Obama's: Go for it = Bring it on?

[Yurt]

well?

'Go for it,' Obama tells GOP on health repeal - Yahoo! News

 

[uscitizen]

it appears so, but it is not like he is invitng more terrorism or something.

don't try and compare this to Bush's bring em on rhetoric.

 

[Yurt]

it appears so, but it is not like he is invitng more terrorism or something.

don't try and compare this to Bush's bring em on rhetoric.

same arrogance, no? same unwillingness to talk, no?

 

[concept]

Bush = Bring it on to our enemies.

Obama = Go for it to Americans.




What a guy.

 

[Cuyo]

Bush = Bring it on to our enemies.

Obama = Go for it to Americans.




What a guy.

More like go for it Lyin ass con-artists. But yes, they would technically be Americans too.

 

[Oscar Wao]

Obama's got more of the "I'm better than you intellectually, financially, and positionally" kind of arrogance. You know, the kind of arrogance that you just get so ticked off by...annoyance really.

Bush has more of the "Get dem varmits even if it means gettin all the countries in the world, son!" type of arrogance. The neo-con PNAC agenda in a supposedly southern personality (he's from CONNECTICUT, a BLUE BLOOD NORTHEASTERN STATE for goodness sake! I don't know why southerners, especially Texans, fall for that alleged "southern-ness" that Bush tried to display.).

 

[CMike]

He is an arrogant fucker, especially considering how so many americans are against it.

FOXNews.com - Obama Dares Republicans to Pursue Repeal of Health Care Law

 

[Cuyo]

He is an arrogant fucker, especially considering how so many americans are against it.

FOXNews.com - Obama Dares Republicans to Pursue Repeal of Health Care Law

Meh, I think it's more of a "There is no constitutional basis for overturning this, none, zero, zilch, goose egg. We'll all disintegrate and reform in another part of the universe before you overturn this on constitutional grounds" kind of thing than arrogance. That's just me though.

**I stand corrected**
I followed your link, Mike and it's more of a "People don't want to turn the clock back on this, you are sorely mistaken if you think this will get you votes" kind of thing. So in a way, yeah it's pretty arrogant. I think taunting would be a better word. Either way still justified.

 

[Oscar Wao]

There is no constitutional ground for its being law, either.

And please don't bring up "general welfare," as individual health has nothing to do with it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

it appears so, but it is not like he is invitng more terrorism or something.

don't try and compare this to Bush's bring em on rhetoric.

same arrogance, no? same unwillingness to talk, no?

Talk about what? Joining the Republicans to repeal a bill he just signed?

Is there not NOT ONE RIGHTWING NUT on this board who understands the consequences of elections? ...and more importantly, can exhibit an iota of dignity about dealing with those consequences?

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no constitutional ground for its being law, either.

And please don't bring up "general welfare," as individual health has nothing to do with it.

When did the health of a nation's people cease to be a vital national interest?

 

[Oscar Wao]

There is no constitutional ground for its being law, either.

And please don't bring up "general welfare," as individual health has nothing to do with it.

When did the health of a nation's people cease to be a vital national interest?

It is not a national interest in the sense that the government should give us so-called "rights."

I agree that we should be a nation full of healthy, educated, and rational people, but to broadly interpret the "general welfare" phrase so extensively is one of absurdity.

 

[Oscar Wao]

it appears so, but it is not like he is invitng more terrorism or something.

don't try and compare this to Bush's bring em on rhetoric.

same arrogance, no? same unwillingness to talk, no?

Talk about what? Joining the Republicans to repeal a bill he just signed?

Is there not NOT ONE RIGHTWING NUT on this board who understands the consequences of elections? ...and more importantly, can exhibit an iota of dignity about dealing with those consequences?

Heh, I agree with your last paragraph. But probably for a different host of reasons...

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

well?

'Go for it,' Obama tells GOP on health repeal - Yahoo! News

sounds like obama is inciting violence to me.

 

[beowolfe]

well?

'Go for it,' Obama tells GOP on health repeal - Yahoo! News

Go for it means go for it, as in go ahead and try. Very different from 'bring it on' which is an invitation to a fight.

 

[beowolfe]

There is no constitutional ground for its being law, either.

And please don't bring up "general welfare," as individual health has nothing to do with it.

Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; ...............The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

You can't dismiss a section of the constitution that authorizes this just because you don't think that it does. Besides, if enough people can't afford healthcare, it does endanger the general welfare of the nation.

The general welfare clause can be (and has been) invoked anytime any single thing that endangers the financial health of the system. (And yes, I'm aware of the deficit/debt).

If t has been determined that the costs of health insurance will bankrupt the govern

 

[SFC Ollie]

well?

'Go for it,' Obama tells GOP on health repeal - Yahoo! News

sounds like obama is inciting violence to me.

He is inciting idiocy. Why is he still campaigning on a Bill that has already passed?

 

[Oscar Wao]

There is no constitutional ground for its being law, either.

And please don't bring up "general welfare," as individual health has nothing to do with it.

Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; ...............The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

You can't dismiss a section of the constitution that authorizes this just because you don't think that it does. Besides, if enough people can't afford healthcare, it does endanger the general welfare of the nation.

The general welfare clause can be (and has been) invoked anytime any single thing that endangers the financial health of the system. (And yes, I'm aware of the deficit/debt).

If t has been determined that the costs of health insurance will bankrupt the govern

And the health care crisis is because of TOO MUCH government regulation and involvement, NOT TOO LITTLE or ZERO involvement.

Before Obama signed on the dotted line, our government was already involved in health care in at least 50% of it. This expansion of involvement will only guarantee worse results.

 

[SFC Ollie]

There is no constitutional ground for its being law, either.

And please don't bring up "general welfare," as individual health has nothing to do with it.

Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; ...............The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

You can't dismiss a section of the constitution that authorizes this just because you don't think that it does. Besides, if enough people can't afford healthcare, it does endanger the general welfare of the nation.

The general welfare clause can be (and has been) invoked anytime any single thing that endangers the financial health of the system. (And yes, I'm aware of the deficit/debt).

If t has been determined that the costs of health insurance will bankrupt the govern

And the health care crisis is because of TOO MUCH government regulation and involvement, NOT TOO LITTLE or ZERO involvement.

Before Obama signed on the dotted line, our government was already involved in health care in at least 50% of it. This expansion of involvement will only guarantee worse results.

And that is what it is all about, a super sized expansion of the Federal Government.

 

[beowolfe]

There is no constitutional ground for its being law, either.

And please don't bring up "general welfare," as individual health has nothing to do with it.

Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; ...............The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

You can't dismiss a section of the constitution that authorizes this just because you don't think that it does. Besides, if enough people can't afford healthcare, it does endanger the general welfare of the nation.

The general welfare clause can be (and has been) invoked anytime any single thing that endangers the financial health of the system. (And yes, I'm aware of the deficit/debt).

If t has been determined that the costs of health insurance will bankrupt the govern

And the health care crisis is because of TOO MUCH government regulation and involvement, NOT TOO LITTLE or ZERO involvement.

Before Obama signed on the dotted line, our government was already involved in health care in at least 50% of it. This expansion of involvement will only guarantee worse results.

Let's imagine that there was no medicare, no medicaid, no VA, no CHIPs program. That would be tens of millions on top of the 30 million w/ no healthcare insurance. In this fantasy world, if the provision that requires hospitals to treat indigents, imagine how much your healthcare premiums would be.

I swear, some of you act as if you don't know that insurance is a pretty much a chain letter/ponzi scheme.