- Moderator
- #41
Funny how the biggest liars accuse everyone else of lying. Party before country, as always, Jim
It won't, so they've got nothing to worry about.
If the ACA succeeds, the GOP may be history
- Thread starter JimH52
- Start date
Funny how the biggest liars accuse everyone else of lying. Party before country, as always, Jim
It won't, so they've got nothing to worry about.
BobPlumb
VIP Member
- Jul 16, 2013
- 2,127
- 601
- 88
So, what does it mean now that the democrats have stoped calling it Obamacare?
HenryBHough
Diamond Member
It means they want you to forget who birthed it so they can start blaming it on Bush.
But answer this, Obamacrats:
If a program designed to fail fails then is that a failure or a success?
Somehow we're gonna find that out and the day is growing closer, daunted only by illegal Executive Orders demanding laws passed by Congress NOT be enforced.
Last edited:
Americans are going to get what's good for them (according to Luddly and his insurance pals) whether they want it or not!
Mojo2
Gold Member
- Oct 28, 2013
- 6,210
- 1,026
- 190
You are a waste of space and time.
Mojo2
Gold Member
- Oct 28, 2013
- 6,210
- 1,026
- 190
What we have to worry about is the unexamined (by ACA supporters) downside to its full acceptance in America.
We will all rue the day we bought Obama's promises at the cost of our freedom.
And we will have a long time to regret our failure to safeguard such a precious gift as was given to us by those men and women who have given life and limb for our freedom.
And we give it all up for what?
Mojo2
Gold Member
- Oct 28, 2013
- 6,210
- 1,026
- 190
Look Grandma, don't wade into this unless you want what's cookin.
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Anyone who dismisses rightwing opposition or outrage as something
to be laughed at is either sick for revenge or woefully uninformed
on the Constitutional objections and conflicts with this bill.
I can't imagine you are that sick to laugh at someone's pain,
and don't mean to be cruel. if you don't get that the objections are real
please know that they are. All my friends who are conservative are
truly concerned this is destroying constitutional integrity
of govt, and it is stressing me out twice as much because
I have as many friends on the left, and this is tearing me apart. not funny at all.
I'm a liberal prochoice progressive Democrat.
And I oppose the ACA mandates on Constitutional grounds.
I worry every day I cannot keep paying for the community projects I committed to before Democrats added this, and deal with the implications introduced by ACA added on top.
It is constantly stressing me out; my govt reform proposals call for unity with members of different parties, but conflicts with this ACA bill have weakened if not killed the ability to collaborate. so it puts more stress on me to pay the costs while these issues drag out.
It is very sad ppl see this as a political game you can afford to laugh at
as entertainment to see ppl suffer.
my ability to save a national historic site depended on organizing
resources that nobody can focus on because of problems added by this bill.
i committed to working two jobs and put over 60,000 on credit
to cover costs until the project could raise funds to pay back the debts.
all to save a national landmark.
but i can't do that and work under the federal terms of this ACA
that violate my conscience and constitutional beliefs on govt.
to me it is involuntary servitude to work this hard
only to watch govt abused further in ways i don't agree to pay for.
i am stressed out until this gets resolved
and dont think its funny at all. i think it is tragic
to watch ppl disrespecting and dismissing
each others views as if they dont matter.
what kind of country have we become
to laugh at other ppl suffering as if it isnt real
to be laughed at is either sick for revenge or woefully uninformed
on the Constitutional objections and conflicts with this bill.
I can't imagine you are that sick to laugh at someone's pain,
and don't mean to be cruel. if you don't get that the objections are real
please know that they are. All my friends who are conservative are
truly concerned this is destroying constitutional integrity
of govt, and it is stressing me out twice as much because
I have as many friends on the left, and this is tearing me apart. not funny at all.
I'm a liberal prochoice progressive Democrat.
And I oppose the ACA mandates on Constitutional grounds.
I worry every day I cannot keep paying for the community projects I committed to before Democrats added this, and deal with the implications introduced by ACA added on top.
It is constantly stressing me out; my govt reform proposals call for unity with members of different parties, but conflicts with this ACA bill have weakened if not killed the ability to collaborate. so it puts more stress on me to pay the costs while these issues drag out.
It is very sad ppl see this as a political game you can afford to laugh at
as entertainment to see ppl suffer.
my ability to save a national historic site depended on organizing
resources that nobody can focus on because of problems added by this bill.
i committed to working two jobs and put over 60,000 on credit
to cover costs until the project could raise funds to pay back the debts.
all to save a national landmark.
but i can't do that and work under the federal terms of this ACA
that violate my conscience and constitutional beliefs on govt.
to me it is involuntary servitude to work this hard
only to watch govt abused further in ways i don't agree to pay for.
i am stressed out until this gets resolved
and dont think its funny at all. i think it is tragic
to watch ppl disrespecting and dismissing
each others views as if they dont matter.
what kind of country have we become
to laugh at other ppl suffering as if it isnt real
Last edited:
Mac1958
Diamond Member
.
The ACA is a ridiculous freaking pig of a law, but the FACT is that it is now OUR ridiculous freaking pig of a law because that's the kind of thing that happens when you (a) lose elections, (b) fail to provide the American electorate with a good, clear alternative, and (c) refuse to accept electoral loss and choose not to participate in the formation of a massive new law that you can't stop.
It would be worse for everyone if this pig fails, it's too far engrained in the system now, unwinding it would be a freakin' mess.
Now we'll see how long it takes the GOP to figure this out.
Just another self-inflicted wound.
.
The ACA is a ridiculous freaking pig of a law, but the FACT is that it is now OUR ridiculous freaking pig of a law because that's the kind of thing that happens when you (a) lose elections, (b) fail to provide the American electorate with a good, clear alternative, and (c) refuse to accept electoral loss and choose not to participate in the formation of a massive new law that you can't stop.
It would be worse for everyone if this pig fails, it's too far engrained in the system now, unwinding it would be a freakin' mess.
Now we'll see how long it takes the GOP to figure this out.
Just another self-inflicted wound.
.
Last edited:
That makes sense. I've always seen a sadistic streak in the statist mindset.
billyerock1991
Gold Member
- Apr 24, 2012
- 7,106
- 506
- 140
the republicans then, verses the republicans now, two different creatures ... how they forget what they were once for ...
SENATE YEA NAY NOT VOTING
Democrats 57 7 4
Republicans 13 17 2
HOUSE YEA NAY NOT VOTING
Democrats 237 48 8
Republicans 70 68 2
Last edited:
billyerock1991
Gold Member
- Apr 24, 2012
- 7,106
- 506
- 140
ecincola, why do you keep posting other writers material an call it yours ??? there isn't anything unconstitutional about the ACA ... many of you delusional republicans have tried to empty it is ... so far you've lost every time ... its not you who gets to decide what is constitutional or whose right or wrong its the supreme court that does ... so far you've lost that debate every time
Last edited:
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Since "right to life" is treated as a political belief outside of govt, can't "right to health care" be recognized also as a political belief that can't be forced on people either?
If so, can't the ACA regulations and mandates be shifted onto the Democrat Party and supporters as a political religious movement based on the belief in Singlepayer.
Why can't this be made optional, and allow equal freedom for Right to Life and free market
health care plans under the Republican party that meets Constitutional ideals they believe in?
if the point is to make sure people pay for their health care, why not empower and reward people and parties for setting up the best systems that work for them? why this issue over penalizing people if they don't agree with the other party's system.
Is it really impossible to separate?
I looked up the names of the 39 Democrat Congress reps who opposed the ACA in November. I thought there was one more Democrat from WV who came out for repeal.
I will try to write a letter of petition URGING the party leaders to agree to SEPARATE the taxation and systems by PARTY so both the right to life, right to health, and free choice beliefs are accommodated and protected equally. People will pay for their own health care if it is under the system they believe in; it would not have to be forced on anyone, that's only happening because we are not given equal choices we believe in investing in.
If the Singlepayer and lower income groups who can't afford insurance except through govt need to be forced by penalty of law to sign up, that can still be done through the current system; that if they want the low cost insurance plans under ACA they are required to go through it.
Maybe it is like setting a system by which entire groups such as the Libertarian Party or Republican Party can set up their own health care system or exchange, and it qualifies as an exemption because it covers all the participating members under terms they negotiate as an equal option under the ACA.
Something like that. Where it respects free choice and right to life, and other political beliefs equally as how the Democrat Party system would recognize and respect "right to health care" as a protected belief. It just can't be forced on people against their beliefs or that's why it is so contested as unconstitutional.
Maybe these Democrat Congress reps can understand this point, so I am not the only one pushing for such a correction to this lopsided legislation that is biased by political beliefs.
Last edited:
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,372
- 263,389
- 3,615
This is America......you are free to dissent
You are free to elect a majority in the House, 60 US Senators, a President who supports your views....and then pass Supreme Court challenges
That is what the Democrats had to do
Nope. Majority rules ain't it.
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Dear BR: Yes, it is the people who decide what is constitutional or not.
Our government authority is derived from CONSENT of the governed, and is responsible for representing ALL people.
So all branches of government are supposed to REPRESENT and be checked by the people, not tell us what to believe.
So where we are excluded and aren't represented, that is unconstitutional to abuse govt to impose beliefs on people against our consent.
We are not a theocracy where the Supreme Court invokes divine authority to dictate interpretation like a Pope on the Bench to the masses.
Remember the Reformation that rebelled against that in the church?
We are going through this same stage in the state, because it goes against natural laws to dictate to people against their beliefs.
People are taking back authority directly by enforcing the Constitution, the same way Luther went back to the Bible and revoked authority from the church elders not following it.
If we disgree we retain the right to dissent; that is our responsibility for our own government, to make sure it represents all of us equally.
That is just natural law, and no govt on earth can override the right of people to consent or dissent. it goes against human nature.
Interpretation of law is part of religious freedom. There is no way around that, because we are all human beings.
If we have a religious bias, it is going to affect our interpretation of law; that is why consensus is legally necessary
to prevent from imposing a religious bias through govt as is happening now and causing all manner of disruption and protest.
Without consensus on law, we run the risk of imposing a religious or political bias, that unconstitutional excludes some people who have the right to be equally protected.
Up to now, we have put up with less than consensus, because we compromised and were willing to lobby to fix the problems.
here, we do not agree on the policies, we do not agree to compromise, so it becomes absolutely essential to resolve conflicts and reach a consensus.
people are no longer agreeing to sacrifice their beliefs for govt to impose one interpretation for all people that doesn't include us all equally.
We no longer consent to these rulings as unconstitutional.
I think you take this for granted, since most of the time people generally agree to follow government.
On religious issues, however, of life and health care, guess what: people DON'T agree because our religious beliefs are different;
and are either being violated or threatened with violation, so people on both sides are rallying to defend their views.
So yes, we have the right and responsibility to CHANGE LAWS so they ARE CONSTITUTIONAL
by not excluding anyone's religious beliefs as with the ACA that doesn't even recognize them as existent at all.
That is how gross the bias is, people are so entrenched with their own political beliefs and biases
they can't even see the other people's views are even valid beliefs. They both think the other position is fake, for political argument.
If you don't even believe these views are real which are excluded under penalty of law through ACA,
THAT is the religious discrimination the govt is endorsing and enforcing. That is why it is unconstitutional.
Hi BillyRock: No I am NOT "ecincola"
I thought it was clear nobody else posts the stuff on church and state issues that I do.
Seriously BR do you really know any other Constitutionalist Democrats like me who
will go to bat to defend right to choice, right to life, right to health care, right to free market health care, right to limited govt, right to big govt EQUALLY?
Who is this ecincola person?
I seriously doubt this person could even conceive of the political equality I believe in.
If this person is rightwing, I seriously doubt it.
If you bothered to check my links, I am the only "EmilyNghiem" posting constitutional solutions online to this extent.
Nobody WANTS to be me, believe me!
Thanks Billy but No thanks. whoever this ecincola person is, we are not the same person.
I can only answer for myself, as a progressive prochoice Democrat -- into liberal inclusion to a fault, where I include far right and extreme views and opposing beliefs as diversity.
I believe natural laws are all inclusive, the Constitutional principles are universal.
So we establish them and apply them to US citizens, but the concepts apply to all people.
I don't see a lot of "rightwing" people including the left as I do people of all parties.
Here are my links, so you see I am not someone else:
http://www.houstonprogressive.net
ethics-commission.net
Isonomy
Earned Amnesty
http://www.freedomenstown.com
music video for Sustainable Campus converting sweatshop labor to workstudy jobs
Juliet & Romeo: A Play on Life in America
http://www.houstonprogressive.org
If that is not enough I will send you more.
Please let me know if it is. Thanks, Billy!
Our government authority is derived from CONSENT of the governed, and is responsible for representing ALL people.
So all branches of government are supposed to REPRESENT and be checked by the people, not tell us what to believe.
So where we are excluded and aren't represented, that is unconstitutional to abuse govt to impose beliefs on people against our consent.
We are not a theocracy where the Supreme Court invokes divine authority to dictate interpretation like a Pope on the Bench to the masses.
Remember the Reformation that rebelled against that in the church?
We are going through this same stage in the state, because it goes against natural laws to dictate to people against their beliefs.
People are taking back authority directly by enforcing the Constitution, the same way Luther went back to the Bible and revoked authority from the church elders not following it.
If we disgree we retain the right to dissent; that is our responsibility for our own government, to make sure it represents all of us equally.
That is just natural law, and no govt on earth can override the right of people to consent or dissent. it goes against human nature.
Interpretation of law is part of religious freedom. There is no way around that, because we are all human beings.
If we have a religious bias, it is going to affect our interpretation of law; that is why consensus is legally necessary
to prevent from imposing a religious bias through govt as is happening now and causing all manner of disruption and protest.
Without consensus on law, we run the risk of imposing a religious or political bias, that unconstitutional excludes some people who have the right to be equally protected.
Up to now, we have put up with less than consensus, because we compromised and were willing to lobby to fix the problems.
here, we do not agree on the policies, we do not agree to compromise, so it becomes absolutely essential to resolve conflicts and reach a consensus.
people are no longer agreeing to sacrifice their beliefs for govt to impose one interpretation for all people that doesn't include us all equally.
We no longer consent to these rulings as unconstitutional.
I think you take this for granted, since most of the time people generally agree to follow government.
On religious issues, however, of life and health care, guess what: people DON'T agree because our religious beliefs are different;
and are either being violated or threatened with violation, so people on both sides are rallying to defend their views.
So yes, we have the right and responsibility to CHANGE LAWS so they ARE CONSTITUTIONAL
by not excluding anyone's religious beliefs as with the ACA that doesn't even recognize them as existent at all.
That is how gross the bias is, people are so entrenched with their own political beliefs and biases
they can't even see the other people's views are even valid beliefs. They both think the other position is fake, for political argument.
If you don't even believe these views are real which are excluded under penalty of law through ACA,
THAT is the religious discrimination the govt is endorsing and enforcing. That is why it is unconstitutional.
Hi BillyRock: No I am NOT "ecincola"
I thought it was clear nobody else posts the stuff on church and state issues that I do.
Seriously BR do you really know any other Constitutionalist Democrats like me who
will go to bat to defend right to choice, right to life, right to health care, right to free market health care, right to limited govt, right to big govt EQUALLY?
Who is this ecincola person?
I seriously doubt this person could even conceive of the political equality I believe in.
If this person is rightwing, I seriously doubt it.
If you bothered to check my links, I am the only "EmilyNghiem" posting constitutional solutions online to this extent.
Nobody WANTS to be me, believe me!
Thanks Billy but No thanks. whoever this ecincola person is, we are not the same person.
I can only answer for myself, as a progressive prochoice Democrat -- into liberal inclusion to a fault, where I include far right and extreme views and opposing beliefs as diversity.
I believe natural laws are all inclusive, the Constitutional principles are universal.
So we establish them and apply them to US citizens, but the concepts apply to all people.
I don't see a lot of "rightwing" people including the left as I do people of all parties.
Here are my links, so you see I am not someone else:
http://www.houstonprogressive.net
ethics-commission.net
Isonomy
Earned Amnesty
http://www.freedomenstown.com
music video for Sustainable Campus converting sweatshop labor to workstudy jobs
Juliet & Romeo: A Play on Life in America
http://www.houstonprogressive.org
If that is not enough I will send you more.
Please let me know if it is. Thanks, Billy!
Last edited:
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,372
- 263,389
- 3,615
You'd do well to read that.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,372
- 263,389
- 3,615
I did...
This is America......you are free to dissent
You are free to elect a majority in the House, 60 US Senators, a President who supports your views....and then pass Supreme Court challenges
That is what the Democrats had to do
Next!
Similar threads
- Locked
New Topics
-
-
-
-
The latest greatest antics of our elected representatives is the so-called Save Act.- Started by Dante
- Replies: 17
-
