pattygreen

A democrat for sure. A Violent death threat!

In an interesting twist of history, Barack Obama signed the largest expansion of the federal government since the New Deal on March 23, 2010, exactly 235 years to the day after Patrick Henry's famous speech to the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1775. In part, Henry's historic message emphasized that, "If we wish to be free...we must fight!" Many join Patrick Henry in that sentiment, and pledge to fight ObamaCare and its attacks on our freedom with all of our might! ObamaCare was unconstitutional from the beginning. Mandating that health insurance be purchased by every person or their employer is a classic example of arbitrary power the Constitution was designed to guard against. Congress lacks the authority to force the American people into making insurance purchases. Period. And what American actually wants to face the IRS, including their 16,500 new agents, who will act as the bill's enforcement agency?nst it !t! ObamaCare was unconstitutional from the beginning. Mandating that health insurance be purchased by every person or their employer is a classic example of arbitrary power the Constitution was designed to guard against. Congress lacks the authority to force the American people into making insurance purchases. Period. And what American actually wants to face the IRS, including their 16,500 new agents, who will act as the bill's enforcement agency? The fallout from ObamaCare is already being felt. According to the Wall Street Journal, the detrimental affects of "reform" are already being felt in the private sector. Caterpillar, for instance, said the new healthcare mandates would cost the company at least $100 million or more in the first year alone. Medtronic, a medical device maker, warned that new taxes on its products could force it to lay off a thousand workers. Verizon has joined those businesses sounding the alarm about serious adverse consequences. Americans DO NOT want ObamaCare! A recent Rasmussen poll reported that 52 percent of Americans trust the insurance industry to run health care more than the federal government. This is a particularly telling statistic considering how Americans feel about insurance companies! Other national polls taken after ObamaCare "passed" reveal that a clear majority of Americans favor its repeal. Every pro-ObamaCare legislator will be on their home turf over the spring break with the "talking points" of why the President's bill is "good for America." Yet never before has the will of the people been so manipulated, ignored and marginalized as in the long battle over this bill! Such legislators are in for a rude awakening. Americans nationwide are expressing OUTRAGE at the overt manipulation and total lack of integrity in the Obama/Reid/Pelosi axis of power. They proved to all Americans that they were willing to do ANYTHING to get this control of our medical system under the banner of "change." Don't be deceived. This socialistic power grab was always about our government's takeover of two more industries - health care and student loans. This was NEVER about improved healthcare or access to education loans. (Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman Liberty Counsel)

I am against it. It is UNconstitutional! In an interesting twist of history, Barack Obama signed the largest expansion of the federal government since the New Deal on March 23, 2010, exactly 235 years to the day after Patrick Henry's famous speech to the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1775. In part, Henry's historic message emphasized that, "If we wish to be free...we must fight!" Many join Patrick Henry in that sentiment, and pledge to fight ObamaCare and its attacks on our freedom with all of our might! ObamaCare was unconstitutional from the beginning. Mandating that health insurance be purchased by every person or their employer is a classic example of arbitrary power the Constitution was designed to guard against. Congress lacks the authority to force the American people into making insurance purchases. Period. And what American actually wants to face the IRS, including their 16,500 new agents, who will act as the bill's enforcement agency?nst it !t! ObamaCare was unconstitutional from the beginning. Mandating that health insurance be purchased by every person or their employer is a classic example of arbitrary power the Constitution was designed to guard against. Congress lacks the authority to force the American people into making insurance purchases. Period. And what American actually wants to face the IRS, including their 16,500 new agents, who will act as the bill's enforcement agency? The fallout from ObamaCare is already being felt. According to the Wall Street Journal, the detrimental affects of "reform" are already being felt in the private sector. Caterpillar, for instance, said the new healthcare mandates would cost the company at least $100 million or more in the first year alone. Medtronic, a medical device maker, warned that new taxes on its products could force it to lay off a thousand workers. Verizon has joined those businesses sounding the alarm about serious adverse consequences. Americans DO NOT want ObamaCare! A recent Rasmussen poll reported that 52 percent of Americans trust the insurance industry to run health care more than the federal government. This is a particularly telling statistic considering how Americans feel about insurance companies! Other national polls taken after ObamaCare "passed" reveal that a clear majority of Americans favor its repeal. Every pro-ObamaCare legislator will be on their home turf over the spring break with the "talking points" of why the President's bill is "good for America." Yet never before has the will of the people been so manipulated, ignored and marginalized as in the long battle over this bill! Such legislators are in for a rude awakening. Americans nationwide are expressing OUTRAGE at the overt manipulation and total lack of integrity in the Obama/Reid/Pelosi axis of power. They proved to all Americans that they were willing to do ANYTHING to get this control of our medical system under the banner of "change." Don't be deceived. This socialistic power grab was always about our government's takeover of two more industries - health care and student loans. This was NEVER about improved healthcare or access to education loans. (Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman Liberty Counsel)

This 'violence' you speak of is in your head as well as every other liberal out there who would just 'love' to see it be true. Since it isn't true, they feel the need to make it up.

It is better to put out the expense now and pay to get rid of this HC crap that passed than to pay for the humongus expense of it from this day forward and forvever. If you think $950 million is alot to spend, just wait!

Oh yeah:rolleyes: He meant to 'shoot' them:lol:! You've got to be kidding me!:thumbup::lol:You know what? I cna't stomach the 2 of you anymore. It's almost as if you're hoping that your way of thinking is true.

Maybe so, but you do the same tyhing when speaking of ONE person's action. You lump the WHOLE group with that ONE.

A Brief Compilation of DemocRAT Hypocrisy by BOBTHENAILER "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998. "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998. "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998. "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998. "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999. "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001. "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002. "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002. "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002. "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002. "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002. "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002. "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003. SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Right!!!

{quote] I fear all this is coming to a head You have alot of fears, don't you?

{quote] Do you see how f*****g sick these people are now? Didn't you mean to type "Do you see how sick that guy is"?

Obama made certain that all of the "wonderful" things that this bill entails will be acted upon within the first 6 months of its signing. (how convenient, right before the November elections) These" wonderful" things are the same things that the majority of the nation wanted. Even so, they did not want this bill to pass for all the other things that are in it, and it's COST to us and especially the GIANT stepping stone that it brings to our government for their full control of our HC decisions in the future. We will NOT forget to vote the democrats out of office in November. They might as well start packing right now. I know that most of them are aware of thier fate.:thumbup:

A terrorist attack is an act of war. Pearl Harbor killed 2400 people under Roosevelt's term.

I only bring up what they have to say on this issue because YOU trust what they say.

We were talking about racists. So,..... 2 people that you can come up with where the they demonstrated racism. and how many tea partiers are there? Like I said there are always a couple of nuts in every group. ............................................................................ I can go ahead and pull up all of the democratic protestors from Bush's day if you like. They would sicken you. All you can see from that parkinson guy sitting on the ground is what the video shows. You have NO real Idea what was being said by the parkinson guy . Maybe he was shouting horrible things at them which led them to show him no compassion. You have no clue what went on before the money throwing at all. And calling someone a communist when you are angry is not a serious thing. People are upset with this change that Obama is bringing our country. Let's get real here. People (the majority of people) didn't want this 'change'. you know it and I know it. It was pushed through with every kind of trickery and bribe and deceitfulness on this administration's part.

Was it really the WHOLE group? Or was it some guy? One person. But go ahead and call that one guy like you see em.:smile:

you're the one who keeps bringing up the race card, dear.

SS does not adequately support the retired people. And both programs can not be afforded. They are both bankrupt. What good is a program that has no funds to continue? It's just another financial drain on society and another step closer to national ruin.

There was obviously something in the bill that abortion proponents didn't want in there (mainly federal funding of abortions) otherwise Obama would not have had to offer an executive order to them to satisfy them that payment of abortions would not occur under this plan. Because he would not allow the American People to read or see the bill until after it was voted on ( a promise broken that he gave in his campaign to be transparent, BTW) noone could know for sure.

The way you talk, I would think that you HATE white people. This would make you a 'racist'. I am not officially in the tea party, but I stand in agreement with them on things. It has nothing to do with Obama's skin color, though. He is a black AND white man. This country voted him as president, didn't they? That's the last said from me on this subject. If you feel that the people oppose his presidency because of his skin color, then that's your problem to deal with. Others know the truth for their opposition.

.........................................

An executive order does not have the force of law that legislation would provide. That is not the rule of law. That's the rule of man. One man can sign an executive order and one man can repeal that again, the president of the United States.

Obama's pending order does nothing to prohibit spending on abortion services as provided in the Senate bill. The executive order promised by President Obama was issued for political effect. It changes nothing. It does not correct any of the serious pro-abortion provisions in the bill. The president cannot amend a bill by issuing an order, and the federal courts will enforce what the law says.

AN EDITORIAL: Health care for (almost) all, but at what cost? Tuesday, March 23, 2010 You don’t spend $940 billion without someone paying the bill. The cost of the national health insurance overhaul will be staggering. And in the end, American taxpayers will pay. It’s just a question of how much. President Obama’s landmark health insurance legislation will extend coverage to 32 million Americans who are uninsured, extend coverage to many and will establish health care exchanges for those who don’t have access to company-sponsored health insurance. Can’t afford health insurance? No worries, the government will pay for it if your income is low enough. Prefer to opt out of health care and pay your medical coverage out of pocket? Sorry, you’ll have to pay the government anyway, in the form of potentially hefty fines. The new plan will require health insurance companies to cover everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions. The companies would be prohibited from cancelling coverage and from capping coverage for those who require expensive care. Those are noble ideas and a humane approach to the health of our nation. But it is folly to think that health insurance companies will not react and adjust their business models. They will look for ways to recoup their new costs. The President has always said that if you like the health care plan offered by your company, you can keep it. But that assumes employer-offered health insurance coverage will be the same in the future as it is today. Not only are businesses required to offer health care insurance, but the amount of health care insurance as well. In order to save costs, businesses are likely to offer the government-mandated minimum, making it less likely that people will still like the plan they have. The $940 billion price tag for the new insurance plan already is our money, of course, the result of the taxes we all pay. Just how much more it will cost is anyone’s guess. After all of the euphoria on the Democratic side and the weeping and gnashing of teeth on the Republican side, the real business of implementing universal health care will come in the ensuing months and years. How much will it cost? The truth is, nobody knows. And the government has been notoriously inefficient in running things or predicting the unintended consequences of its actions. Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have boasted that there are savings built into the new plan that will offset some of the billions in costs. But how many times have you known the federal government to save a buck? Those who supported the massive health care legislation insist that it is not government-run health care. Technically correct but it definitely is government-controlled health care. Almost every aspect of providing health insurance will be tightly regulated by the myriad of boards and commissions that will be appointed in the coming months. Medical care providers, pharmaceutical companies, health insurance carriers and other health-related companies will have to adjust to the new normal. All will seek to minimize the impact of the health care bill on their bottom lines. They will change the way they do business and either cut services or pass on any costs they can. Is the health care plan good for St. Louis? Again, nobody really knows. More people will be covered, certainly. But will the new rules benefit the many hospitals that call St. Louis home? What about pharmaceutical companies here? It may turn out that the new rules will be a boon to St. Louis. Or not. Not even they know whether the they insurance plan is good or bad for business. Medical and health-oriented companies employ thousands of people in St. Louis. They are a significant part of the St. Louis economy, and will play an ever-increasing role in the area’s effort to establish a major bio-tech presence here. It’s clear that every St. Louis company will be affected as they review the coverage they provide for employees. They will be subject to any number of new proposals from health insurance companies which likely will result in higher premiums for business and their employees. Local small businesses also will be affected as they are mandated to provide a certain level of coverage, whether they can afford it or not. It could be the difference between expanding their business, buying new equipment or hiring a new employee. The new health insurance plan could have a negative effect on job growth. All in all, the health insurance program approved yesterday is but the first chapter in a book that has yet to be fully written. Those expecting a happy ending are putting too much faith in government doing the right thing and spending our money wisely. The best we can do is hope the government isn’t writing a disaster epic.