Good God, edita-of course it's constitutional.
Because our president can, and has, had it passed.
I'll give you a break when the Constitution is found to be unconstitutional.
Spoken like a true Socialist Revolutionary but I see where you live in California so that in no way surprises me.
Good God, of course declaring war without congressional approval is constitutional!
Because our last president could, and did, do it.
It is constitutional. Society like us is mixed (welfare and personal), so the gov't can have a say on the general health and well being of the people. Only the stake holders like pharmaceuticals and doctors will complain. In the end, the peoples health should come first. It is time to look at why we are at the bottom feed comparing to other countries when we talk about health indicators (life expectancy and infant mortality as examples) for so many decades.
Obamacare should continue!!!
Why do you think it is unconstitutional and which statue of constitution do you think it violates?
I see this as constitutional under the commerce clause, as argued by the current administration.
Those without health insurance cost those who do through higher premiums and overall diminished care. The government, i.e. the taxpayers, are then stuck holding the bag. This relates to a double payment system wherein the policy holders pay more for their own policies because of the uninsured while at the same time paying more in taxes while receiving less in benefits for the very same reason.
How ridiculous is that?
The argument used by opponents today comparing the mandate concerning health care to a potential mandate about broccoli is completely absurd. I am still studying for the LSAT, but have enough logical reasoning to see through the nonsense Justice Alito spewed.
The companies involved are nationwide, not small, localized businesses. They enjoy using state lines in a "race to the bottom" fashion where services decline while rates soar. Leaving this as a "states rights" issue only serves to strengthen the companies....not the people who need health care.
Innersmiff, do you have your own health insurance paid for out of your pocket?
I'm British so I'm under the NHS, but transferring to private care of my own free will. Last time I went to an NHS hospital I sat in there throwing up and in chronic pain for 8 hours, and was given 4 different doctors for 2 minutes, who each gave me a completely useless diagnosis. Next time I'll just make sure my kitchen is clean when i'm cooking.
The initial success of national healthcare comes because that generation is used to having to pay for healthcare, and consequently take care of themselves better. The next generations are used to having free healthcare and tend not to take care of themselves as well because, hey, it's free! I think this is partially why the NHS is on its knees at the moment - its just not sustainable for people to pay for others' bad habits. I also think this is part of the reason for the obesity epidemic, amongst other things such as poor quality food.
America's system was not good before Obamacare, but what Obamacare does is make it ten times worse. The goddam thing was written by insurance companies. Whether it's constitutional or not, forcing people to buy any kind of product is fascism! Yeah it was bad before, but don't 'fix' it by forcing people into it.
Yes. It is constitutional.
I would expect the insurance/big pharma lobby would be all over bringing in new suscribers.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg's passionate about it. It's a joy to hear!
We'll find out what the Supreme Court thinks in June.
If it is declared constitutional then we have just lost our souls.
There is nothing to stop the federal government from mandating that we buy whatever they wish. Nor will they stop there. They will tell us what to eat, how to dress, what car to buy, etc., etc. It's a slippery slope and there's only a big ass oak tree at the bottom of the slope.
I don't think that such generalization is a valid argument against the bill. The bill refers strictly to the healthcare and there are no real grounds for generalizing the bill to mean future intentions of government control. The market for healthcare is quite different from most other products. By nature it is a product that individuals will come to need at some point during their lifetimes, and all that gov't is trying to do is to insure that those who need have accessibility to it and those who pay for it are not double charged (premiums (for themselves) and taxes (for those who come to emergency rooms with no insurance).
All the government is trying to do is control our lives. The people that run the government do not think we have the brains to take care of ourselves and therefore they must do it for us. There are a lot of people that will not need healthcare. We have access to insurance now, more importantly, everyone has some kind of access to healthcare if they choose to make the effort to find it or get the help to find it. Why should you or I be forced to give part of our hard earned wages to someone else because they lacked the foresight or ambition to provide for themselves? We can not save everyone. I would love to be able to, but it is not reasonable to think we can. We must take care of ourselves and our families and others must do the same. Some will fall between the cracks, it is inevitable. Why should we let them take us under with them?
Yeah, we have access to insurance but unable to afford it. Good one. There are some things that the private sector has no business in. Can you imagine our military or prisons being ran by oil companies? Healthcare should be one of them because it's point obvious that the private sector screwed it up.
Yeah..let's give it to the states, so they can forcibly rape us women, against our will.
Kill people willy-nilly, cause "I was threatened"...oh yeah? Where's the proof? Cause I say so!
The only reason the mandate is in there at all is because of Olympia Snow--who refused to go along without it.
That is an R thing.....so now they hate it? Pulleeeze.
They hate Obama. IMO
This whole thing is such a waste and unnecessary. The Democrats really screwed this one up.
The US needs universal healthcare like all other industrialized democracies. But the Obama-Reid-Pelosi approach was dreadfully wrongheaded from the start, inefficient, alienated many Americans, and opened the door to costly and embarrassing legal challenges, like the current one.
Mandating health insurance coverage has never been, nor will it ever be, necessary. The proper approach is to provide incentives for the desired behavior. Duh! In other words, a carrot and not a stick.
HOWEVER, even if we DID need to mandate this, there is a way to do it that could never be interpreted as unconstitutional: simply mandate that anyone who has a job must have health insurance, and anyone who receives government benefits of any kind (welfare, medicaid, food stamps, unemployment benefits, etc) must have it too. And then mandate that all children must have it as well.
This is totally acceptable because choosing to work in the United States is a free choice, just like driving on the roads of the United States. Therefore the government would be covered in mandating such a thing.
Voila. Universal coverage, and legally airtight.
But as usual, the politicians screw up even a good idea.
That is nonsense. Health care is not like everything else.
The auto market has no comparison, outside of the use of the word "market".
However, auto insurance is already mandated for all drivers, and those who are refused policies by companies can pay for insurance provided by a pool created by the state. All of this is regulated. It is also now plain to see that this is an example of markets that never existed before being created by state legislatures and Congress.
Driving may be a privilege, yet at the same time, for many it is a requirement to survive. The 405 freeway congestion into and out of Los Angeles every day is representative of this.
This congestion is representative of capitalism run amok, with government serving largely as a means for increased profiteering. Through land speculation, resource exploitation, and social manipulation wealth like never before known to man was created out of nowhere. A government subsidized suburban dream was paved over what is now the largest county in the nation. With a hundreds of billions of dollars worth of port transactions through one of the most impressive man-made and government subsidized projects ever built, the San Pedro ports feed the nation with their cheap imports. Angelino's breathe the ship exhaust from 40 miles offshore...compounded by the line of ships waiting..idling their diesels waiting to access the terminals. Now the ships portside are plugged in to the city's power grid, but docked ships annually emitted pollution equivalent to 2 million cars every year. Mind you, car emissions, particulate matter specifically, is less harmful than diesel. Diesel particulate matter (PM 2.5) is tiny enough to clog the inner passageways of the lungs. The trucks and trains that then take the trailers to the intermodal facilities crowded just south of the City of LA, packed into Los Angeles County cities that were once farms owned by Japanese farmers before they were deported by the government during World War 2. These trailers and other goods are loaded onto trains and then transported across the country. 40% of all goods imported come through San Pedro.
Trucks and trains also serve LA itself, taking goods to distribution centers and then through their various final destinations locally. Compounding all of this is the spread out layout of the City of Los Angeles, with overpopulated suburbs dependent on travel into the city for work and entertainment.
Kids are playing alongside railyards and under/adjacent to car/truck congested freeways. They are going to school in these same conditions. I am not even beginning to discuss industrial pollution regarding the air, land, and water. The respiratory, cardiovascular, and developmental problems caused by the toxic substances released en masse into our air are documented widely, and can easily be found via google. Associated costs, whether loss of productivity due to illness (short term or long term for an individual or group member that impacts self and others directly and indirectly), treating the uninsured or the increasing rate of disease/disorder (especially with children and the elderly), are vast. One in four children in Los Angeles County are without health insurance, and there are at least 2.5 million boys and girls under the age of 18 living in the County.
http://egbertowillies.com/2012/03/27/de … ight-wing/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/2 … Obama-Did-
http://www.greenbiz.com/sites/default/f … F97225.pdf
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2008/fuelo … logv08.pdf
When communities fight back, the trucking industry, shippers, and retailers (with their associated warehousers) and the auto industry (for a long, long time) use the "socialist" "liberal" attacks to try to minimize their movements. The East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice and Pacoima Beautiful are two examples of Angelino's rising up to take charge in their neighborhoods. I urge readers to look into these and other organizations, and to learn about your potential connection to what transpires here in Los Angeles, all for the sake of cheap Asian goods produced in sweatshops....solely for the sake of profit.
We are America's lungs....or at least a major chunk of 'em. Health care costs are being stacked on us because of factors that are generating huge amounts of wealth to a very few...and they don't like to change their behaviors. Shipping companies fought long and hard to change from dirty bunker diesel fuel to cleaner fuel when they reached 40 miles offshore...and then they tried to alter their routes to hug the coast..knowingly interfering entering areas that were off limits...all to cut their cost. Bunker diesel is cheap,the alternatives are pricier, so they try to cut travel time. But, California fought back.
Those "darn Californians" a.k.a. "liberals", socialists", or whatever stupid generalized stereotype so many like to use fought back, and we won.
Now its time for the Supreme Court to stand up and do the right thing.
Justice Alito is arguing either like he is senile or a patsy.
Broccoli consumption mandated by the government is not comparable in any way to the health insurance requirements.
I'm wondering why so many of the arguments against the constitutional challenge have nothing to do with the constitution.
"Yeah, well, everyone should have health insurance!"
"Yeah, well, we pay for uninsured people anyway!"
You know what? You're right! You're absolutely right!
Doesn't make the mandate legal, though! At all!
If you REALLY think the tenth amendment is obsolete then the course of action is to change the constitution! Not ignore it!
Because if one part of the constitution can be ignored just because it serves the "greater good," then ANY part of the constitution can be ignored for any twisted reason and the entire document is effectively void! Our rights are completely gone!
Slippery slope? No. It's more like a sheer cliff.
It is not at all fascism...I think you need to read up on what that political/economic system actually means.
Wait times are nothing new. As a veteran I use the VA hospital, and I have had to wait, especially when I didn't have an appointment. My father uses Kaiser (as I used to), and he has to wait for all kinds of things. He was complaining today about (through private insurance...not the government) he has to wait so long for an MRI. Though the VA is close to socialized medicine, I recounted how, without an appointment, I had an MRI the same day I showed up to the hospital...within a couple hours....completely free of charge. No doctor told me I needed an MRI, I just wanted one.
However, I remember another time that I had to wait all day. I had contracted strep throat (though I didn't know it at the time...I just knew something was very wrong), and went to the VA to get looked at. I had no appointment, and the facility I visited had no emergency room facilities or anything of that sort. Though I waited 6 hours, I was seen, evaluated, and given the medication I needed to recover.....free of charge.
There is no perfection to be found in this world, but the ideas behind the Affordable Healthcare law are far better and will yield greater results than keeping the status quo.... The GOP keeps chanting "repeal and replace"...but they have nothing to replace it with...(the current plan was their idea after all!)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/2 … Obama-Did-
By definition the US is a fascistic style of government. They're smart enough not to have stormtroopers line the street at least, but that'll soon change.
Since Obamacare is unconstitutional and fascistic, it does need replacing. A completely free healthcare market combined with personal health responsibility would produce a far healthier population. Mandating that someone buys a particular type of insurance, tying them into the ridiculous system and their horrific practices and drugs, does not sound like a good idea to me. We've steadily increased government intervention in health for the past 100 years and just look at us . . . we're unhealthier than ever.
I don't suggest the GOP has any idea what to do. It's a shame really, the only mainstream opposition to the lefties is the GOP who don't know their knee from their elbow. So all the lefties are like "You disagree? Rabid right-wing tea-bagger bigot!". Not saying that you're like that - I was just pointing it out.
Your claim of fascist American government and health care doesn't make it so. Your claims of unconstitutionality don't make it so.
I'd like you to clarify what your "definition" is.....can you do so?
Your generalizations about "the lefties" may be more telling about how you draw your conclusions about healthcare in the United States.
Those with agendas of hate and hostility will find whatever way possible to create the reality they desire....even through the use of delusion.
Hate and hostility? Well, I hate hostility, and I'm not the one forcing people to participate in systems that they disagree with.
The United States Constitution does not force someone to do something they were not already doing. "It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can limit inactivity under the Commerce Clause... Everyone must participate in the food market...under this logic, Congress could (mandate) that every adult purchase and consume wheat bread daily. If they didn't buy wheat bread they might have a bad diet which would put a strain on the health care system," Judge Vinson who declared the unconstitutionality of Obamacare writes.
Also, a suggested solution to the healthcare problem that reduces force:
"However, the 2,300 page act does not even address the real issues like: 1. Tort reform (limit the amount and damages in lawsuits). 2. Let health insurance companies sell policies across state lines and country boundaries to increase competition. 3. Make it easier and less expensive to get drugs approved by FDA. 4. Other cost saving ideas like streamlining FDA drug and new medical procedure approval."
I mean, that is a lot simpler and makes wayyyy more sense than tying people to an already broken system. I would go even further and abolish the FDA.
The core tenets of Fascism, according to Wikipedia:
Nationalism - anything that goes against the status quo is 'Un-American' in the eyes of government and mainstream media that kisses its backside.
Totalitarianism - a culture of regulation, prohibition, policing, spying on citizens and control. NDAA, ObamaCare, SOPA are Orwellian systems of control.
Single party state - Both Democratic and Republican parties are owned by the same Wall Street banking cartels and secret societies that shape long-term policy towards totalitarianism.
Dictatorship - The President does not need the authorisation of congress to invade a country nor pass bills that destroy liberty. And whoever gets in next will still have that power also.
Social Darwinism - The Rockefeller Foundation in cooperation with the government produces sterilizing vaccines, and admits to want to reduce population favouring educated 'elites' that will eventually run the world government. Infants are now declared not morally equal to adults and should be killed in certain circumstances.
Militarism - America's militarism extends to every corner of the Earth and every corner of the country as an upgrade from the police, in the name of protecting against terrorism.
Mixed economy - the Federal Reserve creates an economy of debt through printing money, and engineer economic collapses through creating artificial bubbles. The government then steals from the population so as to give to those failed banks and businesses, which further discourages competition and consequently centralises wealth.
The US government is a fascist, sorry to break it to you.
Those who live by generalizations and stereotypes are of poor caliber and quality.
Orly Taitz, one of the biggest idiots on the earth, is a Californian......and she is no socialist revolutionary. The principle perpetrator of "Obama is not a citizen and is really a secret Muslim" lawsuits filed across the country challenging the legitimacy of Obama's presidency, this "conservative" quack job has quite a large base of support out in the predominantly white Orange County.
Thank goodness the rest of California was smart enough to deny her a state government seat in the last election. However, this loon is somehow thinking she has what it takes for the Senate now...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/0 … 75280.html
So many "conservatives" like to criticize those who "play the victim" card....but when it comes to whiners and snivelers, there are few like Orly Taitz....
"Why was Orly Taitz in Israel Two Days After Submitting a Forged Obama Birth Certificate to a US Federal Court?"
Who is against Obama?
"Biggest war of our lives"
Who benefits if GOP wins, and privitize medicare?
This cabal is still operating behind the scenes.
"If Obamacare gets struck down, the biggest factor will not be Clement or Verrilli. It'll be that there are five GOP Justices."
2 of whom have attended Koch Bros retreats!!!(Thomas, Scalia)
When Obamacare gets struck down, it will be because it is unconstitutional, regardless of the politics of the judges.
Obamacare is unfair to young healthy people.
Awww. Poor babies.
So why did the Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich, numerous other GOP's avocate for something that was unconstitutional? Especially when they are always touting themselves as experts on the constitution!
And why is car insurance not? Don't give me this crap about driving is a priveledge...it's a necessity for the majority of drivers! Unless you live in or around a city that has public transportation, you NEED a car to live.
So--why am I being forced to buy car insurance....when I don't even GET any benefits, because I can't afford comp! I pay JUST to drive!
When is that lawsuit coming?
Car inspections....that is forced...and only on a state by state basis! I don't want to pay to have my car inspected! If it breaks down, I will handle it.
And, I thought advocating for the Common Good was a pervue of the gvt....since when is it not? Healthy citizenry is the Common Good.
I don't agree with being forced to buy anything, LMC. There's this little thing called Liberty that we tend to take for granted until it's chipped away by a mandate here and a mandate there.
As for car inspections, if you're talking about emissions inspections, you can thank the EPA and the environmental (with an emphasis on mental) weenies for those.
Are you saying your state actually requires you to have your vehicle inspected mechanically?
As for the Common Good, we're talking about a government that can't find it's collective ass with a flashlight and both hands. How would they know what the Common Good is even if they found it. And this has nothing to do with Obama. I'm talking about our overall government, period.
Lots of people 'live' without a car.
But there you go again, changing the subject when you are losing the battle. Obama is good at that too.
The 'common good' is not designed to be controlled by the government. It was meant to be a broad and general statement because they had the wisdom to know that they didn't know everything.
It's the same subject.
We are forced to buy car insurance.
If you want a mortgage, you are forced to buy home insurance.
If you go to court, you are forced to swear on a Bible.
If your kids are in school, they are forced to vaccinate.
If I want to drive, I am forced to have a license.
If I want to oprate equipment, I must have a license
Drive an 18 wheeler, practice medicine, practice law,heck--GOP wants to force me to answer personal questions before I get hired for a job!! (Blunt amendment)
How come if I use the health system, I'm not required to have insurance?
And how come the GOP was for it before they were against it?
Well, health insurance is different from all of those, besides car insurance, which i think should also be stopped, and the court one, which I think should be stopped for a different reason(church and state).
Mortgage: This isn't the gov, this is the bank. They force you to buy insurance so they are certain they'll get their money back.
Court: see above.
Vaccinations: you can opt out.
Driving and equipment: these two are for the same reason. You could hurt others, so it's the gov's job to protect the "general public" from your lack of skill. This is gov's job.
However, health care is not the same as this. Health care only affects you, so the gov has no right to mess with it. Again, libertarian: i think gov has no right to stop raw milk, smoking, marijuana, alcohol, sugar, or just to make an extreme point, suicide.
About the GOP: today's "G" OP has no idea what they're doing. Unfortunately, don't think that's even hating, just the truth
The "common good" is the purpose of good public policy and legislation. Lately we have been getting public policies and laws designed to benefit the 1%, not the common good. As a result there has been a huge redistribution of income and wealth from the middle class to the richest Americans, and the poor have been sadly neglected. The huge inequality of income and wealth is causing many people to lose faith in our democratic free enterprise society. This loss of faith is exhibited both in the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street movements. Growing numbers of people no longer believe in the American dream.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag, and carrying a cross".....
Just who does that sound like to you? Obama?
This quote is from Sinclair Lewis. Given that he was an atheist, it doesn't surprise me he would say such a thing.
It has nothing to do with atheism. It has to do with using religion and so-called patriotism to justify everything they do.
like this: USA USA USA and
One Nation, Under God
Add guns to that.....forget it: they have the whole thing locked up.
Non freedom. Non godly. Non caring for fellow citizens, ergo: non-patriotic
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag, and carrying a cross."
As a Christian, it certainly sounds to me like he's saying fascism coming to this country will be, at least in part, brought by the church.
USA USA USA
One Nation, Under God
THEIR idea of America
No questions asked. No dissenting allowed. "If you're not a Christian, get out!"
And I'm saying you're painting the ENTIRE Christian faith with one Bible Thumper brush that DOES NOT APPLY.
Believe it or not, LMC, there are Christians that couldn't care less if not all people are saved.
There are Christians that are not going to hit anyone over the head with their Bible and try to save them as it would be a waste of time for both parties.
IMHO, accepting Jesus as your Savior is a very private thing that I can not and will not make anyone do. A person has to want it and I can't make anyone do that.
All I ask is that you or anyone else stop painting ALL Christians with that brush just because you may have encountered someone who may have tried to browbeat you into believing.
"THEIR idea of America"
From where I'm sitting, I've had to listen to a man who I think is a Socialist and I didn't vote for try to change this country into his idea of America that's totally contradictory to the Constitution that was created by our founding fathers. To that, I not only say, "No," but "HELL, NO!!!!"
Yet you're railing against policies (in this case specifically Obamacare) that the GOP endorsed...that the Heritage Foundation endorsed (before they flip-flopped....a flip-flopping think tank...how about that).
H.W. Bush was no socialist.........Gingrich was no socialist......but they all endorsed the same health care program that Obama put into action.
The GOP then takes advantage of the short term memory of its support base, and then makes a whole new reality simply to try to keep their clique in power...
To that I say No!, Hell No!
I am talking about the Christian Right in and around our gvt LH.
The "Moral Majority" that's been around since the 60's revolution.
They swore to destroy the revolution back then, and have been at it ever since.
And you can be against Obama without questioning his faith or his birthright...but why do you think they question him?
From my perspective, Obama is trying to bring us back to America. The America that was swindled by the *Max Keiser voice* Kleptocracy.
This Kleptocracy will do anything and everything to stop him--such as wrap themselves in a cross and carry a flag-- just as they have tried to demolish the 60's revolution....which brought civil rights for blacks, women and immigrants!
Fight for the soul....and ownership of America!
If you don't support the troops, feel free to stand in front of them.
If you don't like it, move to Cuba.
So what you're saying is, "We don't like our present form of government anymore. We want all of you that do like the Constitution to change just because we don't like it and want Socialism instead."
No--that's what YOU are saying!
No one I know of is trying to change the constitution, or bring in socialism!
That is how YOU define it.
"No one I know of is trying to change the constitution, or bring in socialism!'
Sure there is, LMC. You voted for him. His name is Barack Hussein Obama.
I really think that is delusional, but that is just me.
Go on with your delusions and I will with mine.
"And you can be against Obama without questioning his faith or his birthright...but why do you think they question him?"
Simple, they question his right to be president because they don't believe he was born here. If he wasn't born here, we can get rid of his sorry butt. Only problem with that is we'd end up with an even bigger idiot, Biden. Man, that guy is stupid.
As to Obama's faith, he says he's not a Muslim, LMC, but he certainly sympathizes with them.
As for me, as long as Obama doesn't come at me with a sword to try to make me convert to Islam, I don't give a tinker's damn if he's Muslim or not. If it's found out he is, it wouldn't surprise and would be just one more thing he's lied about.
WHY do they believe that? WHO told them? WHO started it?
Orly Taitz, a Netanyahu operative...according to Webster Tarpley. He says Bibiguns sent Taitz the dentist/lawyer here to put Obama on defense...make him keep in line, play by Bibi's rules-- if he knows what's good for him.
Can you dis-prove that theory?
And I sympathize with muslims too....they are targeted and blamed for all the world's ills.
For the sake of this argument, if Obama is a citizen, why has he spent millions of dollars to hide his birth certificate?
How can you hide a birth certificate? The state of Hawaii has it. And the gvr is a Republican, and she verified it.
Are you saying she is part of an Obama conspiracy?
I, personally, don't care at this point, LMC. However, all you've done is throw Liberal talking points out as answers.
I just asked the question knowing I'd get exactly what I got.
The same old drivvel.... Really?
And it is this same source of "knowledge" that is deciding the constitutionality of health care reform?
The creature with its head buried in the sand is trying to tell us how bright it is outside..
The Affordable Health Care Act is Constitutional now, in the opinion of most Constitutional law scholars, but only until the conservatives on the Supreme Court declare it unconstitutional, in whole or in part, later this year.
About the President's legitimacy?
I'll let idiots play that game. This question does not exist in reality. If you want to push delusion, then my insults are only the reaction to your insulting of our intelligence.
Go join Orly Taitz and her collection of kooks....potentially to be joined by the Kochs....a real clutch of cronies and crooked agendas...
If you are going to discuss ridiculousness Longhunter, then no, there is nothing to discuss with you. Yet, I will continue to have an obligation to call out nonsense where it stands...
As I've stated here numerous times, Mike, Obama's legitimacy has not been a concern of mine. I am not a birther. LMC is the one that brought up Obama's "birthright", not I. I just ran with it.
However, I DO NOT believe he's an American in his heart. You may and you have that right but I have the right to believe as I do as well.
As for insults, LMC and I have been down that road a couple of times. We now try to keep things on the issues. If you'd like to join in, great. If you want to sling insults, perhaps you shouldn't.
Thank you for your service, Mike. If you don't mind me asking, what was your rank?
I concur Longhunter. I am glad to see a separation from Birther-Tin Foil Wrap Hat Brain Drain.
But you did write this:
"As to Obama's faith, he says he's not a Muslim, LMC, but he certainly sympathizes with them.
As for me, as long as Obama doesn't come at me with a sword to try to make me convert to Islam, I don't give a tinker's damn if he's Muslim or not. If it's found out he is, it wouldn't surprise and would be just one more thing he's lied about."
What else did he lie about?
At the same time:
1. Since many Americans are Muslims
2. Since many of our allies and trading partners are Muslims
3. Since the United States has an obligation to protect and defend its people and interests:
I would think it important for the President to care about Muslims. I am not a Muslim, but I care about them. I am not a Christian, but I care about them too. On both sides (though this is not a bi-polar issue at all..there are no real "two sides") there are nutcases and extremists who will use violence and intimidation to push their agendas.
Not being religious, and seeing organized religion as nothing more that imperialism of the soul and mindless "rah rah I'm right" flag-waving for no/little useful purpose (at least from what I see here in my corner of the U.S.), I don't want anyone's theology infecting how the government relates and works with me.
Understanding the way religion is often used by those seeking power for themselves, with groups being turned against others, yet at the same time realizing that the majority of Americans are religious to some degree, I want the same respect paid to me to be paid to them. I don't want to see their silly soul-ownership games shape the policies that will affect me, either directly or indirectly.
Obama has shown no favoritism to any religion, and has not criticized or marginalized those who don't have a religion. Nor should he.
As for Santorum and Romney, they directly reflect an attack on people like me....and people who are Muslims.....and those who could be mistaken for not fitting the "America is a Christian Nation" mold.
Those who think this way can save their policy ideas for the afterlife, in my opinion... If one is bent on post-death contemplation, one needs to stay away from positions that affect continuing life on Earth.
As for Obama's lies:
You can watch or not on your time.
Don't get me wrong, Mike. I wanted Obama to succeed. I wanted him to be a great president because I knew, if he wasn't, the idiots among us would say it was simply because he is black. How stupid.
As his administration progressed, I found that I agreed less and less with his ideology and my opinion of his ability to lead took a nose dive. Granted, a lot of that was pure BS politics from both sides but a good portion of it was the man was, IMHO, simply in over his head. With both Houses of Congress on his side and Reid and Pelosi in his pocket, the best he could do was Obamacare, a piece of legislation that was made into law under questionable circumstances and is about to be declared unconstitutional in part, if not completely thrown out.
I simply have very little faith in our government or Obama. I don't believe in the same things he does and our ideologies are a world apart.
Now, onto religion. As I've stated on HP numerous times, a person's religion or lack thereof is their business and a very personal thing. It is for me. I am a Christian. You do your thing and I'll do mine.
From reading your profile, I get the impression religion has left you wanting or disillusioned. Been there and got the T-shirt so I understand. Difference is my life's path has brought me to a place where I am now comfortable and glad to have my religion in my life. Your path is yours, mine is mine. I am not a Bible Thumper. Fair enough?
As for Islam, I have two problems with it. First a foremost, their seemingly unwillingness to police their own. They claim to be peaceful and tolerant. They even have their law called Shaira. But that peacefulness and tolerance seems to apply the strongest when their brothers in faith kill. They're peaceful, not saying a word in protest, and seem tolerant of the violence by their inaction in the name of their faith. They may not condone it but I have yet to see or hear their protests against it.
The second is the whole cutting off the infidels' heads thing. Mine ain't the best looking thing in the world but I am kinda partial to keeping it where it is.
When it comes to a president's religion, all I really want is that the person believes there's something bigger than himself and to be faithful to his/her God. While a faithful person's religion will play a part in their decision-making, they MUST realize they lead a nation of all faiths as well as those who don't believe at all. It's not a position to be taken lightly.
I don't know how many Muslims you know personally, Longhunter.
I have come to know many over the past 10 years. The stereotype, or the image of the fringe that is represented to us as the norm is not the reality. I could make the same generalization for Christians.
I am not disillusioned with religion, I have just found it to be an illusion with no purpose, at least when it comes to ideologies with a purpose focused on afterlife as opposed to actual life.
Obamacare, as it has been dubbed by its opponents (it should really be called Bush-Gingrich-Romney Care), could be better. The mandate is something that I support, however. I do agree that a special market exists that can be regulated nationally by Congress in such a way.
The Dream Act was a great piece of legislation supported by the President, and the Congress didn't pass it....otherwise that would have been another Administration success story.
In terms of immigration altogether, the Obama Administration has empowered Federal law enforcement more than his predecessors. Hard-pressed human traffickers are trying increasingly diverse ways of smuggling people in. A ship was stopped off the coast of Southern California just recently.
Regarding "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", the President's policy was correct. There is no Republican candidate who will publicly endorse anything LGBT related except exclusion and demonization. We have already seen this during the Republican Primaries.
With a second term, the Dream Act can be attempted again, and hopefully passed, and the rights of ALL Americans will be better protected. Our Constitution was envisioned as a plan to protect individual rights, but to also protect rights of groups in the minority, or in an ostracized caste (there are enough cases of a majority population being dominated by powerful minorities). This is why religion and speech are protected. This is why weapons possession and habeas corpus are so important, and why there are two senators for each state in the Union.
If there is a need to replace Obama, the extremist platform/ideology of Republican party is not a desirable alternative.
Look at this:
"Former Reagan Solicitor General Charles Fried was scaldingly critical of the willingness of the conservative bloc of Supreme Court justices to traffic in some of the most well-worn Tea Party tropes about Obamacare.
“I was appalled to see that at least a couple of them were repeating the most tendentious of the Tea Party type arguments,” Fried said. “I even heard about broccoli. The whole broccoli argument is beneath contempt. To hear it come from the bench was depressing.”
It seems juvenile to me. The gvt will force you to eat broccoli and use a cell phone?
On the SC! Great mind.....not. Juvenile. Just dancing to the strings being pulled IMO.
Otherwise...why DO you hear this argument from Rightys everywhere? Geuss they all got "the memo" Even at the highest court in the land.
lmc, I just adore dancing to strings...want to join me-would you care to dance??
Speaking of broccoli--
"Let’s start with the already famous exchange in which Justice Antonin Scalia compared the purchase of health insurance to the purchase of broccoli, with the implication that if the government can compel you to do the former, it can also compel you to do the latter. That comparison horrified health care experts all across America because health insurance is nothing like broccoli.
Why? When people choose not to buy broccoli, they don’t make broccoli unavailable to those who want it. But when people don’t buy health insurance until they get sick — which is what happens in the absence of a mandate — the resulting worsening of the risk pool makes insurance more expensive, and often unaffordable, for those who remain. As a result, unregulated health insurance basically doesn’t work, and never has."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/opini … ef=opinion
NYT Editorial "The Supreme Court's Momentous Decision'
"In ruling on the constitutionality of requiring most Americans to obtain health insurance, the Supreme Court faces a central test: whether it will recognize limits on its own authority to overturn well-founded acts of Congress.
"Are the Supreme Court justices giving due consideration to the health care law, or preparing to engage in “judicial activism” to reduce federal power?
"The skepticism in the questions from the conservative justices suggests that they have adopted the language and approach of the insurance mandate’s challengers. But the arguments against the mandate, the core of the health care reform law, willfully reject both the reality of the national health care market and established constitutional principles that have been upheld for generations.
"The Obama administration persuasively argues that the mandate is central to solving the crisis in America’s health care system, which leaves 50 million people uninsured and accounts for 17.6 percent of the national economy. The challengers contend that the law is an unlimited — and, therefore, unconstitutional — use of federal authority to force individuals to buy insurance, or pay a penalty.
"That view wrongly frames the mechanism created by this law. The insurance mandate is nothing like requiring people to buy broccoli — a comparison Justice Antonin Scalia suggested in his exasperated questioning of Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. Congress has no interest in requiring broccoli purchases because the failure to buy broccoli does not push that cost onto others in the system.
"Congress has indisputable authority to regulate national markets and provide for the general welfare through its broad power to tax. Nothing about the mandate falls outside those clearly delineated powers.
"In fact, Justice Scalia has, in the recent past, declared Congress’s broad authority under the commerce clause to regulate activities with far less direct economic impact. In a 2005 case upholding a federal law prohibiting the growing of medical marijuana for personal use, he wrote that Congress may regulate even intrastate activities “that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.”
"The skepticism of Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Scalia and Samuel Alito Jr. was also troubling because it seemed to accept an odd distinction of timing made by the opponents of the law.
"Those critics concede that the mandate would be constitutional if it went into effect at the moment an individual actually needed health care. In other words, Congress could require the sick and dying to pay for insurance or for medical services when they show up in the emergency room, but it cannot require precoverage of medical costs through insurance.
"The court has no authority under the Constitution to judge the merits or effectiveness of the health care law. That is Congress’s job.
"Yet, as Justice Stephen Breyer remarked about the points made by a lawyer for the opponents: “All that sounds like you’re debating the merits of the bill.” To counter the challengers’ claims of alarm over a novel policy, he offered several examples in American history where the court has strongly backed new solutions to major problems, like the creation of a national bank in the early 19th century.
"If the Supreme Court hews to established law, the only question it must answer in this case is modest: Did Congress have a rational basis for concluding that the economic effects of a broken health care system warranted a national solution? The answer is incontrovertibly yes."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/opini … mp;emc=rss
Not so far off. He golfed with Dickles didn't he?
Scalia: "hey Dick....try not to hit that guy this time eh?"
Cheney: "and if I do......SO?"
by Holle Abee4 years ago
According to ABC, 67% of Americans polled want to kill the law completely or kill the individual mandate. Could the law work without the mandate? Any ideas?http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 … l-mandate/
by Alexander A. Villarasa2 years ago
What does one expect of a piece of legislation that was voted on, and passed both by the Senate and Congress, signed into law by Pres. Obama, and certified by the Supreme Court as being constitutional? High...
by SparklingJewel5 years ago
This link has good information on this subject. I haven't read it all yet. It is from a conservative news site.http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.vi … eId=106694
by Holle Abee4 years ago
I like most of Obamacare, although I still have reservations about the individual mandate. On one hand, I don't like the idea of people being forced to buy a product, but on the other hand, I don't like having to help...
by Doug Hughes5 years ago
Sixth Circuit upholds ObamaCare mandate POSTED AT 1:15 PM ON JUNE 29, 2011 BY ED MORRISSEY "The decision got overlooked in all of the attention to Barack Obama’s press conference, but nonetheless this...
by Judy Specht7 months ago
I have been listening to how the government has a billion dollars for getting people to sign up for the Affordable Healthcare Act. Would that money have been better spent training more doctors and building new...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.