E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSCrossroads is following President Obama with ads in New Mexico, Las Vegas, and Ohio.
“President Obama will not mark the two-year anniversary of his signing of the healthcare law — which takes place days before the Supreme Court offers a decision on the constitutionality of his signature legislative achievement,” The Hill writes. “Senior administration officials said on Tuesday that Obama will not be offering a vigorous public defense of the law, holding events or even making public remarks in the lead-up to the Supreme Court case.”
Leave a Comment:
If that doesn't speak VOLUMES about ObummerCare, nothing will.
If this is going to the Supreme Court then why telegraph your punches by offering a vigorous defense today?
Great effort at rationalization, but the fact remains that this administration and the looney libs weren't even bragging about this law BEFORE the SCOTUS decided to hear the case.
It's a horrible and unconstitutional law and the vast number of Americans agree with that.
Micheal missed the point. The President will not mark the event or defend the act but plenty of his spokespeople will. I listened to a few driving to and from work.
And the majority disagree with the personal mandate but other than that they approve of the fact that insurance companies cannot deny coverage for preexisting conditions, dependents staying on their parents policy and most other aspects of the act . And that's a fact.
Michael:
I love it when disagreement with the law automatically makes it "unconstitutional."
I presume you have a great deal of experience in Constitutional law? You are an attorney, of course? And you have litigated before SCOTUS? Because unless you can answer "yes" to these questions, your statement is not factual. It is pure, unsupported opinion.
Even the experts disagree on whether the law will be found constitutional. So your conclusory, unsupported statement that it's "unconstitutional" is bogus. Only SCOTUS can determine whether it's constitutional.
Let me know when they ask your advice on how to rule.
Double post error.
Please explain why it's headed to the Supreme Court. Apparently, some folks agree with my train of thought.
BTW, it's not automatic.....it's just this one.
Based on that brilliant logic, two things come to mind;
1 - Does that mean if you have not served in the military you cannot have an opinion on the Middle East or any other world affairs?
What about folks that do not pay taxes? Can they have an opinion on fiscal matters?
2 - The post quoted is an OPINION in and of itself!! That's the whole point of MSN allowing us nobodys to post bull@!$%# thoughts! DUH! LOL
3 - 70% of the American public were against this garbage bill when it passed. THAT was a fact. I'm sorry you weren't one of them.
The mere fact that people like yourself seem to enjoy taking from your neighbor to redistribute to others does not necessarily make it right.
They can't defend the bill because they still don't know what's in it.
Yet, the Republicans came up with a candidate who created RomneyCare. Not only that, Romney suggested that ObamaCare should be based on the RomneyCare including using the individual mandate as an incentive for people to buy insurance.
If that doesn't speak VOLUMES about Romney, nothing will.
MIchael:
I don't think I said anything of the sort. I don't enjoy taking from my neighbors to redistribute to others.
You made that up.
Oh you don't enjoy it. You just take it anyway???? Clarity in writing matters -- right???? LOL!
michael
I agree whole heartedly.
1 - Does that mean if you have not served in the military you cannot have an opinion on the Middle East or any other world affairs?
What about folks that do not pay taxes? Can they have an opinion on fiscal matters?
I would like to say yes to these two items. for these reasons.
If you have never served then you should be quiet about it. There are things done in the Military Civialans do not understand and should leave alone.
If you do not pay taxes then you have no reason to vote. You have no money in the pot so you can't play.
I would also like to add a person should not even be considered to be the Commander in Chief when they know nothing about the Military.
Semper Fi
Bilwheeler,
Good challenge to Michael. Mikey probably doesn't realize that Obama taught constitutional law and won acclaim at Harvard, arguably one of the top law schools in the world. Blind obedience to the masters (Koch) will do that to a person. I am sure he is on top of things with his team. Who better than one who has taught constitutional law to know what is and what is not constitutional? Would he have signed something that is unconstitutional knowing that it could and would be challenged? I really don't think he is stupid.
Let's also not forget that this law is almost a carbon copy (including the individual mandate) of what the Heritage Foundation came up with many years ago (don't remember the dates and don't have my resource links at this computer, so don't ask, do a search on your own, late 80's? early 90's?), and was then backed by the Republican party (vs. the Republican/TP Inc. party that the GOP has since become).
In short, Republicans were for it, before they were against it.
Oh, the irony.
Matthew,
Slap Obama's name on anything and I will guarantee you that the Repubs will be against it- regardless if it is good, bad or indifferent.
Michael:
You didn't state it as an opinion. You stated it as a fact. "It's a horrible and unconstitutional law."
If you can't be bothered to distinguish your opinion from a factual statement with "in my view," or "I think," then you should expect to be challenged.
Clarity counts in writing.
But bilweeler, these folks listen to Fox (aka tea people Koch republican propaganda machine) and if Fox (aka tea people Koch republican propaganda machine) says it it must be true. Remember Fox (aka tea people Koch republican propaganda machine) is their place to get their big lie of the day.
You didn't get the point of my post Head Priest of temple of Syrinx. My point was that you tea people Koch republicans take Fox (aka tea people Koch republican propaganda machine) lies as fact.
Whichever your mommy lays out for you.
I love it.
Mo is an embarassment to the good people of Missouri.
Even we have creaps and idiots. They mostly moved in from Chicago and Kansas though.
The Obamacare law is going up before the SCOTUS to be determined if a small part of it is unconstitutional. Doesn't matter what the people think. This is a test to see if the law fits in the framework of our constitution or not......PERIOD.
Since the authors of Obamacare left out the commonplace boilerplate paragraph that keeps the rest of the law intact if one part is found unconstitutional, if, in fact, one part pf the law is found unconstitutional, the entire law is to be thrown out.
Hold all the pep rallies you want Barrack. The U.S. Constitution is what it is.
This is the same SCOTUS majority that brought us Citizens United.
That will go down as one the most scandalous decisions the Court has ever made.
An inept decision that we have not seen the finale dividends from yet.
I'm not sure I trust them to make any sound judgement after that demonstration.
daah he is a law professor....your just full of interesting knowledge lmao!
I myself love the health care reform law. However, I wish it was stronger. Also, anyone who doesn't want health care reform is a darn fool.
Ahh yes, the good old "If you don't agree with me, you're an idiot" argument. It's called "Argumentum ad Hominem" because it's been around since the Roman Empire.
Health-care reform has worked for me and my family. I can now afford to get my annual health-care screening. My mother-in-law can get better health insurance coverage (she has Alzheimer's). My families health-care coverage is affordable. What's more important is that I don't have to fight big insurance anymore to get needed test or meds. My doctors and I have better control over my health, not big insurance.
Most of you will not know how important this is until you get sick. HMO's do not rule anymore. I'm a living witness.
Everything you post is stupid, and proves you do not know what you are talking about. I'll bet my no co-pay colonoscopy I had last year that what granny54 wrote is true, and what you say is not.
I hate super pacs with their unnamed people. Don't like something or someone - do it so all can see who you are!
Hey phine - is this a preview of governing from the shadows?
and Obama has listed all of his major donors and bundlers. I haven't seen any such list of any Republican bundlers yet. (let me know if one does exist,I'm curious)
Katheryn,
I was under the impression that Romney does not plan to disclose anything he is not required to by law. I could be wrong, but that's what I think I heard.
So Head Priest - you got that list of Republican bundlers?
Head,
Obama cannot accept the Super PAC money - Super PACs are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties since they are independent.
Now if you are still claiming that Obama "accepted" Super PAC money, I suggest to march to the nearest police department to report this crime.
oh Priest - everyone knows Obama said yes to using a SuperPAC 'cause he has publicly said so!
Now, we've taken care of that. Where is the list of Republican bundlers?
Not only did Obama say okay to a SuperPAC , but he has listed his major donors and bundlers.
It's not enough to just say you have bundlers - we all know that, but it does matter who is bundling that money.
Where is the list?
The High Priest makes it up as he goes along. The same as the Republican party. President Obama fund raising efforts are far ahead of Mitt Romney. President Obama has admittedly said that he does not agree with Super Pac's, but Mitt Romney's superpacs will be attacking the President in the Fall, therefore the democrats must fight fire with fire. Oh ye High Priest get your facts straight. Stop making it up as you go along.
You and the Republicans really think most people cannot read or research information. This definitely work in favor of the democratic party. Amen.
I'm not sure if you are underinformed or spreading misinformation on purpose....
they are. period.
his fundraisers are in slow motion; right now they are enjoining the spending waste of the Republican Party used to slaughter each other.
Face it: SuperPacs are legal thanks to the SC. Now we had this discussion already: he is not allowed to direct any SuperPACs on collecting or spending the money, is he?
You are criticizing Obama for not doing something he is not allowed to do by law. Super PACS are independent of the candidate and whether they exist or not, Obama cannot do anything about it, can he?.
Head, you need to decide what it is that you are trying to accomplish: spread misinformation or have a discussion based on facts.
Bayllie, since the
Priest of Head, I mean Head Priest of temple of Syrinx never uses factual arguments/debating points, there can be only one conclusion drawn . . .Mathew,
I don't think Head is as ignorant as he appears to be so I can only assume it's deliberate. He is using something that Obama has no control over (Super PACs) to criticize him for not "condeming the practice." This is Head's way of trying to eat the cake while he's stuffing his face with it.
What a tool...
What a bunch of political mumbo-jumbo! NoBAMA 2012 does not want to make a commitment because he knows if the Supreme Court decides against the law, he will look like the idiot he is! NoBAMA 2012 only speaks to the audience he is addressing and says what they want to hear! Most people, including congressmen have not even read the law. None read the bill before it became law!
NoBAMA 2012 did get his dhimmitude in the law to protect his buddies. Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-Muslim
populations conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-Muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to Islam.
ObamaCare allows the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia Muslim diktat inthe United States . Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase
insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be "gambling", "risk-taking",
and "usury" and is thus banned. Muslims are specifically
granted exemption based on this.
How convenient. So I, as a Christian, will have crippling IRS liens placed against all of my assets, including real estate, cattle, and even accounts receivables, and will face hard prison time because I refuse to buy insurance or pay the penalty tax. Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan will have no such penalty and will have 100% of his health needs paid for by the de facto government insurance. Non-Muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize Muslims. This is Dhimmitude. This is NoBAMA 2012!
Read the law and see this is on page 107 of the law if you don't believe it!
Mr Bigger your lying out your teeth. There is a statement in the bill that says " the IRS will not be allowed to place liens against anyone for not paying the penalties for not having health insurance. There is absolutely no enforcement mechanism in the bill, criminal or financial. So you wont have liens placed against you or you wont have to face hard prison time. Get all the facts Mr. Bigger before you start worrying your pretty little head.
I haven't got time to do your research for you Priest. But you won't find it on Fox (aka tea people Koch republicans propaganda machine).
Fox news rules Mo. Watch and become informed for once. It's free
Rephrase rukidding. Fox (aka tea people Koch republican propaganda machine) lies. That's the problem rukidding, Fox (aka tea people Koch republican propaganda machine) lies to you and you just think you're informed. Studies show Fox (aka tea people Koch republican propaganda machine) watchers are the most uninformed than any other network. You've been duped again by Fox (aka tea people Koch republican propaganda machine) rukidding. But by all means keep buying their tea people Koch republican propaganda.
Quite frankly no law is perfect. Nothing made by human beings is perfect. That said I have some things about the affordable healthcare act that I would rather not be in it. One thing I oppose is the mandate. That should be replaced with a statement saying that we suggest everyone have healthcare insurance or be willing to give up everything they own, earn or will receive in assets to pay for health care for themselves and those who are dependant upon them. Offer two choices of health insurance either a form of private insurance as now or public insurance like an expanded version of Medicare. Keep competitive and have citizen watchdog committees to monitor the successes and failures of the law.
Eventually we will have true healthcare reform in this country where we will finally come out of the dark ages and into the 21st Century with the rest of the developed world. Until then this, imperfect as it is, law is a step in the right direction.
I love the numbnut repugnants on here. They seem to think if something reaches the supreme court then it must be unconstitutional! Please it's up to the supreme court to make that call! Therefore it is not unconstitutional until they say it is! None of these numbnuts even think outside of the box or even think at all for that matter! The president was a law professor constitutional law....I doubt highly he would have made the health care law unconstitutional! Is is unconstitutional that I have to have car insurance according to the law hmmm I can hear the marbles rolling in their heads now. You people are so blinded by the bs your fed and the bs you spew that you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you! LMAO! I can't wait for the ruling maybe the repugnants payed off the justice again and will get the call they want just like they did with making corporations people too. That is the only hope I see for the repugnants; other than that your done!