Defying the Will of the American People, Obama & his Democrats Push for an Ever Larger Federal Government
The contempt I feel right now for President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, while not quite as intense as it was last night, may well match that the American patriots felt for King George and Parliament 235-odd years ago. That king, like this president, trampled on our liberties and sought to expand the power of government in clear contravention of the will of the people.
The pressure against this bill came from the grassroots, even in such states as Massachusetts. The pressure to pass it came from the White House, the Democratic congressional leadership and their allied special interests.
A recent CNN survey (and their surveys tend to skew left) finds that by a margin of 3 to 2, Americans oppose the Democrats’ health care bill–that margins is even greater than the one found by the supposedly Republican pollster Scott Rasmussen. And here’s an interesting tidbit from that poll, “56% say the bill creates ‘too much government involvement in the nation’s health care system,’ 28% say about the right amount, while 16% say not enough.”
According to Gallup, a near identical percentage of Americans, 57%, believe “government is trying to do too many things that should be left to businesses and individuals“. And the Democrats’ health care bill does just that. In yesterday’s Investors’ Business Daily, David Hogberg detailed 20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms. No wonder we’re up in arms.
In an underhanded manner, House and Senate Democrats rammed through an unpopular bill which takes away our liberties. As Robert Zelnick writes: “Everything about [that] House-passed bill smacks of political excess rooted in ideological purity.” (Via Jennifer Rubin.)
Under the leadership of President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats have divided our nation even further and decreased our liberties while increasing the size and scope of the federal government.
This is not what the Founders fought for. Not by a long shot. Nor what the American people want. In his successful campaign for the White House, Obama tapped into popular discontent at the growing cost of government, telling us that we had been living beyond our means. And now, despite clear majorities of the American people opposing increased government intervention in our lives, he works overtime to increase the level of that intervention.
61 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I have a question for you all: How do you socialize with “the gay community” when it is so overwhelmingly pro- totalitarian and full of self-indulgent victimhood? I mean, who do you find in a gay bar to even hold a conversation with that isn’t deranged to an exteme degree? Yeah, I know, bars ain’t all. There are gay friendly churches…but I have found them to be mostly left wing political organizations in Christian clothing. I don’t like arguing all the time, but I won’t shut up about what is so important to our survival as a nation when I’m faced with casually spouted lunacy. no, this isn’t a “poor me’ comment. I’m proud to think for myself and grateful for that capability. I’m just wondering how others navigate the waters…
Comment by 23eagle — March 22, 2010 @ 5:17 pm - March 22, 2010
GayPatriot » Defying the Will of the American People, Obama & his Democrats Push for an Ever Larger Federal Government…
Trackback from PunditKix…
Trackback by PunditKix — March 22, 2010 @ 5:29 pm - March 22, 2010
They’ve only just started:
The central assumption of immigration advocates is that only Congress can ameliorate the immigration crisis…. This article…. questions the “only Congress can solve this” supposition. The article argues that there is ample room in the Immigration and Nationality Act, for the Executive Branch, acting alone and without Congress, to take decisive curative action. The key is to separate permanent residency from the two critical benefits that flow therefrom – legal work authorization and ability to travel. Both of these benefits can be made available, by Executive fiat, to millions of immigrants – both present and future, immediately, without any act of Congress. Once these benefits are in hand, Congress can grant permanent residency and citizenship, when the time is propitious, without being held hostage by the anti-immigrationists (me: this means citizens).
http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0225-endelman.shtm
(pro-amnesty lawyer site)
Comment by SoCalRobert — March 22, 2010 @ 5:31 pm - March 22, 2010
“… in clear contravention of the will of the people.”
Utter horsecrap. The Democrats ran on universal healthcare. won the election, and have deliverd on their promises (even though they have done so in a very mild way – passing a bill that resembles Mitt Romney’s bill in MA, and Bob Doles Republican alternative to HillaryCare). Elections have consequences.
‘This is not what the Founders fought for. ”
Right,,,,they fought for the right of Americans to be ruled by people who stick their fingers in the air, read the polls (superficially), and act accordingly.
“Everything about [that] House-passed bill smacks of political excess rooted in ideological purity.”
Just more hilarity. One minute it is an unprincipled mass of political deals, the next minute it is an ideologically pure manifesto.
As I said earlier today, take Mr. Frum advicde to heart. You guys are just totally lost in this psychotic, over-the-top, rant mode that you apply to all your political thinking. It is no wonder you can’t actually win any political battles. All you can do is work your die-hards up into a frothing rage and then turn off all the normal decent people in the middle.
Comment by Tano — March 22, 2010 @ 5:50 pm - March 22, 2010
Taken way your liberties? I mean jesus, how can you not be embarrassed to attach your name to a statement like that? This is the first step towards totalitarianism and dictatorship, right? Yes, certainly all of the terrible despots in the history of the world began to implement their master plan by providing healthcare for their people. Concentration camps are right around the corner!
[Please read the IBD column linked above. Mandating a person to be a certain type of health insurance deprives him of his liberty, Levi. -- Dan]
There was a time not long ago when large majorities of americans wanted to leave iraq, and the republican response was, “so?” Now that you’re on the other side of that coin, you’re all throwing the whiniest little hissy fit I’ve ever seen. I have polls that show that a majority of americans either support the healthcare bill or feel that it isn’t liberal enough. I know what this feels like. I was pissed that bush was doing things that the american public didn’t want, but I wasn’t running around screaming that it was a constitutional crisis.
But please go ahead with the doomsaying and the hysterics; it will make you look that much more childish and out of your minds when a year has gone by and the earth hasn’t swallowed us whole because the us passed a healthcare bill.
Comment by levi — March 22, 2010 @ 5:52 pm - March 22, 2010
No, Tano, not horsecrap. Please answer the challenge I posed to you in a previous thread: Please show me one poll that shows the American people want bigger government.
Do you even know what the Founders fought for? I’ll give you a one-word clue, “Freedom.”
As to Mr. Frum, well, no Republicans are paying him much heed any more while the White House is passing around his column. (You guys must love Mr. Frum because he dresses up an Administration talking point as a supposedly pro-Republican one.)
As to turning off the people in the middle, have you seen how independents are polling about Obama, Obamacare and the Democrats. Are you aware of how independents voted recently in Massachusetts, Virginia, New Jersey and the New York City suburbs? I’ll give you a clue–they voted for the party that you said is turning off the middle.
Your projection is showing, Tano. I provide examples and statistics. You respond with insults and accusations–and don’t address the points I make or my defenders make.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 22, 2010 @ 5:55 pm - March 22, 2010
i will not mourn the loss of my “freedom” to be denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition, nor will i mourn the loss of my “freedom” to be dropped by an insurance company if i get sick.
Comment by Chad — March 22, 2010 @ 6:08 pm - March 22, 2010
But, Chad, will you mourn the loss of your freedom to pick the level of coverage you get?
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 22, 2010 @ 6:10 pm - March 22, 2010
People love it so much that 47 lawmakers, 188 candidates, and 130,000 citizens have already signed the “Repeal it” petition.
The “Fire Nancy Pelosi” money bomb set a goal to raise $400,000 for the day. They surpassed that amount hours ago. The amount raised is now about $700,000. It was also ranked as the 8th most popular search on Google Trends within the past half hour.
Comment by Scott — March 22, 2010 @ 6:15 pm - March 22, 2010
no dan, i will not mourn my “freedom” to underinsure myself because a more comprehensive health care plan is prohibitively expensive. and i will not mourn my “freedom” to go bankrupt if, while underinsured, i get sick and i’m forced into bankruptcy because of medical bills.
Comment by Chad — March 22, 2010 @ 6:22 pm - March 22, 2010
#4: “The Democrats ran on universal healthcare. won the election, and have deliverd on their promises (even though they have done so in a very mild way – passing a bill that resembles Mitt Romney’s bill in MA, and Bob Doles Republican alternative to HillaryCare). Elections have consequences.”
Tano, if the healthcare bill passed in Congress yesterday was only “mild” and resembles the program in Massachusetts, then can you explain why it’s good for the nation considering that Massachusetts is dealing with massive budget deficits due to the cost of the program and has had to drop 30,000 legal immigrants from its coverage due to the state’s desperate financial situation?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/us/15insure.html
Again, Tano, you keep telling us that the bill passed by Congress yesterday was a campaign promise fulfilled and that it enjoys overwhelming public support. You have asserted that point over and over again, but you still refuse to respond to heliotrope’s questions about how we are going to pay for it (along with the other massive, unfunded entitlement liabilities that the federal treasury is on the hook for). If so many people (including yourself) believe that passing the Obamacare bill is such a great accomplishment, then I have to assume that the support for the program includes a belief that we can pay for it, right? So, please tell us how the federal government is going to meet all of these financial obligations.
If you continue to refuse to answer heliotrope’s questions, then the only logical conclusion is that all of the public support for Obamacare that you have cited is meaningless. Either the program is popular because of what it does AND the fact that we can pay for it. OR, liberals support the program even though they know it will lead the nation to financial ruin. Which is it? If it’s the former, surely you can explain to us how it will be financed. If it’s the latter, then any public support the program may have is irrelevant.
This may be a difficult point for you to wrap your head around but give it a try–it doesn’t matter if a government entitlement program is supported by 100% of the public if there is no way for the government to pay for it. Do you not agree with that statement, Tano? Or are budgetary realities simply irrelevant to this discussion?
Comment by Sean A — March 22, 2010 @ 6:29 pm - March 22, 2010
My favorite new website.
http://libertynewsforum.homestead.com/obama-countdown-clock.html
Comment by Name — March 22, 2010 @ 6:30 pm - March 22, 2010
Tano has written something completely accurate: Elections have consequences.
They sure do.
Chad: why, exactly, should an insurance company provide coverage to someone who waits until he needs treatment? It’s obvious you don’t understand insurance. Do you think State Farm should fix your car if you purchase the policy after you’ve driven into the ditch? Should a life insurance company pay off to a family that buys insurance on the deceased AFTER he’s expired?
Just how many people are actually denied care? Obama tells a sob-story the other day about the Ohio woman with leukemia(?) losing her house. Really? She is being treated at the Cleveland Clinic (cutting edge care) and they said that she’s not losing her house.
Oh, BTW, an AMA study shows that Medicare denies more claims as “not medically necessary” than the devils at Aetna, Blue Cross, Coventry, etc.
One more point – coverage does not equal care (see NHS).
Chad is one of those people who willingly gives up liberty for the illusion of security. A free nation can’t survive too many people like that.
Comment by SoCalRobert — March 22, 2010 @ 6:31 pm - March 22, 2010
Tano and Levi today have the right to crow. Conservatives have no alternatives today.
In America we have to wait for another election. Most of the special elections are over. Now primaries will occur in the next two months. Then the general in November. Unless we wish to riot or demonstrate at the next tea parties, the only alternative is for conservatives to win elections. If we do, we can run these anti american bumms out of town on a rail. We need a 40 seat swing in the House and 10 seat swing in the Senate to even get any credit for moving the political needle.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — March 22, 2010 @ 6:39 pm - March 22, 2010
#5: “Taken way your liberties? I mean jesus, how can you not be embarrassed to attach your name to a statement like that?”
levi, you’re the one that should be embarrassed. The fact that the very concept of Obamacare being an attack on liberty is ludicrous to you is just further confirmation that you’re exactly what NDT has surmised: a helpless, freeloading welfare addict who believes that society owes you all of the comforts and amenities enjoyed by people who actually work hard to earn what they have. levi, you don’t see massive, trillion-dollar entitlement programs as a threat to your liberty because as a complete dependent, you have already given up your freedom and have nothing left to lose (and everything to gain).
Comment by Sean A — March 22, 2010 @ 6:54 pm - March 22, 2010
“I’m just wondering how others navigate the waters…”
23eagle, that’s a good question. I live in Arizona, which is fairly conservative, so it may be different where you live. I spend most of my time around members of the “community” at church functions, and my denomination is very gay-friendly.
Are they “left-wing political organizations in Christian clothing?” Sometimes. More often, the mentality is just the typical “follow-the-herd” one you find almost everywhere and in every group.
I am pretty outspoken, so I just say what I think. I take opportunities to challenge some of the vapid things other people say. Most of the time, they’re just surprised that anybody dares to disagree with them. If they begin to splutter at me, I gently remind them that “this is supposed to be a welcoming, open-minded and tolerant church.” If I have a bulletin handy, I show them that it says so right in our mission statement.
This generally shuts them up. If it doesn’t, I tell them I’m going to take it up, with the church board, the issue of whether it actually requires a litmus test for membership, and if I am, therefore, required to be a “progressive.” They know what the answer will be, so it’s almost always the last I hear of it.
If they want to know in greater detail why I used to be much more liberal than I am today, I’ll gladly tell them. They almost never do. Once they know I used to think like they do, and that I can give them some good reasons why I changed my mind, they don’t want to hear anymore.
Some discomfort may be required in order to do this. If you’re afraid of conflict, it might not work for you. I love nothing better than a good fight, but I find I almost never need to have one. Most people are reasonable enough, and some are just scared they won’t fit in if they don’t express the “correct” opinions.
You may actually give them the strength they need to stand up alongside you.
Comment by Lori Heine — March 22, 2010 @ 7:21 pm - March 22, 2010
Lori, I’ve got to print that one out and keep it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 22, 2010 @ 7:31 pm - March 22, 2010
(i.e., good comment)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 22, 2010 @ 7:31 pm - March 22, 2010
Levi (#5):
Now here is a “person” who would capitalize “I” (himself) while reducing the Lord to small letter toilet paper.
Levi may be a Christian hating Jew or an agnostic or just plain Neanderthal. But, if Levi is gay, I know he would brown nose the daylights out of any fundamentalist Islamic homo-subspecies exterminators. Daniel Pearl died for you, Levi. Go suck a lemon drop and come back all outraged and righteous.
Levi, you are an unmitigated disaster where human relations are concerned. Perhaps the dampness in your little basement cell has infused your brain with mold and strange strains of fungus.
Comment by heliotrope — March 22, 2010 @ 7:49 pm - March 22, 2010
i mean jesus, heliotrope, have you no decency whatsoever?
You are such a poster child for the fundamental ugliness of today’s right. People like you make some of the best arguments against the right. Do you really think any moderate, nonpolitical person would want to associate with the type of crap you generate.
Please, keep it up.
Comment by Tano — March 22, 2010 @ 8:22 pm - March 22, 2010
Since you guys are throwing around some hate language….
anyone wanna debate whether Obama is an anti semite? After how his administration has treated the Jewish state lately, it’s pretty clear in my mind.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — March 22, 2010 @ 8:31 pm - March 22, 2010
heh…
ya gotta love ol’ Gene, doncha? He sure knows the crowd he hangs with….
Comment by Tano — March 22, 2010 @ 8:35 pm - March 22, 2010
Tano, you still have not met my challenges nor addressed some important Obama campaign promises like a net spending cut and a commitment not to impose a mandate that individuals buy health care.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 22, 2010 @ 8:50 pm - March 22, 2010
Dan – getting reason from Tano and the gang is futile. (Liberal motto: My mind is made up. Don’t try to confuse me with the facts).
Neither history or simple arithmetic make any difference.
According to CBO, the new entitlement spending in the plan would cost $216 billion by 2019, and then increase by 8 percent every year thereafter.
In other words, a huge entitlement that grows 2-3 times faster than the economy doesn’t register. (And that’s assuming the economy will continue to grow once the new taxes and penalties take effect.)
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/18/obamacare-will-break-the-bank-not-cut-the-deficit/
Comment by SoCalRobert — March 22, 2010 @ 9:41 pm - March 22, 2010
#20: Tano, no one here questions heliotrope’s decency. It’s you we have serious reservations about.
And by the way, you’re not fooling anyone with this same, tired routine of: (1) citing Obama talking points; (2) citing more Obama talking points (this time with edge of self-righteous indignation); (3) being challenged by one or more commenters to respond to legitimate questions about the talking points you previously raised; (4) posting a comment claiming to be mortified and outraged by the comments made by someone else; (5) histrionically renouncing GayPatriot FOREVER, promising never to return; and (6) repeating daily.
Tano, you’re so predictable that it makes me sad for you. Now, either answer Dan and helio’s questions, or shut the fu*k up and go away (like you usually do).
Comment by Sean A — March 22, 2010 @ 9:44 pm - March 22, 2010
Throw in judges legislating from the bench and you have a perfect description of liberals. Project much?
You will when the feds decide that you’re too much of a liability. Congratulations, you’re a federal budget item now.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 22, 2010 @ 9:49 pm - March 22, 2010
“citing Obama talking points;”
You don’t get any points for creativity with that one Sean. Its the most tired dodge aroudn here. I guess y’all find it completely beyond your abilities to understand that anyone could actually be a liberal Democrat, could be someone who has their own thoughts, and finds those thoughts to very often be consistent with those of the President.
Even though, there were 70 MILLION of us – the existence of ONE in your midst is somehow something you feel the need to explain by some sort of conspiracy of meme-dissemination.
I am not surprised of course. If there is one single thing that characterizes this site, it would be a complete and total inability to show (or have) any respect for those of your felllow citizens whom you disagree with. Y’all seem to take that attitude as a source of pride.
“histrionically renouncing GayPatriot FOREVER, promising never to return”
huh? when did I EVER say that?
Comment by Tano — March 22, 2010 @ 9:57 pm - March 22, 2010
‘Throw in judges legislating from the bench and you have a perfect description of liberals. ”
Hey careful TGC, your party is about to start a process in which you will be called upon to BEG judges to do a little legislating from the bench – winning for your side what you have lost through the democratic process.
Comment by Tano — March 22, 2010 @ 9:59 pm - March 22, 2010
I’m not sure Obama defied the will of the people–he was elected, after all. I knew he was going to do something like this and I didn’t vote for him. But he won anyway.
I don’t think this bill is all that bad. But just so you know, here’s what will happen next:
1. People will require subsidies to buy the mandated health insurance.
2. People won’t be able to afford it even with subsidies. “Oh, no! What will we do?” Why, we’ll create a Public Option of course.
3. People will realize that the Public Option is cheaper than buying private health care. Private health care will go out of business, leaving, wait for it, drumroll. . .
4. Universal Health Care! TADA!
I’m here all week. Tip your waitress.
Comment by Ashpenaz — March 22, 2010 @ 10:19 pm - March 22, 2010
Hey careful, Dumbass. That “legislative process” was unconstitutional.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 22, 2010 @ 10:24 pm - March 22, 2010
Ash, I think your ‘tada” moment should read – “government health care’.
I am not agreeing with your scenario – just sayin’ – “universal health care” simply means everyone covered. THe term does not necessarily mean coverd by government health care.
Comment by Tano — March 22, 2010 @ 10:42 pm - March 22, 2010
“That “legislative process” was unconstitutional.”
Really? Where does it say in the Constitution that the Republicans must win every vote?
Comment by Tano — March 22, 2010 @ 10:42 pm - March 22, 2010
#28: That’s right, Tano. In your world, the job of judges is to locate new rights and entitlements for groups favored by liberals regardless of the absence of anything in the text of the Constitution or its history to suggest their existence. Abortion, privacy, separation of church and state, gay marriage–it’s all right there in the Constitution…somewhere. However, when an aggrieved party goes to court to strike down a legislative act of Congress based upon the actual language appearing in the Constitution itself, that would be asking the court to “legislate from the bench.”
So, just to make sure we’re clear–a constitutional right to premium health care insurance coverage for life–that’s in there, right Tano? But if Pelosi had used the Slaughter Rule to “deem” the Senate bill passed, a constitutional challenge to the law would have been asking the court to “legislate from the bench” (nevermind the language in Article 1 that requires both the House and Senate to vote to pass a bill before it can be sent to the President’s desk), right Tano? Is that basically your position?
Comment by Sean A — March 22, 2010 @ 10:42 pm - March 22, 2010
#27: “I am not surprised of course. If there is one single thing that characterizes this site, it would be a complete and total inability to show (or have) any respect for those of your felllow citizens whom you disagree with. Y’all seem to take that attitude as a source of pride.”
Yes, Tano, we know how offended you are by our inability to show you any respect. That would fall into point # 4 of your standard commenting procedure (which I outlined above for your reference).
Tano, OF COURSE no one here respects you. You’ve sworn a blind oath to a political party whose agenda consists of enslaving the productive in order to redistribute wealth to the unproductive. For opposing this agenda, we are condemned as greedy, evil, uncaring racists. If you want respect, why don’t you start by answering Dan and helio’s questions about how we are going to pay for all of these entitlements? Since you won’t, it’s reasonable for us to assume that you CAN’T. And if that’s the case, it means you support Congress continuing to create new entitlements with no way to pay for them beyond enslaving the middle and upper class.
In light of the foregoing, you don’t deserve anyone’s respect. You deserve our contempt.
Comment by Sean A — March 22, 2010 @ 10:55 pm - March 22, 2010
“In your world, the job of judges is to locate new rights and entitlements for groups favored by liberals regardless of the absence of anything in the text of the Constitution ‘
Actually Sean, it is not the job of judges to LOCATE new rights in the Constitution, it is the job of judges to RECOGNIZE rights that are outside of the Constitution.
Maybe you are unaware of this, but a fundamental difference that the American revolution brought to universe of political ideas, was the notion that rights are grounded outside of the political structure – as “endowments of the Creator” if you want to be religious about it – as inherint human rights, in a more secular wording. Rights are PRIOR to Consitutions.
In fact, our Constitution is not, and was never intended to be an enumeration of rights, as if rights of the people do no exist unless explictly stated in the text. Quite the contrary – the purpose of the Constitution is to grant certain limited powers to the government to restrict our rights – to the extent necessary to build a healthy and propserous society, but no more.
Rights are unlimited at their source, and constrained only by the limited powers of government. You really should read your Madison….
“if Pelosi had used the Slaughter Rule to “deem” the Senate bill passed,…”
First off, she didn’t. So this is hardly an argument in support of the claim I objected to – that the bill is somehow unconstitutional.
As to “Deem and pass” – I seriously doubt that any Court would object. First off, it is not some new innovation -having been used by both parties in the past. Second, the court is extremely reluctant to ever mess about in the internal rules of Congress – separation of powers and all that. Thirdly – if she had used that rule, the rule itself would have to have been passed by a majority, then the bill of amendments would have to have passed by a majority – and everyone would have very obviously known that by voting for it they were also voting for the Senate bill -so it doesn’t really seem possible to argue that the House was somehow not voting for the bill.
Comment by Tano — March 22, 2010 @ 11:11 pm - March 22, 2010
Tano is absolutely right. Like it or not, Obama ran as a candidate who would bring us HCR. He was open about it, and his bill is strictly middle of the road, nothing radical or dramatic and quite similar to Mitt Romney’s plan for Massachusetts. Hate to break it to you, but we do not rule by polls. If everything was up for a popular vote we’d get nothing done; look at California, gutted and eviscerated by Prop. 13. We are a republic, let’s not forget. What we saw last night was democracy in action. Once the ranting and hand-wringing is over, we’ll all be relieved to know that if we lose our jobs or develop a chronic illness we’ll be covered. I realize to some here this constitutes fascism or Marxism or Islamism, whatever the slur of the week is. But no; it’s simply the right thing to do, and long overdue. Aroud 15 percent of those polled who were against it, by the way, said the reason was the lack of a public option, i.e., the bill wasn’t liberal enough. SO it’s quite easy for these numbers to be misconstrued.
Comment by richard — March 22, 2010 @ 11:34 pm - March 22, 2010
Quite the contrary – the purpose of the Constitution is to grant certain limited powers to the government to restrict our rights – to the extent necessary to build a healthy and propserous society, but no more.
Then, since this bill that you and yours support violates the Constitution’s guarantees of self-determination, property rights, and equal protection by confiscating peoples’ property for which they have worked, punishing them if they refuse, and redistributing it on an arbitrary basis based on skin color, you admit that this bill is unconstitutional.
Again, Tano, the reason no one here respects you is because you are clearly a failure who has turned to force to get what you want. You and your fellow thieves and parasites like Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi have perverted our country’s laws. Your Barack Obama criticizes the Constitution because it doesn’t give the government the power to redistribute wealth the way that Barack Obama and you want to do it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 22, 2010 @ 11:42 pm - March 22, 2010
If you conservatives are upset about health care reform, you only have yourselves to blame.
How many years have we had out of control spending and lack of fiscal management under Republican leadership? How many congressional sessions have come and gone where it was more important to you to garner the campaign money of the insurance industry than pass meaningful reform? After the Republican revolution came to power in the ’90s you had years to institute some vision of a functional plan to address healthcare. After winning the presidency and then having majorities in both houses of congress, you still did nothing. These are issues that have been brewing for decades where you threw one hand in the air saying “don’t look at us!?!” while the other was behind your back getting money from the healthcare mega-complex.
Conservatives showed they were not responsible enough, with greed and individual gains, or neo-con agenda more important to them than the welfare of the nation they’re beating their breasts about and tearing their hair out over now. It’s only when they can use the system to their personal advantage do they love the United States and think it’s worth protecting. Conservatives are more concerned about the affairs of foreign nations than they are supporting their next-door neighbor. When faced with the responsibility and the sacrifices that have to be made to actually maintain the whole for the good of all people of the nation, to see the fulfillment of what the founders conceived, not just the possibility, we see the true nature of what it means to be a conservative. They stoke the fears of average citizens, using ignorance to their advantage, leveraging some fetishistic concept of patriotism. They forget that a nation doesn’t exist without the people it serves and that the blessings we receive as a nation also come with a price. When Thomas Jefferson talks about sacrificing the blood of patriots to the tree of liberty, he’s talking about personal sacrifice that must be made to ensure liberty for all, not just for individuals. Conservatives would have all the freedom and none of the responsibility, rather chiding others as the tyrants of the quote. They’ve proven they’re only interested in themselves, happy to make bad choices and would sacrifice the entire institution of the United States if they could always be assured of their own personal bounty.
I think and hope that healthcare reform will do every pragmatic thing it was designed to do. And I can’t express more how the entire process has reiterated the detest I feel toward the conservative mindset. You disgust me all with your malignant contrivances of “patriotism” and “liberty.” The ease you twist the uninformed goodness of Americans for personal gain puts the serpent in the garden to shame. I mean really, would any of you keep a greedy, lying, incompetent accountant on your payroll while you continued to go further and further in debt?
Change, like sh*t, happens gentlemen. You either lead, with integrity and selflessness, or you step in it. And it sure looks like you have a lot of crap on your boots from the decades of BS you’ve heaped on the country.
Comment by Countervail — March 22, 2010 @ 11:42 pm - March 22, 2010
#35: Thank you, Tano. I assure you, as an attorney in practice for 14 years, there’s nothing I find more riveting and informative than a dissertation on the Constitution delivered by someone who believes that its purpose was “to grant certain limited powers to the government to restrict our rights – to the extent necessary to build a healthy and propserous society.”
Tano, you don’t know what the fu*k you’re talking about and if the framers could be here, they would line up for the sole purpose of slapping your face for pulling that “build a healthy and prosperous society” bullshit out of your ass. The purpose of the Constitution–before all other considerations–is to protect individuals from government, particularly one under the control of a gang of tyrants who believe that they are empowered to redistribute private wealth in order to “build a healthy and prosperous society” to their personal specifications.
Just cut the crap, Tano. I am well aware of what your understanding and interpretation of the Constitution is. Here it is: “Constitutional” = whatever liberals want. (Hat Tip to Ann Coulter)
Comment by Sean A — March 22, 2010 @ 11:44 pm - March 22, 2010
He was open about it
Actually, he lied the entire way.
He claimed to oppose mandates as a candidate because they were anti-freedom, and he demanded mandates in the bill.
He criticized and bashed taxation of benefits as a candidate as being awful and dangerous and harmful to the middle class, and he demanded it in the bill.
And he claimed he wasn’t trying to impose single-payer, and then sold the bill by pointing out how it would help impose single-payer.
But of course, richard, you’re a racist, so you’re not capable of recognizing Obama’s lies. According to you and your fellow liberals, he has black skin, so everything he does is right.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 22, 2010 @ 11:53 pm - March 22, 2010
“The purpose of the Constitution–before all other considerations–is to protect individuals from government”
Yes Sean, as I said, by establishing the principle that our rights do not come from government, nor from the Constitution – they are our natural endowment. The Constitution does grant powers to government – that is what almost all of the document does. And they are limited powers, because they all, by necessity, impinge on our freedoms, our rights.
How else do you understand the ninth Amendment? If you are really a lawyer (hard to believe given your utter lack of self-control), then surely you understand how Madison was originally opposed to having a Bill of Rights – for precisely this reason. I forget the exact reference, but a paraphrase of his argument was that he feared that future generations might assume that by writing a bill of rights, that the intent of the founders would have been that the people only had those rights, and none others. Thats why he agreed to the BoR only after having the ninth and tenth amendments added.
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
I don’t know that it could be any clearer. Liberal judges are doing exactly what Madison hoped they would.
As for your conniptions over “healthy and prosperous society” (damn you are too easy), I refer you to the preamble – y’know, the passage wherin they explain what it all means.
“in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty…”
A just, tranquil, secure land, with the government promoting the welfare of our society of free people.
Comment by Tano — March 23, 2010 @ 12:05 am - March 23, 2010
How many years have we had out of control spending and lack of fiscal management under Republican leadership?
What exactly would you call “out of control spending and lack of fiscal management”, given that Obama has run up a greater deficit in one year than any President in history and equivalent to nearly four years of spending under Bush?
Answer: It’s not the amount, it’s who is spending it.
How many congressional sessions have come and gone where it was more important to you to garner the campaign money of the insurance industry than pass meaningful reform
That’s interesting, because the insurance industry contributes more to Obama Party members than it does to Republicans.
The top three Senate recipients for insurance industry contributions — all Democrats — are Sens. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Harry Reid, D-Nev., according to the center’s research. And in the House, it’s another trio of Democrats: Reps. Melissa Bean, D-Ill., Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., and Barney Frank, D-Mass.
And the classic example of liberal delusion:
Conservatives would have all the freedom and none of the responsibility, rather chiding others as the tyrants of the quote. They’ve proven they’re only interested in themselves, happy to make bad choices and would sacrifice the entire institution of the United States if they could always be assured of their own personal bounty.
Actually, it’s the exact opposite.
– Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
– Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
– Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
– In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
– People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
In short, Counterveil, liberals like yourself don’t believe in spending your own money; you believe in taking it from other people and rationalizing that those other people don’t deserve it. You are a moocher, using “the poor” as an excuse for imposing rapacious taxes and putting in artificial market distorters like rent control, and then, like we saw with Charles Rangel, refusing to pay your taxes and abusing the rent control system.
You want to buy people health insurance? Spend your own money, instead of stealing it from others. Last night we saw the whore Pelosi, a multimillionaire with a real estate empire and personal gardens, whining about “the poor” — and then pushing a law that would take money directly from the pockets of working people worth a hundred times less than her and far less able to afford it.
You are a hypocrite, Counterveil. And you’re a coward, too, inasmuch as you are running away right as you read this. Dirtbag hypocrite lying scum like yourself who run your filthy mouths attacking people who give four times the amount you do to others are nothing but worthless parasites and cowards.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 23, 2010 @ 12:06 am - March 23, 2010
When was the conference committee on the senate bill???
#38: Hey cooterville, it’s a goddamn shame that nobody on the left believes in patriotism or the greatness and exceptionalism of this country, ain’t it? When’s your beloved token going to talk about how great America is instead of droning on and on about how much we suck and tearing us down to 3rd world status? When is he going to quite threatening employers and destroying our jobs? When is he going to make the US competitive and appealing to foreign investors? Just like shit, this arrogant SOB is doing his damndest to turn this country into a pile of it.
Nothing says “patriotism” like calling our soldiers terrorists or too stupid to be much good at anything else, eh? Nothing says “patriotism” while actively working to undermine our soldiers. Nothing says “patriotism” while falsely accusing our soldiers of torture and mass murder.
You f*ing sicken me, you disgraceful POS.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 23, 2010 @ 12:06 am - March 23, 2010
ooops, a little mistyping in there somewhere…
“… that the intent of the founders would have been…. ”
should be
” that the intent of the founders would be seen to have been… “
Comment by Tano — March 23, 2010 @ 12:08 am - March 23, 2010
Damn you are an ignorant wretch and gullible to boot.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 23, 2010 @ 12:08 am - March 23, 2010
Medicare: FAIL!
Medicaid: FAIL!
SCHIP: FAIL!
Hey, let’s create another massively expensive entitlement and blame Republicans! That’ll work.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 23, 2010 @ 12:13 am - March 23, 2010
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Yes — such as the ability to choose whether or not they wish to purchase health insurance.
You stripped them of that right, Tano. You took away their freedom. And you have zero, zip, zilch, no reason to do it.
That more than anything else demonstrates that you are a statist and fascist who no more understands the concept of the Constitution and rights than does an earthworm nuclear physics.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 23, 2010 @ 12:13 am - March 23, 2010
“When was the conference committee on the senate bill???”
Where in the Constitution are conference committees mentioned?
The Constitution says that a bill must past both houses. Conference committees were set up by Congress to deal with the situation of the two houses passing what are supposed to be the same bill, but the two versions are not exactly the same. So they conference to negotiate common langauge, so they can then go back and pass identical bills.
The House just voted into law the bill that the Senate passed. Worded EXACTLY the way it passed the Senate. No need for any conference committee.
Conference committees are not a necessary part of the process – they only are held when the two houses fail to pass identical bills. Thats not the case here.
Comment by Tano — March 23, 2010 @ 12:16 am - March 23, 2010
LOL…so Tano, when Republicans in the future don’t hold conference committees, you won’t scream like you have in the past that such things were unconstitutional?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 23, 2010 @ 12:23 am - March 23, 2010
Lawsuits are on the way. See Rule of Reason, an Objectivist website run by Edward Cline. A quote from his latest article:
Many of the proposed lawsuits against Obamacare are focusing on the language of the Constitution. One of the more credible arguments is that while Congress may regulate commerce between the states (the term regulate meaning something entirely different to the Founders, chiefly that individual state commercial law should have some uniformity), how can Congress regulate non-activity or no commerce? Or cause the commerce to occur, such as mandating the purchase of health insurance, whether within states or across state lines, and then “regulate“ it?
Comment by T. — March 23, 2010 @ 1:06 am - March 23, 2010
I didn’t say that it did, did I, dumbass?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 23, 2010 @ 1:14 am - March 23, 2010
Hate to break it to you, richard, but it’s not Prop 13 that has brought Cailfornia down, but the power of the public employee unions. Even Willie Brown, the state’s former Democratic House Speaker said 80% of thee state’s problems could be attributed to the cost of public employees. That’s what’s the problem here–out of control state spending, including lavish benefits packages for state workers.
So, please instead of repeating Democratic talking points, actually address the arguments made by the bloggers to whose posts you attach your comments.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 23, 2010 @ 1:25 am - March 23, 2010
Soon to be brought to you by ObamaCare:
http://tinyurl.com/ylnmqb3
Keep circling those wagons, Dumbass and Cooterville.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 23, 2010 @ 2:59 am - March 23, 2010
BTW,
Shall we talk about how much Pelosi, Reid, Obama etc. have received from the eeeeeeeevil “healthcare mega-complex” and how much they’re kicking back TO said eeeeeeeevil “healthcare mega-complex” or not?
Just let me know, cooterville.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 23, 2010 @ 3:02 am - March 23, 2010
It seems to me the Republicans are in deep dookie. All their obstructionism, “pull the plug on grandma,” and “death panels” and other scare tactics didn’t work. They blew their chance to have input and influence on this bill. It looked as if Obama ticked off a lot of Libs when he bent over backwards to engage the GOP on health care reform and gain some bipartisanship legislative points. The Republicans thumbed their nose, hoping Obama would hit the wall and hopefully, the road too. Come November though, it is not that clear that the Republicans will benefit from health care legislation. Americans will know a lot more about health care reform than they do now. You can bet Obama and the Dems will see to that. Benefits that start immediately will be had (and appreciated) by many prior to November. With Obama’s luck – or skill, you decide – the economy just might be on a upswing by election time. Unfortunately for the Republicans, it seems more and more that they have become the party of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, the Birthers, and now, the Teabaggers. Marching orders and policy seems to come from talk show hosts – who are probably laughing all the way to the bank – not to mention loud, whacked out and unattractive fringe groups. The brand has co-opted big time and the GOP politicians don’t seem to mind or know what to do. Meanwhile, the Dems have given the American people credit card reform; health care reform (projections indicate a deficit reducer): a revamping of student loan administration (very popular with students) and now they turn their attention to fiance industry reform. The appearance being that Obama and the Dems care about the middle class; the Republicans not so much. I’m an Independent and have voted for both parties. My mind unmade regarding health care reform. However, in my humble opinion, the Republicans have shot themselves in the foot and should not automatically assume that their ship will come in in November.
Comment by OrchidIslander — March 23, 2010 @ 3:14 am - March 23, 2010
If Republicans are in such deep dooky, Orchidislander, how come all polls show the Democrats sliding and independents swinging toward the GOP?
And you do show your true colors when you usual a sexual slur to describe the GOP. If you so deride us, why even come to a conservative blog?
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 23, 2010 @ 3:40 am - March 23, 2010
They just get dumber and dumber as they circle the wagons. Dizzy much?
Three photo-ops including a weak assed “summit” is “bent over backwards”? Funny, I’ve read this same comment from liberals before. Oh yes, Levi:
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2010/03/12/obama-his-opponents/#comment-561651
Although I know I’ve read it elsewhere. Anyways,
Think so? I mean, apparently you think they’re too f*ing stupid to have grasped it in just over a year. What makes you think they’ll get it by November?
Or maybe it’s an epic FAIL! that they haven’t been able to do so yet?
It was my understanding we already were. Ain’t that a kick in the nads? Reminds me of the liberal pundit who predicted that Obama’s approval numbers would slide, but maybe we could be attacked again by November. One could only hope, eh?
Says who and by what methodology?
WHOA!!! Seriously? There’s an industry for fiancés? How does that work? What’s more, what are they gonna do to the fiancé industry? Talk about reaching.
By making them dependents of the State? Driving up their taxes? Elimination of their jobs? Piling up massive debt?
No wonder you used the word “dookie”. I smell deep bullshit. You should be proud. You’re more transparent than the health care legislation process.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 23, 2010 @ 6:57 am - March 23, 2010
Levi,
Sorry to have gotten so deep under your skin. I didn’t intend that you go ballistic.
My point is simply this. “I mean jesus….” is no way to address any argument. If you have no respect for Jesus, that is your issue and it does not strengthen any argument about Obama, health care, gay rights or donating to the SPCA.
When you sit typing your thoughts, it takes intent to write “I mean jesus….” and, try as I might, I see it as nothing but a cursing slur. You didn’t write “I mean allah….” and believe it or not, I would have jumped on you just the same.
Belittling a religious belief system is a form of ignorant snobbery. Think what you like about another person’s faith, but sit on it. You have drunk too deep from the cup of Jon Stewart.
Comment by heliotrope — March 23, 2010 @ 8:36 am - March 23, 2010
My fault! I get Tano and gillie and Levi and william all mixed up. I wonder why that is?
Comment by heliotrope — March 23, 2010 @ 8:38 am - March 23, 2010
heliotrope, quick guide.
Tano’s the one who repeats talking points.
gillie’s the one who posts links who undermine his position.
Levi’s the jackbooted Fascist.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 23, 2010 @ 4:54 pm - March 23, 2010
Cool! If I can keep the formula straight I will be on track. Otherwise, I will still get all confused over whether the one that drools and lisps is different from the one that lisps and drools.
My bad. I am so old school and hampered by a strong moral code and belief system that I cannot appreciate the art in watching Madonna hump a chalice while she pees on an altar.
However, Livewire, with you as my guide and my trust in the Lord, I am certain that hopenchange and free Cheetos for one legged parrots without nests will not corrupt me.
On the other hand, where will Tano, gillie, Levi and william go for validation when all the cockroaches scurry under the fridge when the light comes on?
Comment by heliotrope — March 23, 2010 @ 9:07 pm - March 23, 2010