Liberal Media Says ObamaCare Was President's Biggest Mistake

[red states rule]

Where the hell were these people when Obamcare was being rammed thru by Pelosi and Reid. Seems the supporters of Obama do not care if Obamacare is unconstitutional or that a government takover of the nations healthcare system is wrong - looks like they are running for cover


<IFRAME title="MRC TV video player" height=360 src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/105289" frameBorder=0 width=640 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

[J.T]

Unconstitutional? This was debunked long ago. The guys who wrote and signed the constitution agreed that an individual mandate was constitutional (note the lack of objection to the Second Militia Act). I thought you people were all about the Constitution and what the FF intended? Hell, Washington signed the damn thing and was president when the individual mandate was passed.

[red states rule]

Unconstitutional? This was debunked long ago. The guys who wrote and signed the constitution agreed that an individual mandate was constitutional (note the lack of objection to the Second Militia Act). I thought you people were all about the Constitution and what the FF intended?

Please state where the US Constitution states the government can force a private citizen to buy any product/service?

The liberal media is finally starting to agree with the majoroty of voters who want Obamacare repealed





Most voters still want to repeal the national health care law and are more confident than ever that the law actually will be repealed.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters – for the second week in a row (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public_content/archive/health_care_update_archive/august_2011/voters_express_stronger_enthusiasm_for_health_care _repeal) – at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law passed by Congress in March of last year. Thirty-six percent (36%) at least somewhat oppose repeal. These findings include 43% who Strongly Favor repeal versus 26% who are Strongly Opposed

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

[J.T]

Please state where the US Constitution states the government can force a private citizen to buy any product/service?

general Welfare clause is open to interpretation. Rising medical costs and the health of the populace sure seems to fit in there.

Again, if you disagree with the men who wrote and signed COTUS, have a seance and take it up with them. They had no doubt that such an individual mandate was constitutional when they passed one in 1792. Ergo, if you want original intent, you have it in the Second Militia Act, setting a clear precedent for an individual mandate.

If you prefer the will of the living over the rule of the dead (if, for instance you fancy yourself a more a Jeffersonian than a North Korean who is governed by corpses), then the clause in question means whatever the hell we, the living, want it to today.

Either way, you have nothing but the same tired b.s. talking points that were refuted long ago.




The liberal media is finally starting to agree with the majoroty of voters who want Obamacare repealed

They said it was a political mistake to push for it before getting a consensus. They're not saying what you claim they are. Did you not watch the video?

[red states rule]

general Welfare clause is open to interpretation. Rising medical costs and the health of the populace sure seems to fit in there.

Again, if you disagree with the men who wrote and signed COTUS, have a seance and take it up with them. They had no doubt that such an individual mandate was constitutional when they passed one in 1792. Ergo, if you want original intent, you have it in the Second Militia Act, setting a clear precedent for an individual mandate.

If you prefer the will of the living over the rule of the dead (if, for instance you fancy yourself a more a Jeffersonian than a North Korean who is governed by corpses), then the clause in question means whatever the hell we, the living, want it to today.

Either way, you have nothing but the same tired b.s. talking points that were refuted long ago.




They said it was a political mistake to push for it before getting a consensus. They're not saying what you claim they are. Did you not watch the video?


Using your logic, under Obamacare the Federal government can force people to buy a gym membership, or buy diet supplements

The left is worried that the USSC will be ruling on Obamacare during the 2012 election, and they are making noise about Justice Thomas to step down and not rule on this case. they know it will be struck dwon - as it should

You are having the same reaction as Chris Matthews did to the two comments from two of Obama's biggest supporters

[J.T]

Using your logic, under Obamacare the Federal government can force people to buy a gym membership, or buy diet supplements

They could, if the masses decided it was a valid application of the 'general Welfare' clause. Again, Washington established precedent when it comes to the Individual Mandate, meaning that ruled by corpses or not, there's no argument to claim it's unconstitutional without an amendment expressly limiting the reach and application of the clause in question.

Instead of wasting time repeating this tired talking point and being refuted again and again, why don't you follow my example (http://www.usmessageboard.com/3299256-post463.html) and make an actual argument against the mandate itself rather than arguing over some bullshit like the intent or words of men who lived 200 years ago as though they have any right or authority to govern from the grave over the lives of the living? The case against the mandate is a moral one and one of liberty. Make that argument.

[red states rule]

They could, if the masses decided it was a valid application of the 'general Welfare' clause. Again, Washington established precedent when it comes to the Individual Mandate, meaning that ruled by corpses or not, there's no argument to claim it's unconstitutional without an amendment expressly limiting the reach and application of the clause in question.

Instead of wasting time repeating this tired talking point and being refuted again and again, why don't you follow my example (http://www.usmessageboard.com/3299256-post463.html) and make an actual argument against the mandate itself rather than arguing over some bullshit like the intent or words of men who lived 200 years ago as though they have any right or authority to govern from the grave over the lives of the living? The case against the mandate is a moral one and one of liberty. Make that argument.

No arguement eh? Then why have several Federal Judges ruled Obamacare is unconstitutional?

Dems and the liberal media have said the country wanted Obamacare. Of course they also said the folks wanted higher taxes to "solve" the debt "crisis"

Th US Constitution LIMITS the power of the Federal government over the people. Obamacare clearly increases their power over the people.

When pleading his case, an attorney for the government told a Judge if people did not want to be affected by Obamacare they need make less money

Now that is a real solid argument for Obamacare isn't it?

[J.T]

No arguement eh? Then why have several Federal Judges ruled Obamacare is unconstitutional?

Why have others disagreed? The courts gave us Dredd Scott, Roe v. Wade, and Buck v. Bell. Sure, there are judges who agree with you, but that itself is hardly an argument, especially when one can just as easily find judges who disagree. Will you decide that COTUS' decision is the judgement of God, as though the courts were some divine and infallible source of judgement and wisdom- even if it disagrees with your position?


Th US Constitution LIMITS the power of the Federal government over the people.
And? Did you just learn this? Is this new information for you? Is that why you decided to announce this discovery to everyone else?

Obamacare clearly increases their power over the people.
As do DOMA and the numerous attempts to ban abortion. As does the law against treason. What, exactly, if your point?

[KartRacerBoy]

How is majority vote "ramming through" something? I just wonder.

I'm not a fan of the Presdient's heathcare reform, but a calling a democratic vote "ramming through" strikes me as inane and dishonest.

Oh wait. I see. RSR started this thread. That would explain it. I guess a constitutional republic is only valid if he agrees with all outcomes.

RSR, you are perhaps the most vapid, stupid person on the internet. :clap:

[jimnyc]

How is majority vote "ramming through" something? I just wonder.

I'm not a fan of the Presdient's heathcare reform, but a calling a democratic vote "ramming through" strikes me as inane and dishonest.

Oh wait. I see. RSR started this thread. That would explain it. I guess a constitutional republic is only valid if he agrees with all outcomes.

RSR, you are perhaps the most vapid, stupid person on the internet. :clap:

A majority of Dems voting on a healthcare bill, in direct opposition to what their constituents want, would be seen as "ramming it through" to me. It should have had more time to be dissected and more time for the public to see what has turned out to be a huge hunk of crap. People wanted healthcare reform, but they didn't want the particular reform that got "rammed" through.

[Kathianne]

A majority of Dems voting on a healthcare bill, in direct opposition to what their constituents want, would be seen as "ramming it through" to me. It should have had more time to be dissected and more time for the public to see what has turned out to be a huge hunk of crap. People wanted healthcare reform, but they didn't want the particular reform that got "rammed" through.
Yep. Those voting for it or against it, not chance to read. Got to say that those that went with, placed their faith in Pelosi, not Obama.

Opposition, same thing. It was all Pelosi and secondary Reid.

[ConHog]

Unconstitutional? This was debunked long ago. The guys who wrote and signed the constitution agreed that an individual mandate was constitutional (note the lack of objection to the Second Militia Act). I thought you people were all about the Constitution and what the FF intended? Hell, Washington signed the damn thing and was president when the individual mandate was passed.

Debunked by who?

Here is another part of the Act, a part you didn't mention. For obvious reasons.

every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."

Oh, it appears that if you provided your own weapons you didn't have to pay any taxes. So not exactly the same thing as forcing someone to buy something or fining them.

[Missileman]

Unconstitutional? This was debunked long ago. The guys who wrote and signed the constitution agreed that an individual mandate was constitutional (note the lack of objection to the Second Militia Act). I thought you people were all about the Constitution and what the FF intended? Hell, Washington signed the damn thing and was president when the individual mandate was passed.

Are you referring to this?


The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.
An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

[J.T]

Debunked by who?

George Washington. Do try to keep up.



every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."

And? What's your point? That you want a tax break for working people who have to buy medical insurance? So you're cool with the mandate so long as the Republicans stop blocking tax cuts for the working class?

[red states rule]

How is majority vote "ramming through" something? I just wonder.

I'm not a fan of the Presdient's heathcare reform, but a calling a democratic vote "ramming through" strikes me as inane and dishonest.

Oh wait. I see. RSR started this thread. That would explain it. I guess a constitutional republic is only valid if he agrees with all outcomes.

RSR, you are perhaps the most vapid, stupid person on the internet. :clap:

I know you will ignore these facts but I will try

Obamacare did not get one Repiblican vote. Dems had to openly bribe other Dems to get their vote to pass it. Anything from pork projects to waivers for their state

Dems set up a conference to discuss the bill and changed the locks on the door thus locking the R's ourt of the room

Pelosi said herself they had to pass the bill so we could find out what was in it

John Conyers laughed when a reporter asked him if he read the bill and knew what was in it

The bill was not put online for voters to read 72 hours prior to the vote as Obama said all bills would be. Like the stimus, Dems did not want the voters to know what was in it prior to passage

Despite the thousands of people who stood outside the Capital, Dems struted inside to finish raming the bill thru despite the huge amount of opposition to it

Like the economy, Dems own this bill and I look forward to the Dems cowering as the USSC rules on this as Obama desperately tries to keep his job in 2012