- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 11,430
- Reaction score
- 2,282
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
scarcrow found something while you and I were arguing... we need to read it.
Gee, that's not what it says.
oh I can find it and did biut there is no referndum in that section or article
No it's not. Your's is. Your completely misinterpreting the Constituion.
Right.
That means it's not a power Congress has.
Did you see the words "steal the nation's health care industry" in Article 1, Section 8?
No?
That means Congress doesn't have that power, either.
Right.
That means it's not a power Congress has.
Did you see the words "steal the nation's health care industry" in Article 1, Section 8?
No?
That means Congress doesn't have that power, either.
BTW I have worked in insurance for over 30 years and switched from property CAUSUALTY to Health Care since 1992 so if the national HC comes about and the private companies do not get the contracts to administrate it I will either go work for the government or go back to property causualty.
I am now self employed but I live off major insurers since I perform audits for them so I will have to become a government whore to survive and hope I can get a gov contract.
So from a personal basis I can lose big time. I see the initial stages of this going as a hybrid of government and private sectors. What will happen in 20 years who really knows. Who in 1945 thought that in the late 1960's we would have medicare!! Mybe some but who believed that it would really happen. I recall in the early sixties people tring to argue that Medicare is "unconstitutional". They lost right !!!!
So it's either be a government whore or a private sector whore. The private sector at least has less written rules but the big fish still eat the small fish and the smller and so on. The government is the shark !!!
We cannot say that she is a hypocrit per se since we do not have any other words from her except what she read at Spector and her TV appearances. I think that she is a nice lady who that that she knew something and got fired up by someone or something. It could be that her husband and her are right on the fringe of making enough money to be taxed more on the part over the treshold. Her husband may be complaining about taxes. We don't know.
I missed her Fox news appearance but I am sure that Saun Vannity made out as if she was the logic of Socrates and the eloqence of Horatio !! Of course Vannity speaks from the toilet so everything is up for him.
no but did you see ' Thou Shalt Not Have a NATIONAL health Care system" ? No, well thats is why we got Medicare HA HA !!!
YUP we all can play the game and have some fun!!
You're not an independent, so why the phoney label?CNN.com - Transcripts
CBS new reports on Katy Abram-and SEN SPECTOR
Angry Man Tells Specter: God Will Judge You - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
"This is about the systematic dismantling of this country…you have awakened a sleeping giant," a woman named Katy Abram said to Specter, reading from a prepared statement. She later appeared on Fox News, which covered the Specter event along with the other cable networks. " - KATY ABRAM told Spector.
This real nice lady told Sen. Spector that he needs to bring the country back to what the "founding fathers" had created via the Constitution.
CNN had Nice Lady Katie Abram on in this morning and they just threw soft balls at her and did not ask her what she meant by bring the country back to what the founding fathers created and not make it into a "Russia" or "Socialist". .
Now I am waiting for he transprpt from HARDBALL on MSNBC to come out becasue Nice Lady Katie was on HARDBALL a few minutes ago and she was ver very very nicely asked what she meant by country back to what the founding fathers created not make it into a "Russia" or "Socialist". .
Again Lady Katie was real nice and sweet but she did not show that she knew what she was saying to Sen. Spector or at best she was too nervous to try and explain what exactly about the Constitution she was talking about regarding health care reform.
At least Lady Katie was nice and did not scream or shout. But unfortunately she had no clue as to if or how the Contstitution could make health care reform "unconstitutional".
You're not an independent, so why the phoney label?
You're not an independent, so why the phoney label?
Around here the conservatives are labeled conservative, and sometimes libertarian, but very seldom anything else. Most of those are closet liberals.He's probably an Independent for the same reason many others in this thread label themselves as such, because they view themselves as Independents. I've noticed a number of those who label themselves as Independents on this messageboard strongly support conservative positions, too. And someone's label doesn't always mean they support every single agenda consistent with the associated ideology. This board has many liberals who support some conservative positions, and vice versa.
Around here the conservatives are labeled conservative, and sometimes libertarian, but very seldom anything else. Most of those are closet liberals.
Around here the conservatives are labeled conservative, and sometimes libertarian, but very seldom anything else. Most of those are closet liberals.
I found a news article from CBS and plunked it into by post. I tried the best that I could find and I made every reasonable effort to comply with the spirit and the rules for BN.
CNN.com - Transcripts
CBS new reports on Katy Abram-and SEN SPECTOR
Angry Man Tells Specter: God Will Judge You - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
"This is about the systematic dismantling of this country…you have awakened a sleeping giant," a woman named Katy Abram said to Specter, reading from a prepared statement. She later appeared on Fox News, which covered the Specter event along with the other cable networks. " - KATY ABRAM told Spector.
This real nice lady told Sen. Spector that he needs to bring the country back to what the "founding fathers" had created via the Constitution.
CNN had Nice Lady Katie Abram on in this morning and they just threw soft balls at her and did not ask her what she meant by bring the country back to what the founding fathers created and not make it into a "Russia" or "Socialist". .
Now I am waiting for he transprpt from HARDBALL on MSNBC to come out becasue Nice Lady Katie was on HARDBALL a few minutes ago and she was ver very very nicely asked what she meant by country back to what the founding fathers created not make it into a "Russia" or "Socialist". .
Again Lady Katie was real nice and sweet but she did not show that she knew what she was saying to Sen. Spector or at best she was too nervous to try and explain what exactly about the Constitution she was talking about regarding health care reform.
At least Lady Katie was nice and did not scream or shout. But unfortunately she had no clue as to if or how the Contstitution could make health care reform "unconstitutional".
Saw the interview on MSNBC and this woman was revealed as someone of below average intelligence and education taken in by Right-Wing hyperbole and talking points.
She really had no clue what she was talking about. She didn't really understand how medicare works or other publicly funded safety nets.
Watching it again -- this woman has no clue how Government works and how good she has it. She doesn't even know how much her family makes.
She is the winner of the STFU award this week.
Hey Hazlnut,
You both have a right to your opinion and you don't have to agree. There is NO REASON to get nasty.
I was at that town hall meeting and it was on the most part civil. I also watch this lady getting ambush by the media.
Her point is this nation was founded on principles that are being violated by our government.
Her call is a call for GOVERNMENT REFORM. She is making a call to return to our founding principles and the US Constitution.
Her point is valid. Any law that cannot be placed within the Constitution is without merit. Our government has NO AUTHORITY to pass this sweeping legislation.
Where Article 1 section 8 has “…and general Welfare of the United States;” does not include health care. The reason is that the proposed bill if made law VIOLATES states’ rights and individuals’ rights to make it happen.
Social Security, Medicare, Welfare and Medicaid WILL FAIL. They are unsustainable. They are not successful they should be on the chopping block of history.
Socialism breads tyranny. That is what happened in the USSR and in NAZI Germany. The progressive movement gave birth to both and is trying to separate from its children.
You cannot logically deny the facts. Maybe you could call me some names and give me the STFU award. If given the chance I would like to ask one of my Senators about this RAPING of our founding principles and how they intend to return us to them.
None have the courage.
There are many things that we do and have done since the adoption of the Constitution that were not in the Constitution but just because they were not in the Constitution that does not make them "unconstitutional".
Article XII
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.
You want to discuss why health care was not in the Constitution well I will tell you. In the 18th century health care was herbs, home mecine, and for those few who happened to live near an APOTHOCARY maybe a few chemicals that few people actually knew how or why they may have worked.
Health care was not a major undertaking ( no pun intended) so why would the founding fathers put it into the Constitution.
And therefore, isn't entitled to an opinion? I really hope Libbos purblically push that notion.
There was a time when slavery was legal and considered constitutional. Why, even the SCOTUS said that blacks weren't leagal citizens. It just goes to show, that something isn't neccessarily constitutional, or even right, just because a politician, or a SC justice says so.
See Article XII of The Bill Of Rights. (Those are the first 12 Amendments to the Constitution)That is not what I said and you know it. IF there is no provision for a national referendum in the Constitution and there is no prohibitation of a referendum then we can have one. REMEMBER IF IF there is no provision for a national health insurance financing in the Constitution BUT IF THERE IS NOT prohitting of it then that is legal and actually Constitutional to have a national health plan.
So since we apparently agree that the Constitution does not prohibit a referendum and does not prohibit national health plans we can have both even id we may not like one, he other or neither of tjose things.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?