The word of the day is: SNOWMAGGEDON!

I'm breaking my Facebook pledge to ignore Sarah Palin for a week.

This little 'gem' is just too good to unnoticed:

Palin: "Mr. Caribou, You Need to Take One for the Team"
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/48688/palin-mr-caribou-you-need-to-take-one-for-the-team/

For all those in the path of the storm – hunker down, stay warm and be safe!

Makes me nervous that forecasters are calling this event 'historic'!

Get ready…cause, here it comes…!

Louis J;

How true. Yesterday I wrote about the path to Oligarchy, well we are well on our way. It gets worst every day. Instead of addressing jobs and improving the economy, the GOP has shifted the focus to Egypt and the HCR.

Good Morning Feisty:

You guys are getting snow. We are getting a lot of ice. Trade ya.

Feisty;

The gift that keeps on giving. The very fabric of this country is starting to unravel.

Good Morning Ron:

NO Deal! ;o)

Ice is far worse than snow when it comes to the amount of damage it can cause - you & the missus stay safe!

Forecasters here are predicting we could break the all time snow fall record of 1967 (don't remember that one as I was to young ;o)

I do remember 1979 and that was surreal!

The very fabric of this country is starting to unravel.

@ Navy - I'm afraid your 100% correct!

Big money is on the verge of completing the final piece of the puzzle of dividing this country between the 'haves' & 'have nots'!

Good luck to all in the path of this storm. We are at almost 60 inches of snow this winter, which will make for an interesting spring.

The White House says a ruling by a federal judge against the new health care law is an example of judicial "overreaching" and "activism."

Yeah, right. And the two judges that upheld the constitutionality of ClunkerCare are “wise” and reading the Constitution “correctly”.

What a load of horsesh!t.

Can any of the FR lefty liberals point to another situation where the FEDERAL govt forces individuals to buy a product or service?? Please do not point to state mandates to purchase car insurance because the Feds are different from the states. The Tenth amendment states “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.”

Navy Disabled: Instead of addressing jobs and improving the economy, the GOP has shifted the focus to Egypt and the HCR.

Both are important issues. Regarding Egypt, the Obama is now just hanging on for the ride. There is nothing they can do to stop the history that is being made in that country. Obama was quick to turn his back on Mubarak, and the rest of the middle east rulers took note. Mubarak has been a three decades long advocate for peace in that region, and the US was quick to pull the rug out from under him. The goal for the US is stability in the middle-east. With Mubarak, we have a known quantity that helped maintain the stability. Now, with the US turning their back on him, there is less stability in the middle-east and a lot of unknown factors that will have to play out for years.

Concerning HCR, the Florida judge, Judge Vinson, correctly summed up why ObamaCare is unconstitutional. It's not even a close call to throw ObamaCareout out as being an extreme overstepping of the role of the federal government. Obama and the Democrats have really failed the American people with this massive government takeover of health care. Reform was needed, and still is needed, but Obama's attempt to overtake the industry was an over-reach of the role of the government. Obama, a Constitutional lawyer himself, should have known better.

Only 18-30% of the American people want the HCR Law totally repealed. That means the GOP is ignoring 70-80% of what the American people want. Yeah, the party that listens to America has gone deaf all of a sudden. Lets see what happens when the GOP has to explain to America that you can no longer have health insurance if you have a pre-existing condition, you children up to age 26 can no longer be on your policy, drug cost will go up, and they list goes on. Over 90 provisions will be lost. Let see them explain that to the people.

Many of those that did object to the HCR Law, did so because they felt it did not go far enough and want a stronger HCR Law. The GOP is on the wrong side of this one and time will tell.

Concerning HCR, the Florida judge, Judge Vinson, correctly summed up why ObamaCare is unconstitutional.

Bent with the tea party bias:

The most surprising part of Judge Roger Vinson’s ruling was his argument that the individual mandate was not severable from the health care law as a whole and must therefor bring down the entire Affordable Care Act. “In sum, notwithstanding the fact that many of the provisions in the Act can stand independently without the individual mandate (as a technical and practical matter), it is reasonably ‘evident,’ as I have discussed above, that the individual mandate was an essential and indispensable part of the health reform efforts, and that Congress did not believe other parts of the Act could (or it would want them to) survive independently,” Vinson writes.

But a closer read of his analysis reveals something peculiar. In fact, as Vinson himself admits in Footnote 27 (on pg. 65), he arrived at this conclusion by “borrow[ing] heavily from one of the amicus briefs filed in the case for it quite cogently and effectively sets forth the applicable standard and governing analysis of severability (doc. 123).” That brief was filed by the Family Research Council, which has been branded as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

“The Family Research Council (FRC) bills itself as ‘the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power,’ but its real specialty is defaming gays and lesbians,” SPLC says. Indeed, so-called FRC “experts” (who most recently lobbied to preserve Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell) have argued that “gaining access to children” “has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement” and claimed that “[o]ne of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets of a new sexual order.” FRC President Tony Perkins has even described pedophilia as a “homosexual problem.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/31/vinson-frc/

See post #1.5

Yesterday, I was asked to provide proof for my opinion that Obama was caught flatfooted on the Middle East crisis.

Politico has it

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48543.html

Please note the opening line in the story. Please also note the line in the body of the story, from a 'high ranking' White House official: "we're still struggling to figure all this out."

Makes me feel safe and secure.

Does anyone really believe that there was no intel on any of this? I believe there was- and that Obama had better things to do than pay attention. There were the midterms, and windmills, and choo choos, and solar shingles, and, oh yeah, the Big Ten.

He needs to coerce his big donors back, (plenty of stories out there on that, but definitely not on this site), his reelection campaign, getting his ratings back up, and, oh yeah, Rahm's mayoral race.

I knew Obama would be a disaster- I had no idea how big a disaster he would be.

I only pray we survive him.

Navy Disabled: you children up to age 26 can no longer be on your policy

Never got an answer on this one: If a 25 year old has a child, is that child also covered on gran-mas and gran-pas policy? What if the 25 year old marries a 32 year old? Is the 32 year old covered on the 25 years olds parents policy?

Just ask'n.

JoAnnaSmith1

The goal for the US is stability in the middle-east. With Mubarak, we have a known quantity that helped maintain the stability. Now, with the US turning their back on him, there is less stability in the middle-east and a lot of unknown factors that will have to play out for years.

Joanna remember when this was happening in iran, and the US stuck by the Sha Of Iran, the people there saw him as nothing but a puppet for the American government, we should have done then as you say turned our back on him, had we done that maybe there would have been no hostages. remember they took over the embassy because we gave him refuge in the US and they wanted him back, A big Mistake on Forgin Policy, Jimmy Carter
so the president is doing the right thing, let the people of Egypt decide with no influence from the US. if they want him out, that their decision, not ours nomatter how important he is for us in the middle east. the Sha of Iran was very Important to us and look what it got us, 30 years later.

this is the mistake we made in Iran, lets remember Iran was a Key Allie in the Middle east and we put the sha Of Iran in. when the Previous Egypt leader was assisinated we did not influence who the next leader was, so in this case of the PEOPLE want him to resign then he must,
lets face it Joanna, the Egyptians need us more than we need them Right?

Regarding Egypt, the Obama is now just hanging on for the ride. There is nothing they can do to stop the history that is being made in that country. Obama was quick to turn his back on Mubarak, and the rest of the middle east rulers took note. Mubarak has been a three decades long advocate for peace in that region, and the US was quick to pull the rug out from under him. The goal for the US is stability in the middle-east. With Mubarak, we have a known quantity that helped maintain the stability. Now, with the US turning their back on him, there is less stability in the middle-east and a lot of unknown factors that will have to play out for years.

Two question, JAS1...

1. Do you honestly think Mubarak's #1 concern at the moment is what this administration thinks of him or the protests in Egypt?

2. We've propped up unpopular rulers in the Middle East before...how's that worked for us?

Ron- I've lived through some of Indiana's ice storms. They are destructive beyound belief

The only thing worse than these winter storms in general is putting up with all the nonsense about 'global warming is a hoax, because it's snowing". In February, in the Midwest, yet- go figgure.

And from No Jo:

"I only pray we survive him."

Everyone else dances around her delicately, but I'm gonna come right out and say it: God, woman- you suck.

I like your thoughts, Louis, well done. People no longer think for themselves or bother to question what they hear. Just look at the cell phones glued to the ears of drivers, the personal information chatting in the aisles at grocery stores and shopping malls, people at dinner ignoring each other to talk to or text others on their gadgets. I keep hoping I'll adjust to the idea that we've been reduced to walking/talking, addicted gadget users.

Joe in Albany:

Can any of the FR lefty liberals point to another situation where the FEDERAL govt forces individuals to buy a product or service??

Yeah. The administration of lefty liberal George Washington required citizens to buy weapons and ammunition. See post below and several others I and others have made on this subject. How many times does it take to pound facts into the thick skulls of wingnuts when they don't want to hear them? A number approaching infinity, apparently.

I look at the cell phones glued to the ears of law enforcement as people break speed limits, they are clueless to the environment around them. Or at least the lady that walked into the fountain and fell in while texting. Drowning While Texting (DWT) is no different than Driving While Intoxicated (DWI).

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

"Only 18-30% of the American people want the HCR Law totally repealed. That means the GOP is ignoring 70-80% of what the American people want"

May I go a step further, and suggest their constand drone about Repal constitutes the 'cramming-down-of-throats' ?

JoAnnaSmith1

Both are important issues. Regarding Egypt, the Obama is now just hanging on for the ride. There is nothing they can do to stop the history that is being made in that country. Obama was quick to turn his back on Mubarak, and the rest of the middle east rulers took note

True they are important but OMG somehow your conclusions are so unfounded. The US is not as you claim turning their back on Egypt.

a)The U.S. has dispatched former ambassador to Egypt Frank Wisner to Cairo to meet with Egyptian officials, the State Department said today.

b) Why should President Obama support brutal dictatorship? Have you forgotten the Cairo speech?
c) Republicans are up to their negative comments and scare tactics. Screaaam, the Muslim brotherhood is gonna take over the world. They are 20% of the population. Democracy advocates all factions
d) Poll: Egyptian Public’s Views Toward United States Are Much Improved

By NATE SILVER

[snip]

How friendly might a new regime be toward the United States, for instance? No one certainly can predict that.

What does appear to be the case, however, is that Egyptian popular opinion toward the United States has substantially improved over the course of the past 2 to 3 years, to the point that a new leader would probably not gain any points by expressing anti-American sentiment.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/poll-egyptian-publics-views-toward-united-states-are-much-improved/?src=tptw

Holy sh!t

Tea Party Judge Roger Vinson ‘Borrows Heavily’ From Family Research Council To Invalidate Health Law

January 31st, 2011 at 7:10 PM by Igor Volsky

But a closer read of his analysis reveals something peculiar. In fact, as Vinson himself admits in Footnote 27 (on pg. 65), he arrived at this conclusion by “borrow[ing] heavily from one of the amicus briefs filed in the case for it quite cogently and effectively sets forth the applicable standard and governing analysis of severability (doc. 123).” That brief was filed by the Family Research Council, which has been branded as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

“The Family Research Council (FRC) bills itself as ‘the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power,’ but its real specialty is defaming gays and lesbians,” SPLC says. Indeed, so-called FRC “experts” (who most recently lobbied to preserve Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell) have argued that “gaining access to children” “has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement” and claimed that “[o]ne of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is toabolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets of a new sexual order.” FRC President Tony Perkins has even described pedophilia as a “homosexual problem.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/31/vinson-frc/

There was a time judges were honest and unpaid for by the likes of the literal and figurative notorious polluters of the air the Koch Bothers..

Oh, the NJ has proof of her claim that President Obama was caught off guard, Politico says the WH indicates "we're struggling to figure this all out". Well, now that proves exactly what--nothing. The World is struggling to figure this out. Using the NJ logic, President Bush obviously was caught flat-footed by Al Qaeda in 2001. There is intel on this but WE are not privy to it; intel is not a predictor of WHEN. The Obama administration has been urging (proved by Wiki Leaks) the Mubarak government to reform for two years--likely because Intel pointed to simmering unrest. Same old, same old--those who cannot see truth beyond their bias have little to offer the discussion except simplistic and weak arguments.

All you'll out there be careful next couple of days. Me I'm kind of setting back and watching the headlight on that big old Locomotive get brighter as it heads East. Sure hope it jumps the Track before it gets here. Please my friends and nieghbors stay warm, dry and close to home if you can. I'll see if I can't line up some Stainty Bernards with a keg of Toddy for those of you that can't.

Da'Noid: 1. Do you honestly think Mubarak's #1 concern at the moment is what this administration thinks of him or the protests in Egypt?

It most certainly does matter. And it's a mixed message coming from the US. First, the Sec of State and the VP supported Mubarak, now those two are backing away from their initial statements. And there is the small matter of US foreign aid to Egypt. The US plays a central role in Mid-east peace, what the US says carries a lot of weight in the middle east, the US's word goes a long way as to what the outcome in Egypt will be.

Da'Noid: 2. We've propped up unpopular rulers in the Middle East before...how's that worked for us?

Mixed results for sure. It's not a pretty process, is it? Certainly nothing works out really well, but the goal is to manage the chaos to an acceptable level. Mubarak was an advocate for peace in the region. Him leaving is going to leave a huge gap into any certainty for continued peace in that region.

DBO;

By all means. Also when a minority (even a minority on ONE) can stopped the Senate then who is driving what down whose throat. 70-80% of the American people do not want a total repeal of the HCR Law (many are GOP). As you said, who is jamming what down whose throat????

Tired of hearing the blatant lies. Pre-existing had allready been partially addressed long ago. Insurance companies have to accept people with a pre existing condition onto a group plan and many states allready had a high risk pool. Needs to be better but Obama didn't do sh*t to change that. Obamacare created a very costly high risk pool that not many people are migrating to. I personally have a pre-ex and had to get on a group plan, and the changes regarding pre-ex with Obamacare are hype and BS. Insurance for a 26 year old is, or at least was, less expensive for an individual policy than to have on a group plan....unless of course the employer was paying for part of that. So what's the big deal about the up to 26 year old group. Drug costs are going up anyway unless you mean that the government will cover more which means the taxpayer will pay more. There's no free ride here, just a bunch of Obama-sheep thinking there is, and unfortunately waiting around for Obama Money. Both parties are obstructionist in making changes. When the Republican congress was trying to make changes a few years ago it was the Democrats that were blocking it then. Now it's flipped. Grow up people, the new, so called, health initiatives are about control and redistrubution of peoples hard earned money, plain and simple. The GOP were elected and regained control of the house and added seats in the senate specifically on the health care issue. Yes, time will tell, and allready is according to the peoples choices in the last election.

"Certainly nothing works out really well"

Ah, the classic motto of a Bush defender who continually castigates the Obama administration for the merely modest recovery of our economy after the worst recession in our country since the Great Depression.

NoJo is talking out her backside again. Most pundits are saying that President Obama is handling this scenario correctly. Yes he is trying to analyse all the possible phases of this, as he should. Nothing in Politico said he was caught flat footed, only that they are trying to figure out their next move. Not the same thing.

All I can say is I am glad you are not in charge.

Joe in Albany:

I'm happy to oblige even though I hesitate to call myself a "lefty liberal". That's only an epithet, which coming from the likes of you and yours means "someone who disagrees with me".

First point here. The decisions of the Supreme Court fill many, many volumes. The reason for that is our Constitution is constantly under review. It is and has been interpreted in a number of ways. The tenthers - like yourself - have no understanding of the complexity of the 10th Amendment, of the other Amendments and the rest of the Constitution. It's always black and white for you guys. The Supreme Court seems to find vast amounts of gray. Go figure.

As to those products and services we are forced to purchase: Well, let's start with the armed forces. We pay for a military via taxes. Even Quakers, who are adamantly opposed to war AND have a First Amendment protection, must pay for this "service". Try driving a toll road and not paying for that product. Try entering a public park without paying the price of admission.

There are many more examples Joe. That's how it is in socialist America. That's how it's always been. That's how it will always be until the very wealthy class manages to reduce the vast majority of Americans to mere serfs. Their collective boot will stomp squarely on your neck as surely as it will on the rest of us. Of course, then if will be too late. Really Joe, wake up.

Amy, you seem confused. Obama, his VP, and his economic team, promised many, many things for their trillions in deficit spending. No worse than 8% unemployment, "Recovery Summer", "Green shoots of job creation", 400,000 created a month", "We've turned the corner". On and on. Grand promises, poor results

And the worst recession since the Great Depression was under President Carter Ms. Amy. Do you recall the lines for gas, hyper-inflation, hyper interest rates, and unemployment dear? Truly bad times.

From the article in Politico: The uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia caught the Obama administration completely off guard. . ."

So, you are right, Navy. Flatfooted was MY term.

It amounts to the same thing, no?

"Yeah. The administration of lefty liberal George Washington required citizens to buy weapons and ammunition. See post below and several others I and others have made on this subject. How many times does it take to pound facts into the thick skulls of wingnuts when they don't want to hear them? A number approaching infinity, apparently.

______________________________________________________

Unfortunately for you, the Constitution gives the federal govt the authority to "provide for the common defence" (sic) and therefore, such an action is entirely constitutional.

Wanna try again??

JoAnna in response to your post 1.12, some people are just stupid, then there's you.

Stay safe guys, it's a blizzard here in SW Mo. plan to stay hunkered down by the fire and ride it out.

JoAnnaSmith1

I look up what was the worse recession since the depression and look what i found,

The world's largest economy shrank 4.1 percent from the fourth quarter of 2007 to the second quarter of 2009, the biggest slump since the 1930s, revised figures from the Commerce Department showed in July. Household spending dropped 1.2 percent in 2009, the biggest decline since 1942

Joanna you make me laugh, the 70s was the era of high inflation and interest rates. we were not in recession and if we were in recession, your statement is not true, from the depression to 2007 are the two worse recessions ever, see statement like this makes people not read your post, before i answered this i went on the web and found out, maybe you should start doing the same, Joanna any statement can be proven wrong or right considering we are in the WEB now. all i did was type in worse recession since 1930, you can do the same!!!

Some of you all never been down South too much...
I' gonna tell you a little story, so you'll understand where I'm talking about
Down there we have a plant that grows out in the woods and the fields,
and it looks something like a turnip green.
Everybody calls it Polk salad. Now that's Polk salad.
Used to know a girl that lived down there and
she'd go out in the evenings to pick a mess of it...
Carry it home and cook it for supper, 'cause that's about all they had to eat,
But they did all right.

Down in Louisiana
Where the alligators grow so mean
Lived a girl that I swear to the world
Made the alligators look tame

Polk salad Jo Annie
'Gators got you granny
Everybody said it was a shame
'Cause the mama was working on the chain-gang
Whoo, how wretched, dispiteful, straight-razor totin' woman,
Lord have mercy.

"As to those products and services we are forced to purchase: Well, let's start with the armed forces. We pay for a military via taxes. Even Quakers, who are adamantly opposed to war AND have a First Amendment protection, must pay for this "service"."

__________________________________________________

Unfortunately for you, the Constitution explicitely gives the federal govt the power to "lay and collect taxes" and "provide for the common Defence". As such, these actions are entirely constitutional.

Wanna try again??

Tony Jo White, IR! Thanks for putting that one in my head for the rest of the day!!

JoAnna in response to your post 1.12, some people are just stupid, then there's you.

My, my the liberals are just so angry today. Must be because a judge in Florida took away their freebes.

Anything thing else to add Mo? You know, like a thought? Maybe just one?

Jeff154...;

JS1 has trouble with getting her facts straight. She has been called out on this routinely.

Joe in Albany: the Constitution gives the federal govt the authority to "provide for the common defence" (sic) and therefore, such an action is entirely constitutional

In the very same paragraph, the Constitution also says the purpose of the government founded by the document is to "promote the general welfare". Webster's Dictionary defines welfare as "health and well being" among other things.

That says health care as surely as your defense quote says military.

Joe in Albany,

Do you have a problem with the state MANDATING you to buy car insurance? Why is it SO different if the mandate comes from the state or the feds? What difference does it make where the mandate comes from? Do you really care that much? How about if the states mandated you to purchase health insurance. Are you telling me then you wouldn’t have a problem with it? What about if the mandate came from Rush Limbaugh himself. Would you have a problem with it then? What if God told you to do it? Can you explain why you believe it has such an impact on you personally where the mandate comes from? Regardless you still have to do it. Have to pay your taxes, have to register for selective service if you want financial aide, have to get car insurance, etc. And spare me the BS about not needing a car in the 21^st century or telling a poor person they don’t need financial aide to go to school. That’s like saying you don’t need toilet paper to wipe your ass.

Ed

If Obama is going to give up the little bit of influence we have in Egyptian affairs by sitting on the sidelines and letting things play out as they may, then whats the point in the U.S. giving Egypt 1.5 BILLION dollars a year?

I would estimate that nearly everyone in the U.S. wants the Egyptian "people" to be free, but I'm also failly certain that almost nobody in the U.S. wants the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD or any other Hamas type of terrorist organization to take control of power and institute Sharia law and other extremist Muslim practices that allow a multitude of human rights violations!

The U.S. SHOULD try to influence the outcome of this "revolt of the people" by offering to keep the 1.5 Billion worth of aid in place as long as "the people" don't allow such a terrorist organization to take control.

It is in the BEST interest of the Egyptian people AND the U.S. to regain stability in Egypt, but stability will be greatly weakened if an extremist organization such as the Muslim Brotherhood takes charge!

If President Obama is the great leader that his supporters believe he is, then he will step up to the plate NOW! He can call it the money for "moderates" program. If "moderate Muslims" take control then Egypt still gets aid. If extremists take control, then no help, and NO aid!

Joe in Albany:

Your post reminds me of a true story about a little deaf girl. Her mother was scolding her for some sort of indiscretion. Mom was using sign language of course. The little girl didn't want to "hear", so she just closed her eyes.

Well Joe, that sure describes you, doesn't it? You wanted examples of products and/or services for which we are required to pay. I gave them to you, and you closed your eyes.

You must pay for toll roads. You must pay for park admission. As far as the payment of taxes for defense, you blithely dismiss this because it is a constitutional mandate - provide for the defense. Somehow, you manage to dismiss out of hand the fact that the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Is there no conflict there, Joe? Quakers - a religious establishment - must pay taxes for defense in spite of the fact that they are opposed to war - whether for defensive purposes or otherwise. There's that inevitable conflict, which requires Supreme Court interpretation, but it's just another black and white situation for you, right Joe?

Take a look at your phone bill. There's a mandated 9-1-1 fee. There are all sorts of federal charges. Don't pay 'em Joe. Find out whether they aren't mandatory. Don't pay your property taxes. Find out whether they aren't mandatory taxes that fund snow removal, schools, road construction and the like. The government can - and will - take possession of your home and sell it for back taxes.

As I posted earlier, there are many, many examples. Closing your eyes to facts doesn't make them go away.

In the very same paragraph, the Constitution also says the purpose of the government founded by the document is to "promote the general welfare". Webster's Dictionary defines welfare as "health and well being" among other things.

That says health care as surely as your defense quote says military.

___________________________________

Unfortunately for you the clause you quote about the "general welfare" is only in the Preamble to the Constitution. It is NOT in the enumerated powers of the federal govt. The power to "lay taxes" and "provide for the common defence" (sic) is in Article 1, Section 8 Powers of Congress. THAT's the part of the Constitution I was quoting, not the Preamble.

Wanna try again??

Sorry Drive -By
The Devil made me do it
At least now I won't be the only one that hears that little ditty when JoAnna graces us with one of her Pretzel Posts

Rosiy

I would estimate that nearly everyone in the U.S. wants the Egyptian "people" to be free, but I'm also failly certain that almost nobody in the U.S. wants the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD or any other Hamas type of terrorist organization to take control of power and institute Sharia law and other extremist Muslim practices that allow a multitude of human rights violations!

That's scary. The MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD are gonna take over the world. Sean Hankkkity looked so stupid last night when his 2 Arab dignitary interviewees would not agree the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD are not going to rule Egypt because the people want a democracy not Koranic law or a dictator who tortures and cracks heads. Turn off Fox. Look up the demographics

"Do you have a problem with the state MANDATING you to buy car insurance? Why is it SO different if the mandate comes from the state or the feds? What difference does it make where the mandate comes from?"

_______________________________________________

The difference is simple: The Constitution is a document that has the purpose of delegating limited powers to the federal govt. As defined in the Tenth amendment: "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." The states have far greater powers under the Constitution. That's why Mass. universal healthcare IS Constitutional.

Amazing an article about Egypt and fiesty,navy, and louisj all start blaming repubs. You say repubs are focused on Egypt well the dems better start before a snowball affect and all of the middle east is turmoil. Then navy says olny 18-30% are for the repeal of HCR. How do know? Did you talk to every American? Or are you taking stats from a liberal poll. The last one I seen on a conservative poll only 18-30% are in favor of HCR. Im sure Egypt is still Bushs fault also. Maybe more people would believe you if you stayed on topic instead of always going off on tangents about repubs.

"Well Joe, that sure describes you, doesn't it? You wanted examples of products and/or services for which we are required to pay. I gave them to you, and you closed your eyes."

_____________________________________

No. I simply pointed out that your examples passed Constitutional muster because they are explicitly provided for in the document. The individual mandate is NOT in the document. All your other examples like using a toll road or a park are predicated on my choosing to use those facilities. I agree that if I choose to access them, I have to pay for them. However, if I choose not to access them, I'm not forced to pay for them. The individual mandate is exactly the opposite.

As far as the Quakers go, it has nothing to do with the first amendment establishment of religion clause. That clause is ONLY a prohibition placed on Congess establishing a religion. The Quakers, or anyone else, have to pay taxes, including for defence (sic), because both items are an enumerated power of the federal govt in Article 1, Secion 8 Powers of Congress.

Your next paragraph references non-federal govt. mandates and see post 1.46 above for that answer.

Wanna try again??

Let me see if I'm following you're logic correctly here Joe
You're saying that providing for the common defence (a standing military force) is what requires a Quaker to contribute his taxes even if he doesn't want to support the Military.
If I use that same logic why doesn't that providing for the common defence (prevention of the spread of disease in the population) require a contribution even if somebody doesn't believe that Doctor's can prevent the spread of disease?
Sounds like your definition of the common defence is a little narrow there.
Just saying

Let me see if I'm following you're logic correctly here Joe
You're saying that providing for the common defence (a standing military force) is what requires a Quaker to contribute his taxes even if he doesn't want to support the Military.

_______________________________________________

You are not following my logic correctly. What I'm saying is that the Art. 1, Sec. 8 enumerated power to "lay and collect taxes" is what gives the feds the constitutional authority to make Quakers and everyone else pay taxes. A separate power in that same section authorizes the feds to spend that money on "providing for the common defence" (sic). They are two separate and distinct powers. Since both are authorized constitutional powers, the Quakers have no right to not comply with one (taxes) because they disagree with another (common defence).

As used in the Constitution, the term"defence" is universally understood to mean defending the country against armed attack by enemies.

Is Hillary really looking more and more like Madelin Albright?

Okay I'm following you here
So you're saying that since it was universally "understood" that the common defence was speaking of only military protection then we should not even consider broadening that definition a little.
Seems like to me if we used that logic we'd have to do away with a women's right to vote, none land holders right to vote and go back to counting African- Americans is 1/3 of a person for the Census.
I mean since those were all enumerated and "universally" understood and all.

Independent:

The problem is Joe is lumping healthcare as a commercial product and hiding behind the constitution. He didn't answer my question on why does it matter where the mandate comes from. Fact of the matter is funding to care for the uninsured already comes from the Federal govt (google Medicaid DSH program). The fed administers the fund then the states allocate it to the local hospitals under the Medcaid program. Based on Joe's response the fed doesn't have the power to dictate to the states. If we operated under that premise we have no healthcare system because states shouldn't be entitled to any federal funding. I think ultimately it boils down to the states should be allowed to opt out of any federal program a democratic president creates.

Ed

Okay I'm following you here
So you're saying that since it was universally "understood" that the common defence was speaking of only military protection then we should not even consider broadening that definition a little.
Seems like to me if we used that logic we'd have to do away with a women's right to vote, none land holders right to vote and go back to counting African- Americans is 1/3 of a person for the Census.
I mean since those were all enumerated and "universally" understood and all.

_________________________________________

That's fine with me as long as you use the provisions of Article V Amendment to do so, just the same as was used to change the items you mention.

The problem is Joe is lumping healthcare as a commercial product and hiding behind the constitution. He didn't answer my question on why does it matter where the mandate comes from

_______________________________________________

Ed, go back and reread post 1.46 slowly. I explained EXACTLY why it does matter where the mandate comes from and why staes have broader powers to mandate things than the feds do.

Okay Joe I go with that
Let's break down that answer just a little bit
19th amendment is pretty clear on giving person's of the female persuasion the right to vote as long as their citizens
15th amendment guarantees universal suffrage. Note that its language does not technically guarantee the right to vote only the right not to be discriminated against if you decide to exercise the privilege. Simple fact of the matter is that it has been INTERPRETED by the Courts and other branches to mean something that its specific language does not say.
So I reckon we have come full circle right back to where we started. Whether or not something is Constitutional or not depends on interpretation doesn't it and your interpretation stands about as good a chance of being right as mine does since neither one of us are Supreme Court Justices

Joe in Albany:

Let's try this one more time. You have reached the point that you are simply refusing to admit that you are wrong.

I put it to you earlier that you should look at your phone bill. You will find a federal charge there. Go to Yellowstone Park - or others - and you will pay the price of admission. Admittedly, these are voluntarily incurred.

Take a broader view. (I know that's a liberal sort of thing, but really it doesn't hurt a bit.) Every nickel, every dime you pay in income tax is paying for some sort of federal program. You may not like those programs, and certainly they don't all fall under the penumbra - however broadly defined - of defense. Indeed, a great deal of your argument rests on the power of the Congress to lay and collect taxes. If that is the primary issue, then virtually all federal programs are constitutional inasmuch as they are paid for via congressionally mandated taxes.

To go a step further, I would point out that the taxes collected at a local level are in part used to repay interest on federal loans. Did you find that in the Constitution. As Independent Redneck and I have pointed out, a great deal of this rests on the interpretation of the Supreme Court. The Constitution is a relatively short document and is necessarily open to interpretation.

Your arguments - however well-delivered and rendered you may believe them to be - do not trump the interpretation of the Supreme Court.

Here is a question: If the Republicans as a whole feel that it should be the States that deal with health care reform and not the Federal Government, why did they have an aneurysm when Mitt Romney did it? Honestly it seems that, like Democrats, Republicans favor State power only when they can't get a Federal mandate. This whole 50 State "Laboratory of Democracy" sounds like a good idea, but falls apart when you consider how deadlocked state legislatures are through gerrymandering of electoral districts by both parties.

It all makes me wonder if geographical voting is as outdated as dueling and powdered wigs.

Joe,

I can read beyond a 3rd grade level I get what you're trying to say. The problem is as David pointed out your application and interpretation of the constitution is very short sighted to suit your agenda. I understand the Republican talking point to argue states rights when they don't agree with a federal law. Look...the issue with the mandate is the uninsured. I'm trying to say the mandate has to come from somewhere because somebody is going to have to pay for their care. You can say its the the hospitals responsibility, the insurance company, the state, the feds, doesn't matter point is somebody has to pay for it or else the person coming into the hospital without insurance gets turned away. Right now the feds (the taxpayer) already reimburses the hospitals to care for the uninsured so why are you hung up on a technicality of where the mandate is coming from? The system in its current form cannot be sustained. If you don't want a federal mandate to purchase insurance then what do you propose we do to pay for the uninsured?

Ed

You know, Navy,

When the opposition has NO ideas and NO plan, they have to relitigate the past. The lengths they went to get 'revenge' on Bill Clinton for a bj gives me confidence that this tirade won't end until they control the airwaves with their mantra of hate for all things that constitute PROGRESS. They are really the Regressive Party. They want their country Back and I want My country FORWARD.

They don't cease to entertain, at least.

BS; This is going to the Supreme Court and they will decide. The GOP keeps attacking the HCR Law but have yet to tell us what they are going to replace it with, if anything.

They (GOP) have yet to tell us what their plan is to create jobs in this country or how they are going to continue to keep this country rolling forward.

All smoke and mirrors to try and get the people diverted from what they said they wanted them to do.

Create more Jobs in America and keep the economy growing.

The answer is they want to replace it with the overwhelming majority of what is in it...then take credit for it all.

Navy Disabled: The GOP keeps attacking the HCR Law but have yet to tell us what they are going to replace it with, if anything.

It's a two step process. First, Obama would do the the entire country a favor by having the Senate pass the repeal of ObamaCare and him signing that legislation. ObamaCare in unimplementable, it's too complex, to restrictive, and did I mention it is unconstitutional? Also, it's a real job killer. It takes money out medical research and development and puts it towards paper pushers and government bureaucrats. That is not a good trade off for anyone.

The next step is to incrementally reform the system. You don't replace entire complex systems like the health care industry all at once. Doing so, like Obama and the Democrats did last year, will not work. It will take time, a lot of hard work, and it needs to be done in public, not behind closed doors like the Democrats in Congress did last year.

Da Noid:

Exactly what I have been saying for months now. They have no new ideas and their Pledge to America copied 7-8 features that were already in the HCR Law that President Obama signed into law.

Navy -

I have seen this link posted many times. Your argument of "what are they going to replace it with", is getting quite boring.

http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare

I can understand the mandate upsetting a lot of people, because a lot of people simply cannot afford to go out and buy insurance.

What I can't quite grasp is- it's not those people doing all the bitching. It's the wealthier Republicans in our midst that seem to be making all the noise.

To the leftists who continue to try and obscure what's really going on here, what is it about this statement that you just don't understand:

this case is not about whether the act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the constitutional role of the federal government.

Wealthier Republicans? Finished my taxes over the weekend. My wife and I (both working) made a combined $68,452.16. I'm a republican, and I don't think I'm wealthy.

Bill Fairfax:

To the leftists who continue to try and obscure what's really going on here, what is it about this statement that you just don't understand: this case is not about whether the act is wise or unwise legislation.

'It is about the constitutional role of the federal government.'

If George Washington thought it was constitutional to mandate that citizens buy stuff when he required private citizens to buy weapons, then it's probably constitutional. How many times does that fact have to be pointed out before reactionary rightists stop pretending they don't know about this?

To a guy making $20,000 you are....

Everyting's relative.

Most of what the GOP is recommending is already in HCR Law, all they have done is steal it from previous law.

Actually, Houston, your premise is wrong.

There is nothing to stop the officials of mention from declaring red shirts illegal, or to mandate that everyone in town buy a lawnmower.

The Courts would then declare that legislation unconstitutional.

Obviously, no one challenged Washington, or Adams. Does not make either mandate constitutional- simply unchallenged.

Good morning, everyone. A few quick words about health care and then I'm out of here like the rest of you to hunker down for the coming storm.

The mandates are bad for more than one reason, whatever you think about the Commerce Clause argument. They can only hurt those who can least afford it. The sole purpose of the mandates has always been to placate the insurance industry and allow them to keep control of premium costs. They're just a substitute for the public option which would have provided a better safety net and protected against cost hi-jacking so much better. The administration admitted in the Florida case that without the mandates, the rest of the bill doesn't work -- for the insurance companies.

After reading the Florida court opinion, I think a better job might have been done in drafting the legislation to make a link between the mandates and "commerce." The court more or less admits that if there had been some link between the requirement that insurance be purchased and the actual provision of services, there would have been a better chance of making the argument that the mandates are constitutional. It's an easy argument for a constitutional lawyer to see, so I wonder why that course was not followed.

What republicans seem to miss is that any negative direct hit on the budget from HCR will be made up in cost savings from all those emergency room visits that would be saved if people actually had health insurance. According to what I have read, the net effect on the budget would probably be positive.

And finally, I posited a couple of threads back that it looks like the Obama administration deliberately excised the severability provision in order to placate the insurance industry. That's bad enough -- very bad, actually -- but a colleague who actually kept up with the history of the legislation says it might really just have been an oversight when the decision was made to go with the Senate bill, which never contained the severability provision. If so, no one is directly taking responsibility for that. And frankly, I can't decide which is worse -- did the administration deliberately agree to the planting of a timebomb in the bill, or did they miss it? Either way, we're just five Supreme Court votes away from having HCR go down. What that might do to the provisions already in effect is anyone's guess.

Stay warm and safe, everyone.

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

Most of what the GOP is recommending is already in HCR Law, all they have done is steal it from previous law.

Actually they are taking the bad out of the current law.

John;

And stold the rest from President Obama. There are things in the HCR that should be removed like the 1099 piece for example. But the major provisions they want to keep are already in the HCR Law. That is a fact.

I have always said that both sides need to get together and keep the good pieces and fix the rest. But the GOP does not want to do that. They want a total repeal and when they put back the ones of President Obama they want to take the credit, if they even do proposed something to replace the HCR Law.

This is just stupid and being done only for political reasons. They could care less about 98% of the people.

Keep what they agree on and fix what they don't. Seems reasonable to me.

John in Tuscon: Actually they are taking the bad out of the current law.

If this is true, the Republicans can do this without repeal of the existing law and without all of the constitutional brouhaha. So why don't they? Is it because they are more interested in their point of view that in what the American public needs?

This is just stupid and being done only for political reasons. They could care less about 98% of the people.

No, it's being done because men and women of good character are questioning in good faith the validity of a law that empowers government to force us to buy something we may have otherwise chosen not to buy. This is a huge issue which, as Judge Vinson said, is completely separate from the issue of whether the health care law is wise or unwise.

We have courts for a reason, in particular we have a Supreme Court that will likely rule on the constitutionality of this law. So if you folks on the left are so sure your legal position is solid, then what's the problem? The process will play out and you will be vindicated.

The only real reason for the left to be in attack mode today is because they're not as confident in their legal position as they were a few days ago. Particularly when Judge Vinson (as even FR acknowledges) laid out his case in such a clear and compelling fashion. So the left is staring at the very real possibility that the signature domestic achievement of the Obama administration may be headed into the dustbin of history.

Faced with the prospect of losing this argument based on the legal merits, you folks on the left are doing what you always do: attack the opposition, impugn our character, invoke nefarious political motives. Same old, same old.

nojonobo:

Obviously, no one challenged Washington, or Adams.

Most of the other authors of the Constitution were still alive when both presidents approved their respective mandates. If there was anything unconstitutional about the mandates, the authors certainly would have challenged them. And while John Adams was not an author of the Constitution, he was one of the main intellects behind it. Conservatives pretend their interested in "original intent" behind the Constitution but their pretend interest fades quickly when they are confronted with the historical facts. 

Nobody challenged the Washington and Adams mandates because there's nothing in the Constitution that forbids them. What you're really trying to do is avoid admitting the claim that the insurance mandate is "unprecedented" is a big fat lie, just like "death panels."

Great post, Jody. I had a similar thought on reading the FR opening line: White House reduced to spectator---well, first of all, the definition of "behind the scenes" means that it isn't public knowledge, as much of diplomacy is conducted that way. Secondly, while we want more freedoms for the people of Egypt, indeed all people in the world, we have learned the hard way through loss of American life and treasure that we can't accomplish it for people--they have to go for it.

On HCR----the split in decisions by different courts means that it will have to be decided by the Supreme Court---I don't think anyone's positions will be much changed until the Court rules. But it saddens me to see the decline in the position of the judiciary in our country--they are not presumed to be impartial. Instead, their politics is an issue in their rulings. Some of this is media driven and some of it they have brought on themselves (such as Justices Thomas and Scalia). Very sad to me.

Jody:

Everything you said is true. The drug bill of President Bush was calculated to cost over 900 Billion for 10 years, the two wars cost over a trillion, the tax cuts etc have added about 3 Trillion or more to the deficit (National debt), and we are still paying for some of them in this years deficit (budget). They (GOP) seems to forget tat part of the equation.

Hi Jody,

Great Post.

Thanks

Amen Jody. Your always right on.

Thank you everyone, appreciate that you appreciate!

Jody, Iowa

Egypt. Watching and waiting is smart; it is up to the Egyptians to decide their future, not us. We can only watch and quietly nudge behind the scenes.

Great post Jody. Every sovereign country deserves self determination.

Health Care. Why the hoopla from republican governors and legislators in this matter? My guess is it has absolutely nothing to do with mandatory purchase of insurance (that was a republican idea) and everything to do with the simple fact that it was President Obama who succeeded in finally passing health care reform despite decades of efforts by both parties to do it.

I would like to add that the GOP/TP WILL USE ANY MEANS NECESSARY. Take for instance the defunding, while people are hurting, and the GOP/TB IS WASTING TAX DOLLARS plus...

Arizona birther law gaining traction

According to Mother Jones’s David Corn, as political strategy, the Arizona law is gaining traction. It’s part of a “well-orchestrated campaign to deny Obama reelection,” he writes, noting that similar efforts are already under way in Pennsylvania, Missouri, Montana, Georgia and Texas.
http://coloradoindependent.com/73480/arizona-birther-law-gaining-traction

I am convinced these 2 along with immigration is all designed to garner votes no matter what the cost politically, socially, or economically

Jody, Iowa: "My guess is it has absolutely nothing to do with mandatory purchase of insurance (that was a republican idea) and everything to do with the simple fact that it was President Obama who succeeded in finally passing health care reform despite decades of efforts by both parties to do it".

Exactly, Jody - this is what I think every time I hear health care reform referred to as "Obamacare", as at least one poster already has above. The same people who call it that would no doubt STILL have been shrieking against it even if its sole provision would have been to protect people like me with pre-existing conditions from being dropped by their insurance companies - simply because if President Obama was for it, then hey, they're automatically against it. This then diminishes the impact of any otherwise valid objections they may have, because it illustrates their inherent bias right off the bat. If President Obama had somehow discovered a cure for cancer and the common cold and managed to slip them into the bill at no cost, they'd STILL be against it (and would no doubt be on here accusing him of grandstanding, too!). It never ceases to amaze me how so many people would rather place politics over their own or their family's best interests. For their sake, I can only hope they never have as many family members who have to deal with cancer at some point in their lives as my family has.

And yeah - the people who seem to be the most up in arms about the mandate for having to purchase insurance seem to be the same ones who come on here every day and rant and rave about "personal responsibility" and all the "freeloaders" who bleed the government dry by taking every handout they can get - that more hard-working, responsible citizens end up paying for - and yet they object most to the one portion of the bill that actually tries to address that issue.

Look, I'm a liberal, and I'm not sure the individual mandate is ever going to get past the Supreme Court myself. But I've yet to hear a rational alternative suggested that would try to fix the problem of so many uninsured people overcrowding our emergency rooms and in effect using them as free clinics, with the rest of us "freedom-loving Americans" (as somebody put it above) picking up the the tab. And as long as so many people are still intractably stuck on the whole issue being "Obamacare" or "the government takeover", I'm not holding my breath waiting for any actual solutions from them either.

I have to take issue with your comment..."it was President Obama who succeeded in finally passing health care reform despite decades of efforts by both parties to do it" When have Republicans done ANYTHING for serious HCR except stand in the way? The only thing I'll give them is the expansion of Medicare to include prescription drugs, and even then the House leadership had to hold open the votes for hours to give them enough time to bribe enough Republican legislatures with campaign money to get it to pass.

Michael. Republican Bob Dole worked to pass health care; they didn't like Hillary's plan but with democrats put together a bill similar to what was passed in early 2010. Richard Nixon was ready to sign legislation but as Ted Kennedy once lamented, he (Kennedy) wanted the perfect and ignored the good. Today's GOP, no they have not but there was a time when republicans did support fixing the system.

there can be no doubt that now the conversation has moved on from hyperbole, lies, and disinformation to what can realistically be done to improve our healthcare system.

With the exception of a few around here who never got that memo! lol

Great Post Nash!

Awwwww, thanks Fiesty . . . been missing you! We are short staffed at work plus I am a little under the weather . . . but I still lurk when I can!:o)

Nash; Great to see you again. Great post.

I heard yesterday that several of the Egyptian Military higher ups were in Washington just before the civil uprising started, one site site they were still there as it came down. I wonder who they were talking to?? President Obama knew what was going on and he has taken the responsible position of wait and see. I do not want himto follow the same knee jerk reactions of previous presidents.

Good to see you too USNavy . . . it gives me peace knowing that you are still here speaking the truth! :o)

Always to the point, Nashville, great post.

Hi Nash--we all know that tomorrow is Groundhog Day and the HCR talk has started to remind me a bit of the movie Groundhog Day. Thanks for reminding us that there has been progress. I don't think the American people want to give up what has been accomplished.

I do hope we learn the lesson in the Middle East---that the people have to make their own way and that we can lend influence but can't determine the outcomes there.

Steeler Fan-380417

Hi Nash--we all know that tomorrow is Groundhog Day and the HCR talk has started to remind me a bit of the movie Groundhog Day.

Steeler Fan

I couldn't have said it any better. The Republicans say the same thing over and over which is essentially "NO".

Thanks for sending SNOWMAGGEDON my way.:)

Go Steelers; beat the hell out of those cheese heads.

Hi Nash

Good to see you back in full form of your rational reasoning.

*Waves to my ladies!*

Thanks for stopping in to show me some love Jody, Steeler Fan, and Bev . . . I need it! :o)

Thanks Nashville!

Your point about the health care debate opening the dialogue is a great one. That in itself is a good thing.

Nice to see the usual liberal suspects giving each other a verbal baby burp. Time to let out some built up gas I suppose. There there, do you all feel better now?

Rocco,

If you need some attention, just ask . . . no need to get all snippy! :o)

*Big hug!*

This site is wonky today.

Moynahan would have no impact on Obama, Mixed Bag.

As my fathe always said, the one person who could not learn was the person who already believed he knew everything.

That is Obama. He is not informed by history, or the wisdom of others. He is informed by his own ego, and that makes him dangerously incompetent.

Grow up, we already know you hate President Obama and he can do nothing that would make you happy. Move on already.

Good morning no joe.

Still making sweeping statements about a President you don't know I see . . . and then the delicious irony of you lamenting folks who "already believe they know everything" being unable to learn. . . and you illustrate that point beautifully each day.

Be well no joe . . . and remember what they say about assuming! :o)

Mixed Bag: [Obama quote after Nov02/2010 elections] "...I think we'd be misreading the election if we thought that the American people want to see us for the next two years re-litigate arguments that we had over the last two years."

Oh, it won't take that long. The Supreme Court will either take the case and rule against ObamaCare, or agree with the lower courts rulings that Obama is in fact unconstitutional. Once that's done, we can start to find a serious answers to the issues with the nations health care system.

Mixed Bag: Peter Baker wrote in a NY Times Magazine piece that President Obama always regards himself as the smartest guy in the room...

Barack must spend a lot of time alone in that room.

She is informed by his own ego, and that makes her dangerously incompetent.

Same could be said of NJNB! lol

Any day the one trick pony comes out of the gate with a 'head full of hate' is a good day to be a liberal!

We must be doing something right! ;o)

Isn't it JUST like the child to not understand the metaphor from the father?

Perhaps your daddy was speaking directly to you, NJ?

Senator Moynihan lived in different times. When the goals of the minority weren't necessarily to rip asunder the majority. He would reframe his position given the reality of the political theater today, MB. As we all have,...

“the one person who could not learn was the person who already believed he knew everything”

NJ, > talking about herself yet again?

Those comments were made back when there was such a thing as a bipartisan Congress--that disappeared in 1995.

No Joe,

You must be having a bad day. For you to say the following is so far from the truth.

"That is Obama. He is not informed by history, or the wisdom of others. He is informed by his own ego, and that makes him dangerously incompetent."

Please, stop listening to the talking points for the far right whom have demonstrated that they don’t understand a whole lot about our President and the world around us.

For one, President Obama is incredibly smart and knows more about history and our world events than anyone one else in the political field, challenging the President.

Read and listen more and you will be enlightened.

Jody, Iowa

Those comments were made back when there was such a thing as a bipartisan Congress--that disappeared in 1995.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

And some historical perspective. Evidently some believe that bi-partisan means "when my party is in the majority" as democrats enjoyed a half-century of overwhelming majorities in both houses.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html

Pat was right. The HCR bill was never popular with the electorate in general and was passed through the efforts of one party. That combination almost ensures years of wrangling and acrimony before the resolution, IMO.

JoAnna: The Supreme Court will either take the case and rule against ObamaCare, or agree with the lower courts rulings that Obama is in fact unconstitutional. Once that's done, we can start to find a serious answers to the issues with the nations health care system

And where were all of these serious answers last year and the year before when debate was on? Please don't dredge up that Republicans were locked out. They were offered a chance to participate and they refused.

At the very least, the President has initiated the debate. That which should have been done in congress is now being done in the street. But it is important and it is necessary. Repeal and reconstruction is wasteful. Of time and money. Let's all work to make this the law it deserves to be.

danagerfield,

the misinformation that abounded in relationship to Health Care is the only reason the public perception of the bill was below par. Now that it has been enacted, recent polls indicate that the MAJORITY do NOT support repeal. So while the media enjoys controlling and manipulating the narrative,...the FACTS are that the more people get to KNOW it and see what it is, the more they accept it as LAW. Can it be improved? heck yes; but was it EVER the boogey man it was made out to be? NO,...and ironically, most of what it IS today - are ideas directly presented by Bob Dole and many other Republicans in the past. Just because the Naysayers moved the goal posts to the extreme RIGHT, doesn't mean the bill wasn't Bi-Partisan.

For one, President Obama is incredibly smart and knows more about history and our world events than anyone one else in the political field, challenging the President.

That's the equivalent of "My president is better than your president". Go back to the playground.

"Just because the Naysayers moved the goal posts to the extreme RIGHT, doesn't mean the bill wasn't Bi-Partisan."

No, Clara...

By definition, the bill wasn't bipartisan because not one member of the minority opposition party, in either House of Congress, voted for final passage of Obamacare.

Because of that, and because pluralities or majorities of the public also opposed passage of the legislation, Republicans risk little political capital by trying to repeal it...I would argue that the opposite is true, since the GOP has positioned itself correctly with regard to a widely unpopular law.

Instead, it is President Obama who is on the defensive, and forced to deal with challenge after challenge to what was supposed to be his signature legislative achievement.

As I said in an earlier post, the manner and methods employed in the passage of the health care reform bill ensured that there would be negative consequences...and President Obama will be forced to deal with them as long as the law remains on the books.

On the bright side...that may only be until the Supreme Court gets the case.

I expect the Obama Justice Department will put off that day of reckoning as long as possible...and that in itself speaks volumes about the constitutionality of Obamacare, eh First Readers?

dottielou

Congressman Boehner, Where are the jobs?

Great Question

I think Congressman Boehner maybe can't find the jobs because...

a. he's been busy scraping the tears off his face from the cold weather

b. he's too stoned from the booze

c. he's too weary to find jobs after receiving that huge gavel from Nancy

d. He just doesn't care

Ohh, Bev,

e. He's too busy addressing lobbyist concerns to deal with the American People, maybe he'll even pass out some more money on the house floor?

f. Fox News hasn't given him his talking points, yet

g. Glen Beck stopped sharing his estrogen

Clara KCMO

Ohh, Bev,

g. Glen Beck stopped sharing his estrogen

Excellent,
I never thought of those.

>Clara KCMO,,
One more thing, Beck wouldn't want anyone to snare his holy "Prophet for Profit" status.

Amy:

Well said. It appears that this country is now in the control of just 5 votes from people who are political fund raisers and activists instead of impartial Judges who are supposed to interpret and enforce the law instead of write it.

Good point, Amy.

Republicans rant against activist judges yet the biggest activist judicial decision, a decision that exceeded the purpose of the case was Citizens United and the GOP Activist judges determined corporations to be people overturning a hundred or more years of law.

Jody, Iowa

Good point, Amy.

Republicans rant against activist judges yet the biggest activist judicial decision, a decision that exceeded the purpose of the case was Citizens United and the GOP Activist judges determined corporations to be people overturning a hundred or more years of law.

They are not judges. They are clones of the Koch Bothers and corporations in black robe strait jackets.

Kudos, this is true. Big Corporations and the millionaires and billionaires control the political process, they do exactly the opposite of what America tells them is important mostly because their sugar daddy's now control them and tell them how to vote on bills.

We are becoming more lost every day and that is not good.

Vote the rascals out.

We did that, Tom. Just a couple of months ago.

Remember?

Trouble is, two months ago, the TPers were cooperating with the party that created the gigantic debt, financial collapse on the promise "they learned their lessson" yet they're back to doing exactly what their big corp funders ask--hardly a good, sound choice.

Navy,

You are including Soros and all the others that contribute to MoveOn.Org with your rant against corporations and big business right?

janet-489369
Navy,

You are including Soros and all the others that contribute to MoveOn.Org with your rant against corporations and big business right?

You are right, with one exception though, you can go to Open Secrets website and find donations. You can also see Soros on TV and internet blogs; but you'll never see the mysterious Koch Brothers on TV; just their minons like Karl Rove, dim-witted Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Henchmen for the Tea Baggers.

Why weren't you asking that for the past TWO YEARS "drive"??????

We have and the GOP virtually blocked or opposed every bill that had anything to so with creating jobs or giving tax breaks and capital to small businesses. President Obama has created jobs for the last 12 months in a row, is spite of the GOP and the new Tax Cut Deal will create more according to most leading economists democrat and republican alike.

DBO. The pundits spun the republican party line, that once business had "certainty" about how much taxes they would be paying, money would be freed up to create jobs. They got the tax cut extension they wanted. So as you ask "where are the jobs" More importantly, why are the pundits no longer asking about jobs.

Actually, when legislation is written behind locked closed doors, or stripped out by Harry Reid, there no way that the GOP can "block" anything.

Obama has created GOVERNMENT jobs, but the private sector hasn't done much of anything if you've been really paying attention. And with unemployment at 9.4% or HIGHER for 21 months in a row, could you tell us all, where are these jobs he "created"?

As for the tax cuts, in about 700 days, that deal ends. How many businesses do you think are going to be hiring right now knowing that in 23 months their taxes are going up?

It's taken Obama 2 long years to destroy the job market. It will take a little time for the Republican majority in the House of Representatives to restore it.

Obama saved the economy from the near total collapse that republicans/conservatives left it in. He also created more jobs in two years then Bush did in eight, he also while doing all this gave more then 80% of Americans a tax break.

And I did not buy the spin that if we gave a tax break to the richest 2% that we would see more jobs, but independents did, and they will make republicans pay in 2012.

Obama didn't "save" the economy. And the collapse was a direct result of Democrats protecting Fannie and Freddie, supporting the housing "bubble", and not giving a damn about the nation itself in their zeal to buy votes.

And by the way, they STILL protect Fannie and Freddie as they lose Billions of taxpayer dollars every month.

The "spin" was to make ALL tax cuts permannent, and to treat ALL Americans equally. Unfortunately, you libs don't want people treated EQUALLY. You want to punish those that actually WORKED for what they have so that you can continue to ENABLE poverty, and keep the poverty stricken people of this country in virtual slavery, like Democrats have done for DECADES now.

JS1;

When President Obama took office we were loosing 650,000 jobs per month. This was slowly reduced come summer and into the fall. By end end of Jan 2010 President Obama was creating private sector jobs and in December of 2010 he had created 1.1 Million jobs and most economists also credit him with saving 2-3 Million jobs that would have been lost.

His record for job creation/saving is far above that of the previous administration that many say had the worst job creation record since they were tracking it.

Stop the lies about President Obama not creating any jobs, because he did, even in spite of the GOP doing everything they could to stop him.

Navy Disabled: His [Obama's] record for job creation/saving is far above that of the previous administration

So now we're back to grading Obama on a curve. Obama hasn't come close to the promises he made for job creation. His grade in fact is an "F[ailure]". The trillions he's spent, the mortgaging of this country's future by his massive increase of the debt, and the failure of job creation to even keep up with population growth will cause this country's economic growth to stagnate for a generation.

Navy Disabled: Stop the lies about President Obama not creating any jobs

9.4% unemployment. $1.5 trillion dollar deficits. Debt ceiling needing to be raised over and over again. More imports, less exports. No lies there.

"It's taken Obama 2 long years to destroy the job market."

One of these days, your keyboard is going to shrivel up and hide from you, out of embarrassment you make it type up such lies.

It's taken Obama 2 long years to destroy the job market. It will take a little time for the Republican majority in the House of Representatives to restore it.

Sorry that pig just won't fly. That nonsense is a total load of crap. Your GOP pals left the economic house on fire and ran for the exits. The President was hand a Sh*t Sandwich to enjoy just like Coolidge and Hoover did to FDR. Your bs knows no bounds. The GOP is not interested in restoring the economy in the next two years it goes against all of their talking points.

As always, the JS1's ignore the years from 2001 through 2008, all that deficit and debt busting spending, financial collapse, the recession began in Dec 2007 and so on....how convenient. I'd suggest you get some new talking points, the old ones have been proven false, factless, ideological, conservative dreams not reality.

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

you need to stop trying to educate the uneducated, if Obama did or did not create job is not in her volcabolary to acknoledge it, the only thing he has is hate and miss information. when she starts that i ignore her, like for you would be better if you did the same, trying to convince her President Obama has done any thing good is impossible.

Same for No Jo, she can talk about deficts and the government spending but her comments are tanted because her Governor refuses to pay back money the government gave jersey them for a Major Infastructure project. he kills Jobs and Keeps money that is not his. so No Jo and Joanna can say what ever they want, we know they are Full of it especially No Jo.

Hey NO Jo did the feds Give your Blow hole Governor the 53 million for snow removal, or did they take that off the 271 million you all owe.

Jeff 154...;
You are correct and I should know better.

As clinton once said 'its the economy stupid'! and then he inherited a growing economy when he won in '92. Private sector jobs are created by business. Businesses create jobs when they can see how the government is going to tax or regulate them. Unfortunately for obama he portrayed and anti-business attitude his first two years and only after his "shellacking" in nov 2010 has he changed his objectives to more of a pro-business and bipartisan attitude.

Kiss this!!!!!

Wow, what a thoughtful and intelligent debating point.

No thanks, my husband is Army and I go that route. You on the other hand are in the service that probably actually supported the repeal of DADT. No more hiding in ward rooms, heads, or galleys for you, right?

Wow, you use the description of a foul sexual act to describe me and you call ME tasteless and nasty????? The usual liberal hate filled foul HYPOCRISY Patrick.

Since it was Navy that started it with a personal attack on ME, I have a right to respond accordingly.

And you feel that YOU have to jump in with your personal attack or that you even have the RIGHT to? Did I say something to you? Did I personally attack you? Nope, but By God, you're going to get your hate filles shots in, aren't you?

People like you are SICKENING, you know that? You aren't even a part of the conversation, and yet you are so hard up to spread hate that you jump right into something that you were NOT a part of in the first place.

Cheryl:

LOL....high five on that one........

Cheryl,

If you and your husband are examples of who is serving the country, we really are in trouble. How dare you address USN in that way. How dare you insult a fellow citizen like that. Doing so is just despicable.

It says more about you and your ugly post.

Now you did it Patrick!

You had to go and kick the hornets nest didn't ya? lol

Now the venomous little drones will be swarming in no time!

Nice Work! Draw em out so we can swat em down...

Get off your high horse, my comment had no sexual connotation, except perhaps in your fertile mind. When I use the term teabagger it is purly in a political sense, as in "tea party member"

And I leave hate to people like you, it is the one area you excel in.

Cheryl, Serving ones country is an honor and making light of any of Branch of the Military is total crap. The Navy are the nice fellows who provide the Army and the Marines a lift when they need to get to those far off places. Being a former Marine I find your comments are beyond tasteless. BTW there are Gays in the Army too.

devie. since you have OBVIOUSLY never REALLY served, you don't even know what you're talking about. "a former marine"......a chapter case perhaps?

EVERY Service makes jokes about every other Service. Even in one branch of the military, people make jokes about other the other branches in the same service.

But since you don't know that, and apparently NONE of the others of you know that, you've decided that you have your target for hatred today.

You know, NOT a single one of you has said a single thing about Navy's attack on me, all you've done, in your usual liberal HYPOCRITE mindset is jump on me.

I could care less how "tasteless" you find my comments. I find your butting in to be the usual liberal mindset of ganging up on someone.

What a bunch of nation hating HYPOCRITES you people are.

Patrick;

They do expose themselves for what they are do they not.

Cheryl;

And yes, I support the repeal of DADT. Any person in this country that wants to put their life on the line for this Nation has my support and respect. In case you did not know, their are gays buried in Arlington, having visited there many times, they are not ID on their headstones.

You are the bigot here and you have been exposed for all on this board to see.

Maybe Obama can go over and kiss someone's butt and beg for something

And, you started it when you attacked my President with your statement above.

devie;

If you truly were a Marine; you know damn well that stigma has been on the Navy forever. That is nothing new. I was taught that all of my life even before I enlisted.

She was just throwing that BS back in his face.

I could regurgitate a lot of Navy jokes but I'll leave that alone.

BTW :The Village People never sung : In the Army....lol

Cheryl. Such a typical conservative. First the nasty attacks on others, then when challenged you take on the victim role.

Cheryl is the perfect example of what makes conservatives tick--fear, prejudice, and personal attacks despite knowing nothing of the military service of those she attacks (knowledge of what she speaks) while waving the flag. Sorry, lady, your comments tell us exactly what kind of person you are--sad, angry, fearful, biased, intolerant and uninformed.

CherylLM

"Wow, what a thoughtful and intelligent debating point."

A lot of that going wround on here, huh, kettle....I mean, pot....

First the nasty attacks on others, then when challenged you take on the victim role.

You noticed that too?

The pitbull needs to reapply her lipstick this morning!

CherylLM

Maybe Obama can go over and kiss someone's butt and beg for something. He's pretty good at international relations when it comes to that.

Were you offended when Bush kissed the Saudi Oil Prince? Oh and don't forget how Boy George walked around holding hands with the Prince like a b!tch.

I posted pictures below just to see how it appeals to your taste.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/911review/293457625/

http://kassandraproject.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/bush_hand_holding.jpg

What about that pathetic sword dance Georgie did begging for lower oil prices....

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2365/2197298249_4c50bfa956.jpg?v=0

At least our current President is not bowing because he is addicted to oil. He proposes alternatives. do it seems like Mr Bush was real the slave

Cheryl,

You lack of understanding the truth makes me sick.

Cheryl, perhaps you forgot whose name appears at the top of this particular thread. And what the text says under that name. Oh, wait, it's YOU!

Patrick wrote:

Cheryl. Your a tastless nasty teabagger.

Why was that collapsed? It's true. And if anything should be collapsed, it should be the tastless nasty post that Cheryl wrote to start this thread.

Houston...the actual "tasteless nasty post" was put out by Navy, who in response to my comment on Obama came back with "kiss this".

I guess to you libs I should have just done it, right? After all, it's what your "leader" does all over the world.

But the difference is; I am an AMERICAN that neither apologizes for being an American, does not bow down to other nations, and I for sure don't "kiss this", and if I'm attacked personally, I'll respond personally.

As usual, your liberal HATRED overlooks the REASON for my comment, and instead just attacks me because I happened to stand up for myself.

Cheryl, ITM and the rest of you Tea Party fanatics,

Well yes, I did serve in the United States Marine Corps back in the 80’s; I was a 1341 and my last unit was in the 2^nd FSSG, 8^th Eng Batt., Support Co. I shot Expert with the M16 (what did your husband shoot toilet seat?) and yes I know all about the inter service rivalries especially between the Navy and the Marine Corps.

Seems you TPs just want to start crap and think you know all the answers. By what I see you have no idea what you are talking about. You guys sound like a bunch of wet behind the ears whiners.

Also, at times they can sound like a bunch of under educated red necks.

So navy, you have finally come out about being on the sexual offenders list...

They do expose themselves for what they are do they not.

Wanting people to "kiss this!!!" How sad.

Bighorn. Keep you day job.

To those of you here, who are taking the opportunity to take cheap shots at the President know little about the situation in Egypt and most would be hard pressed to find it on a map. The Egyptian people are a well educated body of citizens and are quite capable of determining their own fate and they will, with little or no help from the US.

The policies of the US that we have had for decades have to change as the world changes and other than giving vast amounts of monetary aid that is really the only influence, everything else is lipservice.

President Obama is very cognizant of the way the world is changing and how fast and will act accordingly, not all is visible for us to judge, what goes on behind the scenes, is what is important and to criticize their moves or second guess them is unfair and biased. Never saw any of you post anything regarding concerns for Egypt or other Middle East regimes before, if you knew so much, why not?

GBM;

Thank you for your post. Well said.

GBM, excellent rebuttal.

Thank you Jody and USN

Yeah "mamma", just like Carter had the EXACT same "behind the scenes" information. Just like Carter sat buy as the Shah was deposed. Just like Carter calling for "fair" elections.

Yep, Obama is Carter incarnate. The only difference is that with Carter his V.P. and Secretary of State were in agreement with him, instead of throwing out statements that contradict each other every other day like Biden and Clinton have been doing.

Obama can't even get his OWN people in agreement, and you actually think he has a handle on this stuff in Egypt????

Mama is just mad cause the gingerbread done browned a bit too long!

Interesting, dangerfield, thanks. I think some of it was simply that China, like Russia, were ignored as ancient, mysterious lands, and the Western world was not interested beyond trading for goods. No surprise then that someone had to ask "who lost China?". Hard to understand the original Chinese revolution and why it eventually resulted in communism as opposed to some other form of government. The early Russian revolution was similar, get rid of the Czar yet it evolved into a second war between the anti-Czarist revolutionaries and communist revolutionaries. Western countries weren't expecting that either.

David Brooks in today's "corporate media outlet"...

..."More than 100 nations have seen democratic uprisings over the past few decades. More than 85 authoritarian governments have fallen. Somewhere around 62 countries have become democracies, loosely defined."

snip

The other thing we’ve learned is that the United States usually gets everything wrong. There have been dozens of democratic uprisings over the years, but the government always reacts like it’s the first one. There seem to be no protocols for these situations, no preset questions to be asked.

snip

Then, desperately recalibrating in an effort to keep up with events, they inevitably make a series of subtle distinctions no one else heeds. The Obama administration ended up absurdly calling on Mubarak to initiate a reform agenda. Surely there’s not a single person in the government who thinks he is actually capable of doing this. Meanwhile, the marchers heard this fudge as Obama supporting Mubarak and were outraged.

The Obama administration’s reaction was tardy, but no worse than, say, the first Bush administration’s reaction to the uprisings in the Baltics and Ukraine. The point is, there’s no need to be continually wrong-footed. If you start with a healthy respect for the quest for dignity, if you see autocracies as fragile and democratic revolts as opportunities, then you’ll find it much easier to anticipate events.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/opinion/01brooks.html?ref=opinion

Conservatives seem to be in disarray about how they should use Egypt to attack Obama. Some of them, like Brooks, say Obama hasn't done enough to encourage the protest movement (granted, Brooks at least acknowledges that all past presidents have been guilty of similar lapses). Others, like John Bolton, say he hasn't done enough to encourage Mubarak to go ahead and crush the protests, which, after all, must have been orchestrated by Muslim terrorists since all the protesters are Muslims.

If Obama is getting attacked for two contradictory things at the same time, maybe it's because he's doing the best that possibly can be done, given the many decades of the unhappy history of US meddling in the affairs of the Middle East.

Egan...so you're saying that Vinson's decision that the Congress of the United States cannot tell people to buy a product is unConstitutional is WRONG?

And what if Congress decides that you have to buy electric cars, or ONLY cars with 4 cylinder engines? What if Congress decides that in the name of "health care" that you have to buy a hat, or that you can only buy long sleeve shirts? What if Congress tells you that your home size will be based on the size of your family?

Oh wait, that's "different", right? This is about "social justice" and the fact that millions of Americans can't "afford" to buy health insurance, right? (But they sure don't seem to have any problems getting that new sporty car, or a HDTV, or new furniture, or being able to pay for car insurance, or even buying a home, it's just health insurance they can't "afford")

Once you open the door to the Federal government MANDATING what you WILL do, you open the door for them to MANDATE anything they want to.

This judge's decision has ALL THE MERIT in the world. He has said that Congress cannot force people to buy something if they don't want to, and cannot fine them if they don't (although the government's argument is that the fine is not really a fine, it's a "tax"). Only a liberal would think that Congress forcing people to pay for a PRIVATE service or product, and fining them if they don't is a "legal" precedent.