Thursday, October 21, 2010
"Scared Americans"
Obama says they’re “not thinking clearly BECAUSE they’re “afraid. What a LOAD of stinky brown stuff THAT is! They’re “thinking clearly” for the first time in years, now. And THAT’S why they’re afraid. They’re AFRAID because of what Obama has DONE to them, and will continue doing to them if we allow him to stay in office after 2012. It’s not because they’re “scared” they’re “not thinking clearly.” It WAS because they’re not paying attention. They thought they could ignore what con men like Obama did and it would be okay. It was not. So they have FINALLY “woken up” and are going to vote his henchmen out of office in 2010, and him in 2012. If they don’t, they will deserve what they get after that. (The Blaze)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Even if you ARE paying attention, what can you do about it? Like the following, they will railroad us all the way. Next they will be telling us which friggin' car we HAVE to buy. Vote you say? Vote for what? We never have anybody but crooks and thieves running for office these days, even though it is well known they are crooks and thieves! I am SO frustrated.
"Judge Upholds Individual Mandate, Takes HHS' View Of Commerce Clause
October 7, 2010 - A federal judge in Michigan ruled Thursday that health reform's individual mandate is constitutional, agreeing with the government's argument that choosing not to buy insurance is a purchasing decision rather than a decision to abstain from a certain economic activity. The Constitution's commerce clause allows the federal government to regulate “economic activity,” but critics of the individual mandate -- including the plaintiffs in the Michigan suit -- say that power is different from requiring participation in a particular form of commerce. Going without insurance, they argue, is a form of economic inactivity and therefore is outside of Congress' reach.
But the government argued, successfully, that no one truly abstains from the health care marketplace. The decision, which relied heavily on the same two cases on which the government's brief focused, said the costs of uncompensated care make clear that insurance is a purchasing decision.
“The plaintiffs have not opted out of the health care services market because, as living, breathing beings, who do not oppose medical services on religious grounds, they cannot opt out of this market,” the decision states. “As inseparable and integral members of the health care services market, plaintiffs have made a choice regarding the method of payment for the services they expect to receive.”
It continues: “While plaintiffs describe the Commerce Clause power as reaching economic activity, the government’s characterization of the Commerce Clause reaching economic decisions is more accurate.” The court's acceptance of that frame is a notable contrast to a recent decision in Virginia's suit over the mandate. Although that decision was only a procedural one, it described the underlying legal issue in the same terms as the mandate' critics. The Virginia judge wrote that the question presented in the suit is “whether or not Congress has the power to regulate -- and tax -- a citizen's decision not to participate in interstate commerce.”
The Michigan court combined hearings on the plaintiffs' request for an injunction, to stop HHS from implementing the mandate in 2014, with a trial on the merits of their constitutional arguments. Thursday's decision both denied the injunction and dismissed the suit. Lawsuits over the individual mandate are pending in several other courts around the country, including high-profile suits in Virginia and Florida. Observers expect that the issue will eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court. -- Sam Baker (sbaker@iwpnews.com)
Source: InsideHealthPolicy.com"
Who the hell are they to tell me what I will buy??
Anon: Yes, there are many crooks in government, in both parties. But if you vote to allow one party to have TOTAL control, they will "go wild," as Obama and his gang have. Voting to keep both parties in power keeps them fighting each other, rather than stealing what is ours. They still will, but not as easily. Voting out as many Democrats as possible takes away that control.
They've used a MISdefinition of the Commerce Clause for many years to support the FICTION that they can control ANYTHING that involves interstate commerce (meaning that if I buy one candy bar across state lines they can CONTROL the candy bar industry). That's not what it means, but there are enough liberals on the courts to make it work that way.
No balanced, grown ups in office or running for office? Voting so as to keep the children fighting is sad, sad, sad. What a sad country this has become. We need standards of ethics candidates must meet in order to even consider running for public office. Further, every negative statement a candidate makes about his opponent should HAVE to be publicaly PROVEN. We need a separate body who scrutinizes everything said and shows the proof of it publically, or shows the statement is false. Any candidate making false claims should be brought up on immediate charges and his candidacy ended right there. Candidates would then have to run on the issues and the candidates views and ideas. The way it is now one can never know what to believe, no matter how much one tries to stay up on all the issues and news. In the end we just end up having to use the WAG system in the voting booth - - Wild Ass Guess!
Anon: It's the way it is because that's how ALL the politicians want it. And they're not going to vote in ANY of the things you mention. Somebody might introduce such things, but they'll never get through. They won't even get out of committee.
Naaa. THEY don't get to vote about these things. WE do.
Anon: I'll be voting then.
Post a Comment