"Too Big to Stop" ...this is dangerous stuff

whitehall

Diamond Member
Dec 28, 2010
67,274
29,438
2,300
Western Va.
An A.P. headline today screams "Too big to stop...Obama's overhaul lumbers on" (in spite of a Federal Judge's ruling). What's going on here? Is the Obama administration bigger than the rule of law? Someone named William Hoagland (pronounced hogland) who claims to the V.P. of an insurance company called Cigna states "it's still the law of the land and the ruling will not slow us down". Scuse me but a Federal Judge said it's not the "law of the land" and who does Hogman refer to when he says "we"? Is there some sort of partnership between the federal government and an insurance company that we didn't notice? Yeah lefties, we know the case will go to the Supreme Court but right now it stands as unconstitutional. How could a VP of an insurance company claim "the ruling will not slow us down"? The fact that the A.P. would take sides is an indication of how far the mainstream media has gone off the deep end.
 
This is the way socialism works. Those scums don't believe they answer to anyone.
 
Obamacare is dead... no matter what they may say.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.
 
The scary part is the Associated Press's attitude that a law declared unconstitutional is "too big to stop". They said the same thing in Germany in the late 30's.
 
The scary part is the Associated Press's attitude that a law declared unconstitutional is "too big to stop". They said the same thing in Germany in the late 30's.

Obama's moratorium on drilling was also declared unconstutional... yet people continue to become unemployed because of it.

They don't care about the law. Obama has openly declared his disdain for the U.S. Constitution.
 
Well... it worked so well in Venezuela. Almost worked in Honduras.

and 1930's germany... just sayin.:eusa_whistle:
 
It's not that hard to interpret even for mind numbed lefties. The CIGNA V.P. is unhappy about the ruling. It's not fair, the Administration promised that Americans would be forced to buy insurance (from his company) and he isn't going to let the rule of law or a decision by a federal judge get in the way. Meanwhile the left leaning A.P. gushes that the law is "too big to stop". Is that supposed to make Americans happy?
 
This is skeery stuff. I'm going to buy some extra pillows to hide under
 
It's not that hard to interpret even for mind numbed lefties. The CIGNA V.P. is unhappy about the ruling. It's not fair, the Administration promised that Americans would be forced to buy insurance (from his company) and he isn't going to let the rule of law or a decision by a federal judge get in the way. Meanwhile the left leaning A.P. gushes that the law is "too big to stop". Is that supposed to make Americans happy?

What makes you think they give a damn about Americans? There's an agenda to advance!
 
Fortunately, this is going to end up at the US Supreme Court. This is where it will show if the bill has any meat to it. Until then I wouldn't worry about it.
The bulk of it comes up in 2014 and there is an election in 2012, so......
 
Fortunately, this is going to end up at the US Supreme Court. This is where it will show if the bill has any meat to it. Until then I wouldn't worry about it.
The bulk of it comes up in 2014 and there is an election in 2012, so......



Worry about this hornet, regardless of the future decision of the Supreme Court which has yet to be determined the AP is telling Americans now that the administration is bigger than the rule of law. Obama has been telling us how evil corporations are and now we see the VP of an insurance company refering to CIGNA and the administration as "we". The A.P. is a big influential news organization. When they come out on the side of the administration rather than the Constitution we are in trouble and we need to understand it.
 
*sigh*

At the risk of making sense, I'm going to point out that the portion of the law found unconsitutional by 2 of the 4 trial courts to have heard arguments on it doesn't go into effect for about 3 years. The entire appeals process including both levels of the Circuits and the Supreme Court level will be complete long before then. Which is why nobody bothered with an injunction to stop a law that isn't anywhere close to starting yet. :eusa_shhh:

Now back to your regularly programmed...whatever this is.
 
Fortunately, this is going to end up at the US Supreme Court. This is where it will show if the bill has any meat to it. Until then I wouldn't worry about it.
The bulk of it comes up in 2014 and there is an election in 2012, so......



Worry about this hornet, regardless of the future decision of the Supreme Court which has yet to be determined the AP is telling Americans now that the administration is bigger than the rule of law. Obama has been telling us how evil corporations are and now we see the VP of an insurance company refering to CIGNA and the administration as "we". The A.P. is a big influential news organization. When they come out on the side of the administration rather than the Constitution we are in trouble and we need to understand it.

I'm not going to worry about it....I have faith in our judicial system, and the fact that the Congress can vote not to fund it.
 
Last edited:
*sigh*

At the risk of making sense, I'm going to point out that the portion of the law found unconsitutional by 2 of the 4 trial courts to have heard arguments on it doesn't go into effect for about 3 years. The entire appeals process including both levels of the Circuits and the Supreme Court level will be complete long before then. Which is why nobody bothered with an injunction to stop a law that isn't anywhere close to starting yet. :eusa_shhh:

Now back to your regularly programmed...whatever this is.

I guess I don't have to hide under my bed from Nazi's afterall. *shrug*
 

Forum List

Back
Top