100/500/1000 companies than any
> other state, and more every year. Real estate is cheap, taxes are low,
> the cost of living in general is low, business regulations are sane,
> health care is cheap, education is decent, etc. Aside from the climate,
> we win on everything vs. California, and we beat most other blue states
> on climate too. That's why our economy is still strong, we never had a
> stupid housing bubble, and half a million people per year are moving
> here.
>
> S
Real estate is cheap in Texas because real estate taxes are high, it's
two damned hot and nobody really wants to live there. The corporations
love it, of course. But this merely supports the position of those of
us who are sane and claim that all STATE tax revenue should come from ad
valorem real estate taxes and sin taxes and fees for services. There
would be even more productive people moving to Texas (or California) if
that were the case.
And I truly hope that Republicans all run for office on the basis of
repealing the Health Care legislation. Please do so.
Meanwhile, the Democrats will put a bill on the floor of the House and
the Senate in July to _ADD_ the Public Option onto the law created by the
Health Care bill that will be the LAW as of January. Suck on it. We can
have this out in JULY!
You might understand that as the bill nears being the law that Obama gets
back over 50% in the presidential approval polls:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
Texas is not electing a Senator this year, Bubba. And this is _ALL_
about the Senate.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Michael Coburn
> "Sueki Tartridge" <hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3d42bdf7-c1cb-4fa1-9c86-
bb82ea...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Unfortunately for you morons, the Health Care reform bill is a done deal.
And opinion polls are trending in favor of Obama at this point. The
Republican idiots have already shifted to "repeal the law" mode. And you
monkeys are, of course, yesterday's news.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
pbj
Only rightwing kooks label him the "Messiah". To Democrats he's just our
President.
> was elected because of the color of his skin,
You know all those people who've been running around for decades saying
that someday blacks and Hispanics would take over this country? Well,
it's closing in fast now so you'd better get used to non-whites in office.
> he said was the anti-Bush
If that's why they elected him then it ought to tell you something about
what the voters think of Republicans.
> and he had a $BILLION of Arab and George Soros money to buy the
> Whitehouse.
And yet, I don't see Republicans pushing for campaign reform.
> Now,how's that hopey/changey thing working for you??
A hell of a lot better than it was under Bush. My only really major
gripe against the Democrats is the lack of a strong public option in the
health reform bill. However, the upcoming House reconciliation might
change that.
> I know. "You have to give him time to fix the mess Bush left him"
> right? So,when does he plan to start??
Let's put it this way: Where is that depression-to-end-all-depressions
that even Republicans were all in a panic about before the November 2008
election and during Bush's final months in office?
pbj
How many of the world's major economies have *FULLY* implemented the
same level of weak government, freedom from regulations, and
unrestrained free-market system that Republicans advocate for the US? If
you can name none then can you explain why, if it is so superior in
every way - and considering that so many countries started out with no
government, no regulations, and a totally free market - the Republican
government/economic system not only hasn't risen to prominence, but
hasn't even survived in any major economy?
> Republicans don't need to make the Democrats look bad. They are doing
> a fine job without us.
I don't hold either party in high regard, but the Democrats are
addressing critical problems that Republicans ignored while Republicans
continue to do everything they can to obstruct progress.
>
>> >> > The Democrats are going to hang themselves, but that doesn't mean
>> >> > the Republicans should sit back and let a group of government
>> >> > obsessed representatives ruin this country. It's their job to stop
>> >> > this bill anyway possible be it through court or through voting it
>> >> > down because once something like this is in place, it's virtually
>> >> > impossible to rescind.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, Republicans didn't do squat about our broken-down health care
>> >> system when *they* were in power, but now that someone else is
>> >> trying to fix it Republicans will do everything they can to block
>> >> any and all progress.
>> >
>> > They aren't trying to fix it, they are just shifting the cost from
>> > one entity to another while at the same time, protecting their trial
>> > lawyer buddies who donate generously to the DNC come campaign time.
>> > You can't pay off the $10,000 you owe on your credit card with
>> > another credit card; you've solved nothing.
>>
>> If every other country in the civilized world can afford
>> cradle-to-grave coverage for every last one of their citizens, then the
>> United States of America is capable of doing the same for every last
>> one of ours.
>
> They are not capable.
How many French or Germans died last year for lack of health insurance?
How many French or Germans were driven into bankruptcy due to medical
bills last year?
How many French or Germans would due laughing if you suggested they'd be
better off under our system?
See, they ARE capable.
> In fact, Canada spends over one billion dollars every year in the US
> to treat the citizens they can't get to.
Canada has few major cities compared to the US, with great distances
between them and a sparse population spread out thinly across thousands
of miles of rural area along the border. It would be a waste of money to
build big hospitals in the middle of nowhere when US hospitals are
already right across the border. Also, the Canadians system pays for
emergency medical care when Canadians are visiting the US or here on
business. If you don't already know all this then you're sadly
uninformed, and if you do then you're a liar.
> Our northern hospitals are filled with Canadians trying to get some
> sort of relief.
Another lie.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/21/3/19
----------
Over the five-year observation period from 1994 to 1998, 2,031 patients
identified as Canadians were admitted to hospitals in Michigan; 1,689 to
hospitals in New York State; and 825 to hospitals in Washington State.
During the same period, annual inpatient admissions to hospitals within
the bordering provinces of Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia
averaged about 1 million, 600,000, and 350,000, respectively. Thus,
Canadian hospitalizations in the three U.S. states represented 2.3 per
1,000 total admissions in the three Canadian provinces. Furthermore,
emergency/urgent admissions and admissions related to pregnancy and
birth constituted about 80 percent of the stateside admissions. Elective
admissions were a small proportion of total cases in all three states:
14 percent in Michigan; 20 percent in New York; and 17 percent in
Washington.
----------
2031 admissions to hospitals in Michigan over a 4-year period. That's
only 507 per year, distributed over many hospitals. Some flood, huh? And
if you read the rest of the study, you will learn that virtually all of
the emergency admissions were Canadians who had a medical emergency
while here on vacation or business.
> Canada is now building facilities that accept cash or medical
> insurance which is now the new trend there.
I've heard nothing of that except that some illegal clinics were being
built and the Canadian courts ruled that they could not be closed by the
government due to some technicality. I've lost track of the case but
last I heard, the Canadian government was appealing and if that fails
then the legislators will tweak the law.
If you're talking about something else then please produce a cite.
> So now they have socialized medical care, but are drifting to our way
> of doing things because the government can't do it alone.
Canadians are totally disgusted at our system. They are not drifting our
way. That's just something you've made up.
>> > When you look at our healthcare system, about 10% of people don't
>> > have coverage. That doesn't warrant it being broken down. And most
>> > of those 10% can get some sort of coverage if they so desire. So you
>> > are correct, Republicans did nothing about it.
>>
>> And lost the election because voters don't want bullshit denials, they
>> want solutions.
>
> Wrong again. Republicans lost because they started to behave like
> Democrats. Doing favors for their friends instead of the benefit of the
> country.
When have Republicans NOT placed corporate profits and the ultra-rich
above country?
> Spending like whore Democrats on crap like bridges to nowhere
> and debit cards for Katrina victims. Being lax on the southern borders.
> Contributing to the housing crisis by instituting 0% down for home
> purchases. This last batch of Republicans were no different than todays
> Democrat. So why not vote them out?
So let's get this straight: Republicans put a Democrat in the White
House and gave Democrats control of Congress and the government, because
they thought the Republican party had become too much like the evil
Democrats?
> In the future, look for Republicans to turn to conservative ideas; ideas
> that Reagan came up with and Newt Gangrich. Pragmatic solutions instead
> of figuring out how they can manipulate tax dollars to benefit
> themselves.
Republicans have no future. If nothing else, the growth in minorities
will bring with it a strong move to the left. If Republicans are to have
any hope at all of political relevance in the coming decades then
they're going to have to move to the center - but then they would be
Republicans in name only.
> Sarah Palin is selling books off the shelves. Why? Because she is a
> conservative person, and a poster child for the conservative movement.
> This is what America needs so badly right now.
2012 is looking more and more like a rerun of 2008. :-)
Sueki Tartridge
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:32:10 -0600, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> > My China Blue Heaven wrote:
> >> In article
>
> - Show quoted text -
Please. Keep telling the pissed off ,overtaxed,overregulated liberals
that Texas is too hot,taxes are too high and we have mosquitoes bigger
than crows. We don't need millions of homeless California/Michigan/New
York progressives looking for a place to squat.
Sueki Tartridge
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:06:40 -0500, Dionysus wrote:
> > news:3d42bdf7-c1cb-4fa1-9c86-
>
> bb82ea4ec...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
How's that "No public option" and "mandated insurance from private
insurance companies" working out for ya' OboBot?? LMMFAO !! You far
left kook fringe anarchist moonbats should be yelling louder than the
conservatives. Your Messiah just bent you kool-aid drinking sycophants
over and rammed his choad in your puckered starfish up to his nuts.
LMAO !! BUTWHADDABOUTBUSH ??!!
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
>
> --
> "Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" --http://GreaterVoice.org/60- Hide quoted text -
Sueki Tartridge
Republicans aren't in power. Your Messiah told them to "sit down and
shut-up,we won".
>
> > Now,how's that hopey/changey thing working for you??
>
> A hell of a lot better than it was under Bush.
Oh?? Please show examples of how your life is better under your
MESSIAH.
My only really major
> gripe against the Democrats is the lack of a strong public option in the
> health reform bill. However, the upcoming House reconciliation might
> change that.
>
"MIGHT" !! ROTFLMAO !! And if it doesn't?? What then? Blame Bush??
> > I know. "You have to give him time to fix the mess Bush left him"
> > right? So,when does he plan to start??
>
> Let's put it this way: Where is that depression-to-end-all-depressions
> that even Republicans were all in a panic about before the November 2008
> election and during Bush's final months in office?- Hide quoted text -
>
Please cite where (R)s were touting the current economic downturn
as being the "depression-to-end-all-depressions". If I remember
correclty it was your MESSIAH and the progressive controlled congress
that was screaming that if he didn't pass his $800 BILLION dollar
PORKULOUS bill within 24 hours life as we know it would cease to
exist.
Sueki Tartridge
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:29:12 -0500, ray wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Would you like to explain WTF that's supposed to mean?? And describe
the type of mind altering drugs you use to come to that conclusion.
John Galt
So, your position is that Texas taxes properly, but for that reason
nobody wants to live there? :-)
There
>> would be even more productive people moving to Texas (or California) if
>> that were the case.
>>
>> And I truly hope that Republicans all run for office on the basis of
>> repealing the Health Care legislation. Please do so.
>>
>> Meanwhile, the Democrats will put a bill on the floor of the House and
>> the Senate in July to _ADD_ the Public Option onto the law created by the
>> Health Care bill that will be the LAW as of January. Suck on it. We can
>> have this out in JULY!
>>
>> You might understand that as the bill nears being the law that Obama gets
>> back over 50% in the presidential approval polls:
>>
>> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
He never got under 48.4%, so let's not prevaricate and claim this is
anything other than statistics. Both figures are within the margins of
error.
Anecdotally, it's the second time that Obama goes on vacation and his
approvals go up. That's a much more probable correlation than with
health care.
>>
>> Texas is not electing a Senator this year, Bubba. And this is _ALL_
>> about the Senate.
>>
>> --
>> "Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" --http://GreaterVoice.org/60- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Please. Keep telling the pissed off ,overtaxed,overregulated liberals
> that Texas is too hot,taxes are too high and we have mosquitoes bigger
> than crows. We don't need millions of homeless California/Michigan/New
> York progressives looking for a place to squat.
Exactly.
JG
Daniel
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:06:40 -0500, Dionysus wrote:
> > news:3d42bdf7-c1cb-4fa1-9c86-
>
> bb82ea4ec...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Trending in favor of nobama? Where is your cite showing that a
majority of Americans support nobamacare?
John Galt
Dead cat bounce.
JG
hal
wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:32:10 -0600, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
>> My China Blue Heaven wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <33486733-0591-4747...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Sueki Tartridge <hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oh,that's right. Tax the "rich". But what happens when there are no
>>>> more "rich" to tax because they've fled your high tax,big gubmint,free
>>>> healthcare state for a more business freindly environment?? They can
>>>
>>> Three guesses where some of the biggest businesses are located.
>>
>> "Some of" is very vague.
>>
>> Texas is already home to more Fortune 100/500/1000 companies than any
>> other state, and more every year. Real estate is cheap, taxes are low,
>> the cost of living in general is low, business regulations are sane,
>> health care is cheap, education is decent, etc. Aside from the climate,
>> we win on everything vs. California, and we beat most other blue states
>> on climate too. That's why our economy is still strong, we never had a
>> stupid housing bubble, and half a million people per year are moving
>> here.
>>
>> S
>
>Real estate is cheap in Texas because real estate taxes are high, it's
>two damned hot and nobody really wants to live there.
Texas would be ok if it wasn't full of a bunch of dumb fuck Texans.
John Galt
Apparently Hal couldn't pass the entrance exam.
Bitterness can eat you up.
JG
hal
wrote:
Do you know how they bury Texans? They let out all the bullshit and
put them in a shoebox.
Michael Coburn
> On Dec 30, 7:33 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> [quoted text muted]
>
> How's that "No public option" and "mandated insurance from private
> insurance companies" working out for ya' OboBot?? LMMFAO !!
It was the right wing corporate lobby butt sucker LIEberman that
delivered the "no public option, and Obama the chess player that caught
him with his Republican pants down around his knees. The Public Option
will be back as a campaign issue.
> You far left
> kook fringe anarchist moonbats should be yelling louder than the
> conservatives.
On this you are only misdirecting your remarks. Because the left wing
moonbats truly are screeching mad. They are being labeled as left Tea
Baggers by the sane liberals. All that screeching is worthless as
regards altering the current Senate Bill. Much easier/smarter to just
come back in July with the PO as a single issue add on.
> Your Messiah just bent you kool-aid drinking sycophants
> over and rammed his choad in your puckered starfish up to his nuts. LMAO
> !! BUTWHADDABOUTBUSH ??!!
>
>
>> [quoted text muted]
Spoken like a true total right wing nutter.
Politics is the art of the possible.
Michael Coburn
Actually, my position is that Texas taxes more effectively and
efficiently than other states. Ad valorem real estate taxes are a much
better revenue collection method than are sales or income taxes.
I lived in Texas for 20 years. Then I went to Colorado and saw mountains
and trees and clean running creeks and lots of elk. Then I went to the
northwest and got all of that without the killing cold winters. Texas is
a great place to be from. For one week this July I wished I had bought a
window size air conditioner. It passed and I kept my dough. I will
probably have one hot week again next year. Maybe I'll spend that week
visiting friends and family in Texas (they all have have air
conditioning). It costs about $250 a month for electric AC in Texas.
That is another reason the homes are less expensive.
Tim Crowley
>
> Sweet Jay-sus (as my sainted Irish grandmother would say), where did you get
> the idea that I or any conservative approve of how the republicans
You haven't got a Conservative bone in your body.
hint: hate and ignorance are not Conservative values. (look up
values, you could use some.)
pbj
So they have no agendas of their own when they're not in power?
> Your Messiah told them to "sit down and shut-up,we won".
To us lefties he's just our President. Only rightard loons refer to him
as a "Messiah".
>> > Now,how's that hopey/changey thing working for you??
>>
>> A hell of a lot better than it was under Bush.
>
> Oh?? Please show examples of how your life is better under your
For one thing, housing demand has recovered around here and my house's
value along with it. That affects my credit rating and my ability to get
loans, improves my standing in the job market where credit rating is
treated as some sort of indication of "character", and provides
overall financial security.
For another, businesses and corporations were running amok and stomping
all over consumers while Republicans ignored the ripoffs and even
refused to enforce consumer-protection regulations that were already in
place. Enforcement is back up and we're getting a whole lot of new
regulations to deal with modern problems: controls on cellphone service
and contracts, ETF restrictions, credit-card rules and regs, etc. And of
course health care reform stands to put an end to recissions,
pre-existing conditions, arbitrary exclusions, and so on.
For a third, Republicans lean heavily on fear-mongering to push their
agenda, so that throughout Bush's entire term this country lived under a
dark cloud of fear and panic that obscured any hope for the future. My
world is a much brighter, happier place now that we're under an
administration that leads through hope and optimism. (Sometimes a little
too much optimism, but optimists are like that!)
> MESSIAH.
To us lefties he's just our President. Only rightard loons refer to him
as a "Messiah".
> My only really major
>> gripe against the Democrats is the lack of a strong public option in
>> the health reform bill. However, the upcoming House reconciliation
>> might change that.
>>
>>
> "MIGHT" !! ROTFLMAO !! And if it doesn't?? What then? Blame Bush??
Nope. Then I blame the Democrats. By resorting to budget reconciliation
they easily have the votes to push a public option past Republican
obstructionism. If the final bill goes to Obama without one then it's
the Democrats' fault. That doesn't mean Republicans won't be taking any
heat with the voters, though. Whether the bill passes or not,
Republicans still sided with the insurance companies and pulled out all
the stops to oppose and obstruct progress on health care reform.
There's also going to be some small price for voting as a solid block.
In centrist states Democrats and Republicans both tend to run candidates
who lean towards the center. However, if Republicans are seen as *all*
voting for the party line no matter what their individual political
beliefs are, then there's really no such thing as a centrist Republican.
>> > I know. "You have to give him time to fix the mess Bush left him"
>> > right? So,when does he plan to start??
>>
>> Let's put it this way: Where is that depression-to-end-all-depressions
>> that even Republicans were all in a panic about before the November
>> 2008 election and during Bush's final months in office?- Hide quoted
>> text -
>>
>>
> Please cite where (R)s were touting the current economic downturn
> as being the "depression-to-end-all-depressions".
It was only in all the headlines every day for a several months. Google
for it.
> If I remember correclty it was your MESSIAH
To us lefties he's just our President. Only rightard loons refer to him
as a "Messiah".
> and the progressive controlled congress that was screaming that if he
> didn't pass his $800 BILLION dollar PORKULOUS bill within 24 hours
> life as we know it would cease to exist.
Bush wielded vetoes and threats of veto heavily througout his two terms
and would have refused to sign the bill if what you claim is true. The
fact is that it was largely a final parting gift to the corporations
that Bush and the Republicans herded the Democrats into passing:
http://www.truthout.org/100408Y
----------
This is the first time in the history of the United States that the
president has sought to provoke a financial panic to get legislation
through Congress. While this has proven to be a successful political
strategy, it marks yet another low point in American politics.
It was incredibly irresponsible for President Bush to tell the American
people on national television that the country could be facing another
Great Depression. By contrast, when we actually were in the Great
Depression, President Roosevelt said that, "we have nothing to fear, but
fear itself."
It was even more irresponsible for him to seize on the decline in the
stock market five days later as evidence that his bailout was needed for
the economy. President Bush must surely understand, as all economists
know, that the daily swings in the stock market are driven by mass
psychology and have almost nothing to do with the underlying strength in
the economy.
The scare tactics of President Bush, Secretary Paulson and Federal
Reserve Board Chairman Bernanke created sufficient panic, so that by the
time of the vote, much of the public believed that the defeat of the
bailout may actually have had serious consequences for the economy.
Millions of people have changed their behavior because of this fear,
with many pulling money out of bank and money market accounts, and in
other ways adjusting their financial plans.
----------
I'm not so sure Obama's bail-out bill wasn't just more of the same, with
extra pork added. If the economy continues its upward climb then I'm
inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, otherwise I'll be among
those calling for his head.
pbj
>> 2012 is looking more and more like a rerun of 2008. :-)- Hide quoted
>> text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Would you like to explain WTF that's supposed to mean?? And describe the
> type of mind altering drugs you use to come to that conclusion.
Three of the candidates - Obama, Biden, and Palin - will be the same as
2008. Republicans will lose big again for the same reasons they did last
time: Because swing voters are repulsed by Palin and because they're fed
up with the right's lack of solutions and its endless lies,
fear-mongering, and Rush-type propaganda.
To this we can now add swing-voter anger at Republican obstructionism on
critical issues like the economic recovery package and health care
reform.
Dionysus
"Tim Crowley" <timmyt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b4c03420-3b1e-478c...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
********
Hey, look everyone, it's Priggy Timmy Turmoil (Jello Biafra, really!). Happy
New Year, Prigs.
No surrender!
Dionysus
ray
pbj <postittoth...@nospam.com> wrote:
My, you are a real dreamer, aren't you?
America loves Palin which is why her books are moving like free
government cheese. Don't look for her to run for anything. She's doing
quite well without holding office somewhere. But you can look for her
to rally support behind whoever the Republican candidates will be. And
that's why the Left are so scared of her.
My prediction: next election, Biden drops out, and he runs with
Hillary. That is of course unless Obama's numbers are so far in the
toilet that a win is an impossibility.
Michael Coburn
> In article <Uu-dnTTRkNA3p6PW...@supernews.com>,
> pbj <postittoth...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 06:27:10 -0800, Sueki Tartridge wrote:
>>
>> >> 2012 is looking more and more like a rerun of 2008. :-)- Hide quoted
>> >> text -
>> >>
>> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>> >>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>> >
>> > Would you like to explain WTF that's supposed to mean?? And describe
>> > the type of mind altering drugs you use to come to that conclusion.
>>
>> Three of the candidates - Obama, Biden, and Palin - will be the same as
>> 2008. Republicans will lose big again for the same reasons they did
>> last time: Because swing voters are repulsed by Palin and because
>> they're fed up with the right's lack of solutions and its endless lies,
>> fear-mongering, and Rush-type propaganda.
>>
>> To this we can now add swing-voter anger at Republican obstructionism
>> on critical issues like the economic recovery package and health care
>> reform.
>
> My, you are a real dreamer, aren't you?
>
> America loves Palin which is why her books are moving like free
> government cheese.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Don't look for her to run for anything. She's doing
> quite well without holding office somewhere. But you can look for her
> to rally support behind whoever the Republican candidates will be. And
> that's why the Left are so scared of her.
PALIN: The gift that keeps on giving.
> My prediction: next election, Biden drops out, and he runs with
> Hillary. That is of course unless Obama's numbers are so far in the
> toilet that a win is an impossibility.
--
Morton Davis
"pbj" <postittoth...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ZcudnVvPVKfM0qfW...@supernews.com...
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 22:16:24 -0500, Dionysus wrote:
>
>> "Dionysus" <no.sur...@never.net> wrote in message
>> news:WPKdnXBwn-hY76TW...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "pbj" <postittoth...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:nMydnVsy-P-j7aTW...@supernews.com...
>>>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:14:51 -0500, Dionysus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "pbj" <postittoth...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:BN-dnX1osZESuaTW...@supernews.com...
>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:33:33 -0500, Dionysus wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "pbj" <postittoth...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:6bKdnc6wO81mdqXW...@supernews.com...
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:32:16 -0500, Dionysus wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "pbj" <postittoth...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:hqidndPYOcwDXKXW...@supernews.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:58:21 -0500, Dionysus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "pbj" <postittoth...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:c9qdnXiNVsKzpKXW...@supernews.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 04:05:34 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My China Blue Heaven wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <No....@home.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do of course realize, this can cut both ways.. Should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough people pack up and leave for those states that do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not mandate the purchase of Obooboo-care, they could well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tilt the census, and thereby Congress, in -their- favor..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since the people who don't want to buy insurance are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deadbeats planning to make rest of us pay for their medical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> care, I say don't let the door hit your butt on the way out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It really doesn't matter what you say. Both the Declaration
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Independence and the Constitution guarantee my freedom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> West Virginia's state motto, "Montani Semper Liberi" confirms
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. The Congress cannot create a law which mandates that I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> must buy something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's good, because I don't want to buy any war in Iraq.
>>>>>>>>>>> **********
>>>>>>>>>>> Now that's just silly...juvenile. Do grow up, little man.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> war I don't want, it can make you buy insurance you don't want.
>>>>>>>>> What childish nonsense you dribble like so much pablum. You
>>>>>>>>> didn't "buy the war," but you will have to buy health insurance
>>>>>>>>> under Da Li'l Prick's maggot-treat ugliness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I already have insurance so mandatory insurance won't affect me.
>>>>>> It will only affect those who lack health insurance. They're
>>>>>> probably the same ones doing all the hollering - and most of the
>>>>>> hollering I hear on this is coming from the right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course I "bought" the war in Iraq - I'm being forced to pay for
>>>>>>>> it (even though I didn't want it).
>>>>>>> **********
>>>>>>> Apples and oranges, little man, apples and oranges.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then can I get a refund on the war in Iraq, because I never agreed
>>>>>> to it, never wanted it, and in fact strenuously opposed it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I wrote before, "Do grow up, little man.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sticks and stones may break my bones, but your impotent name-calling
>>>>>> is SO amusing. :-)
>>>>> *********
>>>>> What'll really break your "bones," Little Man, as well as your bank
>>>>> account, will the ever growing amount of taxes and the ever
>>>>> increasing loss of freedom you'll 'enjoy' if Da Li'l Prick and his
>>>>> maggot-treat criminal co-conspirators get their way. Too bad you're
>>>>> too little a man to see that yet. Someday you might, to your regret.
>>>>
>>>> Where was all this almighty concern for my welfare when Republicans
>>>> were in control of the government, spending money like a bunch of
>>>> drunken sailors, putting off the bills until some later administration
>>>> or shifting costs off the shoulders of the rich and onto the middle
>>>> class, and generally destroying the economy to satisfy their unending
>>>> greed?
>> ************
>> Sweet Jay-sus (as my sainted Irish grandmother would say), where did you
>> get the idea that I or any conservative approve of how the republicans
>> Executive
>> Branch?
>
> I don't know, maybe because conservatives voted Republican, supported
> Republicans, and took the Republican side on political issues?
>
>> Do you honestly think that because one party did it to the country's
>> detriment, it's okay for the other party to do it also? Do you realize
>> how truly stupid that is?
>
> If you want to see stupid, look in the mirror. The right has almost no
> credibility left with the swing voters and you fools are continuing to
> drive them even farther away with the very same bullshit that alienated
> them in the 2008 election.
>
>> As I have written before, "Grow up, little man." There's much more at
>> stake here than mere partisan advantage.
>
> You can take that straw man and shove it up your ass.
>
>> "The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in
>> human hands, will ever be liable to abuse." --James Madison
>
> The same could be said of corporate power, especially when corporations
> start taking control of the government as they have here in the US.
>
>> "The function of socialism is to raise suffering to a higher level."
>
> Socialism is state ownership of all industry, land, and the means of
> production. Democrats seek no such thing except in a few essential areas
> where the marketplace has failed to do the job.
Which is socialism.
Michael Coburn
Actually, government run health insurance -- which is NOT in the health
care bill --- would not be ownership of the means of production in any
way. Insurance is _NOT_ production. Never has been and never will be.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Democrat-Socialists don't think I own my money either.... so if we
don't own anything, the statement about State ownership is an OXYMORON.
What you really mean is Socialism is "State Control" of industry and
land which is where we are and moving farther into. The State tells you
what you can and can't do with "your land" that really isn't yours since
you can't do as you desire with it. The same with Industry, the
government has enough regulation and laws in place to put businesses out
of business and tell them how to run it, that the business is controlled
by the State.
> Actually, government run health insurance -- which is NOT in the health
> care bill --- would not be ownership of the means of production in any
> way. Insurance is _NOT_ production. Never has been and never will be.
Ownership is relative, it's not who's name is on the contract but who
holds the power to decide how to use what you lay claim to. If the
contract says I own a property but teh government says it can't be use
for anything I need, then I really don't own it, it belongs to those who
decided what it can be used for.
Michael Coburn
I am not falling for the subject change, lying pig.
Sueki Tartridge
> On 31 Dec 2009 01:28:29 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:32:10 -0600, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
> >> My China Blue Heaven wrote:
> >>> In article
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Keep thinking that while you freeze your tits off in Michigan you
fucking pinhead. We don't want another snowbird invasion thank you
verrrry much.
Tim Crowley
There is no thing as obama care, so of course there is no poll.
hint: you never served. run away.
Tim Crowley
Tim Crowley
There is no thing as obama care, so of course there is no poll.
Daniel
You are lying, again.
>
> hint: you never served. run away.
My LES says otherwise.