- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 13,156
- Reaction score
- 1,038
- Location
- melbourne florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
"Congress shall make no law," reads the First Amendment, "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."
Sebelius' approach is different: "zero tolerance" for dissent.
"Adolf Hitler, the new Chancellor of Germany, had no intention of abiding by the rules of democracy. He intended only to use those rules to legally establish himself as dictator as quickly as possible then begin the Nazi revolution.
Even before he was sworn in, he was at work to accomplish that goal by demanding new elections. While Hindenburg waited impatiently in another room, Hitler argued with conservative leader Hugenberg, who vehemently opposed the idea. Hitler's plan was to establish a majority of elected Nazis in the Reichstag which would become a rubber stamp, passing whatever laws he desired while making it all perfectly legal.
Göring and Goebbels, with Hitler's approval, then hatched a plan to cause panic by burning the Reichstag building and blaming the Communists. The Reichstag was the building in Berlin where the elected members of the republic met to conduct the daily business of government."
It appears free speech and criticism of the president and his policies are gone. So much for the constitution
Townhall - Gangster Government Stifles Criticism of Obamacare
"There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases."
That sounds like a stern headmistress dressing down some sophomores who have been misbehaving. But it's actually from a letter sent Thursday from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans -- the chief lobbyist for private health insurance companies.
Sebelius objects to claims by health insurers that they are raising premiums because of increased costs imposed by the Obamacare law passed by Congress last March.
Do you guys really see this as a violation of someone's 1st Amendment rights? Thats ridiculous, all this is CLEARLY just this secretary informing a lobbying group that their efforts to do whatever they are doing are going to be responded to by her organization. As in, if this lobby group puts out something Heath and Human Services disagrees with, they will write or somehow deliver a response to both that lobby group and the public.
You all are acting like a SWAT team is going to storm in and arrest this lobbyist for speaking against the government and shut down her operation. Here's a newflash, the government has the right to respond to criticism, make public statements, and correspond with individuals. There's no violation of her 1st amendment.
Do you people even understand what "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" even means? The key word is "abridging" there's clearly no "abridging" going on here, and there's certainly no laws being made, but somehow its still a violation of the 1st amendment?
Shhhhh. . . . now don't try and stop a good fear mongering effort with anything like reasoning or facts.:neener
Wrong! Oh so wrong. She, meaning the airhead POS Sebelius is telling insurance companies that they will be monetarily penalized for stating that their costs will go up. The companies are not lying, it is economic reality. The NHHS secretary has falsely accused them of lying and is threatening them with backdoor punishments, that is a direct violation of the first amendment and frankly the cow should be in prison for it. These are not threats directed at lobbying groups, they are threats directed at businesses.Do you guys really see this as a violation of someone's 1st Amendment rights? Thats ridiculous, all this is CLEARLY just this secretary informing a lobbying group that their efforts to do whatever they are doing are going to be responded to by her organization. As in, if this lobby group puts out something Heath and Human Services disagrees with, they will write or somehow deliver a response to both that lobby group and the public.
The government does not have the right to penalize people for speaking their minds......especially when they are speaking the truth, this is a direct violation of the first and frankly should not be tolerated. I would love to see the bitch directly sued in court over this.You all are acting like a SWAT team is going to storm in and arrest this lobbyist for speaking against the government and shut down her operation. Here's a newflash, the government has the right to respond to criticism, make public statements, and correspond with individuals. There's no violation of her 1st amendment.
I love the "you people" argument here. The question is do you understand abridgement or infringement of speech? Let me explain this; the cow is telling people IF they speak about the bad things in Obamacare THEN they will suffer consequences, THAT is an infringement. As well, I am an insurance professional, maybe I should explain something, it is an ethical responsibility of mine to describe policy in full including the benefits and the negatives, these companies are speaking directly to the negatives as it is affecting the bottom line, if the moron in the NHHS doesn't like it then too ****ing bad and I hope she chokes on it.Do you people even understand what "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" even means? The key word is "abridging" there's clearly no "abridging" going on here, and there's certainly no laws being made, but somehow its still a violation of the 1st amendment?
I think wetting our pants and jumping at shadows and misinformation is unseemly. Perhaps we should try dealing in facts and seeking truth instead of these scare tactics those who oppose health care reform use all too often. Let's toughen up and try to deal with the truth for a change.
:lamo :neener
You mean like democrats?
Democrats spend on anti-health-reform advertisements - Sarah Kliff - POLITICO.com
Yup its called politics. And we all should be trying as individuals and members of political parties, if one is a member of a political party, to rise above this kind of misinformation and dirty tactics.
What misinformation?
Yup its called politics. And we all should be trying as individuals and members of political parties, if one is a member of a political party, to rise above this kind of misinformation and dirty tactics.
Ok, by all means, using actual text from the bill, tell us the facts. We can't wait to benefit from your vast knowledge of the Obamacare bill.
You mean like democrats?
Democrats spend on anti-health-reform advertisements - Sarah Kliff - POLITICO.com
I think wetting our pants and jumping at shadows and misinformation is unseemly. Perhaps we should try dealing in facts and seeking truth instead of these scare tactics those who oppose health care reform use all too often. Let's toughen up and try to deal with the truth for a change.
:lamo :neener
The up coming disaster loosely called health care reform is going to help Obama kill the economy and does nothing reduce the cost of anything. Have anyone noticed that insurance costs just went up almost across the board.
All the stuff you've posted and their links.
As it is not a finished work yet, that's not only premature, but rather hyperbolic. It is itself a fearmongering scare tactic. it is not yet perfect, but cost were going up and would continue to go up withut reform, and all with less people having actual access to healthcare. It's time to stop the silly fear mongering, and start trying to make it better. The fact is reform was needed. And without one step, there would never be a second step. So, either be part of the solution, or get the hell out of the way.
Be specific
There's no first amendment violation, I thought that was clear.
There is absolutely a first violation as I have explained in full. Companies are being strongarmed by having their ability to conduct business threatened by government action for speaking negatively(and truthfully) about their cost increases, the threats are specifically targeting speech. You have not proven clearly or otherwise how your assertion this isn't a first amendment violation is correct.There's no first amendment violation, I thought that was clear.
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?