Obama's Amnesty Move!!

ononewheel wrote: Yeah, and just as unbelievable, you don't want it even though you have not read it.    Yeah, tell me about it, and thanks for making the argument complete.

Not quite as unbelievable, as I was not one of the people who voted on it. Quite a difference, I would say.



I have experienced government interfered insurance in MA. Premiums go up and up and up. Service goes down and down and down. At a former employer up there a couple years ago, mgmt had a staff meeting to discuss how they were handling (and what the extra burden would be on us) for ever increasing premiums. An uber-lefty said, he could hardly wait for government health care to come around. I kept my mouth shut, but as is the case with most government programs, "you think it costs a lot now, wait until it's free!!"

Plus, my objections are more philosophical. I dont like big government and I dont like big government in every little aspect of my life. My standard speech/position: Our country, in its 200 year short life, surpassed the rest of the ancient work in every social and economic manner. It did that because of what our very shrewd founders let the people do, not because of what the government did for the people.

I have stayed out of this thread, as I do most of the political ones, (despite the fact that I am a card carrying rigth wing nut) because its no more than the lefties trying unsuccessfully to convince the righties and the righties trying unsuccessfully to convince the lefties. I briefly jumped in because I was disappointed on the decision, but I think I will jump back out as I sensed a bit of personal attack and personal bitterness in your response and I can't be bothered by that, so I think I will go boating. I have no interest in getting into a pissing match with a fellow boat lover.

ononewheel wrote: He needs to sit in with Obama to take some lessons on law.

Seth, Again Obama was completely wrong on the law. He repeatedly denied that the law was a tax, even belittling an interviewer who read him the dictionary definition of a tax. Obama lost on the commerce clause. Incidentally a case based on taxes cannot be heard till the taxes are rendered. The supreme court spent day one on this issue and was convinced by the governments lawyers that the law was not a tax and moved froward only, thanks to Roberts re-framing their argument, to decide the whole issue on the law being a tax. Obama must have still been, to quote Dreams of my Father, "Drinking heavily and trying drugs enthusiastically" while he was studying constitutional law. He is clueless.

What does this mean? We can now be taxed by the fed on something we don't buy. Really? What is next, a tax if we do not purchase a government motors car? "Sorry you owe us 2 grand because you did not buy a new car? This is democrats version of liberty and fairness? Maybe the will put in a tax for those of us not buying Obama's B.S..
And today we have Press secretary James Carney saying, not its not really a tax, its a penalty because you have a choice. Fine then if its a penalty it is unconstitutional. I cant believe the press (not to mention the supreme court) lets them have it both ways. What a crock.

When I talk of the sleeping giant, I speak of those that believed they would be fairly represented by those they elected, not get a bill that they did not want shoved down their throats through reconciliation. The same group believed the Constitution and the supreme court would protect them. They have now seen what happens when you let the collective "take care of you". I suspect they will awake and start taking care of themselves. If anyone has been wondering what reason there is to vote for Romney, how he differs from Obama, suddenly there is a very decisive difference. He pledges to work towards overturn Obama care day 1.

OverMyHead wrote:    If anyone has been wondering what reason there is to vote for Romney, how he differs from Obama, suddenly there is a very decisive difference. He pledges to work towards overturn Obama care day 1.

Yes, there lies the problem.   Do you think he is just pandering to your issue? I mean, he has not a clue what that is going to take.

He's out of his element!
The "Dig Boy" knows all!

OverMyHead wrote: He may just need the issue, After all obama got eleted on hope and change and he shure has not delievered much hope. By the way did you notice two years ago "hope and change" turned to "fear and blame"!

I'm still liking the hope and change, could not be a better time in my life than right now. And I am not even an illegal, on welfare, or need healthcare.

Beside I like the idea of having all insured. Pay the 2.5%, or get insurance, uninsureds are a large part of our current healthcare crisis, for themselves and those that are insured.


You are right about the blame part. Blame, with no real plans put forth by the opposition, is simply hot air to me.

I know the GOP is talking about changing the system, NOW. But frankly, relying on congress to make the system more affordable is laughable, at best.

I mean really, your stumping all day for the guy that did just what Obama did. With the exception that Romneys plan called for a much larger penalty.

I know that really isn't fair to pick on Romney, he has after all taken both sides on every issue including healthcare.

ononewheel wrote: Beside I like the idea of having all insured. Pay the 2.5%, or get insurance, uninsureds are a large part of our current healthcare crisis, for themselves and those that are insured. You are right about the blame part. Blame, with no real plans put forth by the opposition, is simply hot air to me. I know the GOP is talking about changing the system, NOW. But frankly, relying on congress to make the system more affordable is laughable, at best. I mean really, your stumping all day for the guy that did just what Obama did. With the exception that Romneys plan called for a much larger penalty. I know that really isn't fair to pick on Romney, he has after all taken both sides on every issue including healthcare.

Seth, You miss some very key points. First of all health care is a state issue Obama over reached making it a federal one. It is far different to do it on a state level. The US constitution was set up to let each sate be its own little experiment, allowing people to vote with their feet on the success of the experiment. In the case of Romney care the people of Mass. WANTED it. so as their elected representative he provided it for them. The success, not a lot of feet moved in to gain the benefit of the system, but now that is is proving to be a failure as the costs spiral upward, feet are leaving the state, and a good percentage of the current residents see it as a failed experiment and would like to dump the plan. Romney is the only candidate with this first hand learning experience, and the only one that seems to understand the difference between the state and federal government. It is not a flip-flop to show you actually understand that the rules are different at different levels. Why does an evil capitalist get it when a constitutional lawyer does not?

The whole purpose of the TAX (supreme courts definition) on those without health care is to get people who do not likely need it and will not likely use it to pay premiums that will offset the cost of those that do. When a person is 20 years old, In general they are healthy as a horse, and broke, trying to get into your first house, get a decent car, pay off college loans,......., the last thing you need is a federal boat anchor around your neck forcing you to pay for the healthcare of senior citizens. This is just a federal program aimed at "fairness" that turns out to be incredibly unfair. 20 year-old kids without healthcare are not bankrupting our system, but we are putting the solution on their backs.

Obama sighted the costs of healthcare as the reason to make changes, stating we could not afford to see the increases. The CBO keeps raising the costs of Obama care. It has already doubled since the first estimates and will increase costs rather than lower them. Republicans have offered real opportunities to cut costs such as interstate competition and torte reform. Our lawyer-in-chief will never touch torte reform. Our legal system drives the cost of health insurance ever higher. With little return on investment. It is not just the cost of the settlements, but liability insurance and medical care delivered not because it is medically indicated, but just to prevent lawsuits.

I have already seen hope and change driving up my healthcare costs at a double digit rate and the real plan has not even started yet. It is change without hope that is taking away my individual choices and opportunities.

The White-house continues to push that Obama care "is not a tax", talk about taking both sides. With the recent supreme court decision what the White-house is saying is that Obama care is not constitutional. Do they really think we are so stupid as to not make that translation?

john b wrote:    I don't care if they call it a tax, fee, or peanut butter.

You are exactly right. Be it a tax, fee, fine, penalty, whatever you want to call it, it will be administered by a bloated government that can't get out of its own way, or deliver an envelope profitably. I couldn't agree with you more.

Money is still money, whatever you want to call it. And, with the government running this thing, it will cost us all way too much money.

Do we REALLY want the govt running our healthcare system with thier 25,000 page law that nobody has read, and that we have to pass to find out what's in it?

I am reeling from the intellectual depth and unbridled understanding of our Judicial Branch exhibited by your posting of that informative artwork. Most likely, work like this is the foundation of your knowledge and facts on constitutional matters.

Keep your eye on Waukesha, Wisconsin......




Their biggest employer just moved out.

Thanks Jeff, you're a "real" American....give Barrack our Best !!



General Electric is planning to move its 115-year-old X-ray division from Waukesha,

Wis., to Beijing, China. In addition to moving the headquarters, the company will

invest $2 billion in China and train more than 65 engineers and create six research

centers. This is the same GE that made $5.1 billion in the United States last year but

paid no taxes-the same company that employs more people overseas than it does in

the United States. So let's get this straight.



Obama appointed GE Chairman Jeff Immelt to head his commission

on job creation (job czar). Immelt is supposed to help create jobs.

I guess Obama forgot to tell him in which country he was supposed

to be creating those jobs.







Verified on Snopes http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/ge.asp

I found the punch frame to be off topic, not related to the rendered decision, and lack humor. I like political cartoons, but they must have some humor and continuity.

john b wrote: I found the punch frame to be off topic, not related to the rendered decision, and lack humor. I like political cartoons, but they must have some humor and continuity.

I have to disagree, The cartoon was posted within a week of the decision making on topic and related. From a humor perspective it has Irony, the essential ingredient of humor. It compares a tasty treat of a supreme court decision based on the constitution to the crap decision made by justice Roberts. And just to insure humor they used the term "dog poo" which is just inherently funny.

President O'bama called down and asked for a wake up call, his secretary showed him the poll numbers.
Jimmy Fallon.
That is funny too.

Romney = Bain capitol = Stericycle = disposes of medical waste, including aborted fetuses.

Holy crap, that makes him an abortionist profiteer . Oops, hope I did not offend anyone. Unfortunately, those that it should offend, will overlook the information.

ononewheel wrote: Romney = Bain capitol = Stericycle = disposes of medical waste, including aborted fetuses. Holy crap, that makes him an abortionist profiteer . Oops, hope I did not offend anyone. Unfortunately, those that it should offend, will overlook the information. Why would that offend anyone who supports him? Romney has repeatedly said that he supports abortion. I'm just happy that someone is making money off these abortions he supports. I would find it objectionable to just throw the fetuses into the dumpster out back. Now if we could only get Romney and Bain to pay their fair share instead of moving offshore to avoid corporate taxes and paying less than 15% personally.