Are we seeing the death of the Democrat Party as we know it?

[miles]

Certainly not. If the Constitution is violated, then I trust the SCOTUS to sort things out.

While we're at it, might as well ban free speech and let the courts decide that, too.

 

[miles]

The POTUS made an oath to uphold the Constitution and passing the bill this was will be a violation of that oath.

Don't members of congress take an oath?

 

[firespin]

Don't members of congress take an oath?

They had their fingers crossed.

http://www.yattermatters.com/wp/wp-content/images/2010/01/Oath-with-Crossed-Fingers-copyright.jpg

 

[Saint Peter]

While we're at it, might as well ban free speech and let the courts decide that, too.

Or gay marriage. Or the right to carry a gun. Or whatever the fuck.

What is not to love?

 

[BigGator5]

Don't members of congress take an oath?

Just goes to show you that Democrats are really tyrants. And you know what happens to tyrants?

 

[miles]

I honestly don't know how anyone with a functioning brain can support the Democrat party any longer.

 

[firespin]

I honestly don't know how anyone with a functioning brain can support the Democrat party any longer.

Careful with that. Your fan club here will think you plan to change parties.

 

[Ishmael]

Certainly not. If the Constitution is violated, then I trust the SCOTUS to sort things out.

Just another 'it's someone else's problem' sort of guy I see. A believer in it's an "of the government, by the government, for the government'" sort of country. Just as Hegel postulated.

Hope you don't live in or near a big city rosco.

Ishmael

 

[miles]

Careful with that. Your fan club here will think you plan to change parties.

That will happen around the same time you begin to understand the Fair Tax.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Just another 'it's someone else's problem' sort of guy I see. A believer in it's an "of the government, by the government, for the government'" sort of country. Just as Hegel postulated.

Hope you don't live in or near a big city rosco.

Ishmael

I've got my bugout bag packed and several escape routes ready for when they park APCs on the bridges and declare martial law. Swimming the East River at low tide if I have to.

 

[miles]

I've got my bugout bag packed and several escape routes ready for when they park APCs on the bridges and declare martial law. Swimming the East River at low tide if I have to.

I didn't think you had to swim in it...doesn't everyone float?

 

[rosco rathbone]

I didn't think you had to swim in it...doesn't everyone float?

It's not as bad as it used to be.

 

[firespin]

It's not as bad as it used to be.

THey land planes there and everything now.

 

[Powertone]

then I trust the SCOTUS to sort things out.

right...the very SC that Obama dissed in prime time...

 

[zipman]

No one is watching what's going on out in flyover country. The farmers are buying lead, oiling their guns, and not buying seed. It's the last action that everyone best fear.

Ishmael

Funniest post EVER!!!!!

 

[BigGator5]

right...the very SC that Obama dissed in prime time...

Jackson (yet another Democrat) once said of the Supreme Court ruling in Worcester v. Georgia:

"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"

 

[JMohegan]

The Washington Times nailed it while describing Obama's "sick obsession" with passing healthcare reform and the unconstitutional insanity of the Slaughter Rule.

"Long-time Democratic pollsters Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen warned last week that "the battle for public opinion has been lost" on heath care. Democrats have backed themselves into a corner. If the bill fails, they suffer a defeat. But if they win, they also lose because Democrats "will face a far greater calamitous reaction" in November. "Wishing, praying or pretending will not change these outcomes," they caution.

The Democrats' headlong drive is leading to bouts of political insanity, such as the aptly named Slaughter rule, which potentially could allow the House of Representatives to "deem" the health bill passed without a final vote. That the Democratic leadership would consider resorting to such a stunt betrays a high degree of contempt for the electorate, whom they presumably think will not remember or care that their representatives would not go on the record on such a major piece of legislation.

Disaffected voters, however, will recognize cowardice for what it is. Add to this the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, the backroom dealing, special-interest loopholes and fundamental unsoundness of placing government at the center of the health care system, and November will be a slaughter indeed"


http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/13/obamas-sick-obsession/

The Moonies are hyperventilating again, I see. Not that this is surprising.

"As the ability of government to take over the health care system draws tantalizingly near...."

Come on. As if the title of the piece weren't enough to betray a disqualifying, irrational bias, the editorial opens with that nonsense.

Miles, do you, or any of the other folks getting all worked up over the alleged "Slaughter rule," have any credible evidence that the Democrats plan to actually use it?

 

[RightField]

The government is going to set up boards that decide what is covered and what isn't. They're also going to be the arbitors of disputes about coverage with another set of boards. They're going to set rates and define policy. They're going to hire hundreds if not thousands more administrators to perform all sorts of new functions including rate analysis and policy.

It is very clear that this is a government takeover. I suppose you'd still think it was "private" if they did all of the above and also decided to call it "Government Motors and Healthcare Corporation of America?" I guess you mean to say that it won't really be a "government takeover" unless they make everyone where a spiffy new uniforms like at the USPS.

 

[phrodeau]

The government is going to set up boards that decide what is covered and what isn't. They're also going to be the arbitors of disputes about coverage with another set of boards. They're going to set rates and define policy. They're going to hire hundreds if not thousands more administrators to perform all sorts of new functions including rate analysis and policy.

It is very clear that this is a government takeover. I suppose you'd still think it was "private" if they did all of the above and also decided to call it "Government Motors and Healthcare Corporation of America?" I guess you mean to say that it won't really be a "government takeover" unless they make everyone where a spiffy new uniforms like at the USPS.

Lying comes easy to you now.

I suppose you don't really love to give roses either.

 

[JMohegan]

The government is going to set up boards that decide what is covered and what isn't. They're also going to be the arbitors of disputes about coverage with another set of boards. They're going to set rates and define policy. They're going to hire hundreds if not thousands more administrators to perform all sorts of new functions including rate analysis and policy.

Link to your source for these assertions, please.

 

[BigGator5]

Miles, do you, or any of the other folks getting all worked up over the alleged "Slaughter rule," have any credible evidence that the Democrats plan to actually use it?

Are you saying that they are not going to use the "Slaughter Rule" to pass ObamaCare?

What will you say if they do use it?

 

[unregistered]

 

[JMohegan]

Are you saying that they are not going to use the "Slaughter Rule" to pass ObamaCare?

What will you say if they do use it?

Latest information (from what I consider to be a reliable source) indicates that the House will soon vote on the Senate bill, belying the "Slaughter Rule" claim. For more detail on the process, as currently envisioned, see this:

"As soon as Thursday or Friday, the House would pass the health care bill approved by the Senate in December. The House would immediately approve a package of changes in a separate bill, using a procedure known as budget reconciliation, to avoid the threat of a Republican filibuster in the Senate.

Mr. Obama would sign the Senate health care bill, making it the law of the land. The budget reconciliation bill would go to the Senate, where Republicans intend to offer dozens of amendments and points of order in an effort to alter or stop it. Assuming they are able to fend off the Republican blocking efforts, Democrats could pass the reconciliation package with a simple majority vote, amending the health bill in a way that makes it acceptable to Democrats in the House and the Senate and to Mr. Obama. The president would then sign the reconciliation bill, completing the process."


Sources that you consider to be reliable may vary. Regardless, in relatively short order we will see which way they proceed.

 

[BigGator5]

Those were not his exact words.

He might as well have said it, because it exposed a big weakness in the Supreme Court. One that I really don't know has been addressed.

 

[BigGator5]

*dribble*

Ok, but you didn't answer my second question.