Fire Nancy Pelosi!

[Mott the Hoople]

and we are responsibly doing that now?

No were not but first we had to dig ourselves out the vast hole that witless moron Bush and his neocon cohorts put us in but at least by re-instating pay-go, allowing tax cuts for the wealthy, we can't afford at a time of war, expire and reforming a health care system that's eating up more than a 6th of our economy is putting us back into a fiscally sane track.

 

[apple0154]

The attorney general of each state is who files the law suit against the health care bill. The attorney general has nothing to do with the raising of the minimum wage that is the legislature. Not sure where you are going trying to compare those two.

I wrote, "The people who contribute, either on or under the table, to political folks are usually business owners and the poorer the general population is the greater the chance of getting employees who work and shut their mouth."


Attorneys General are elected. Who is donating funds to their election? Not the guy making minimum wage with no health coverage. The people who financed the Attorney General's campaign, in other words business people, do not want to have to cover their employees medical plan. The same people who would naturally be against raising the minimum wage. That was the connection I was making.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Huh?

Keeping the citizens healthy has to be a benefit to the States. How can it not be?

Huh? What do you mean, Huh? The Constitution of the United States was never written or intended to give the Federal government ANY control over your personal life! When it enumerates powers to the Federal government, it does so in context of Federal government pertaining to individual states, not individual people. IF this were not the case, there would be absolutely no need for States. What would the purpose be, if the Federal government were charged with providing for our individual welfare?

Yes, keeping people healthy does benefit the states, that is how we ended up with the CDC in Atlanta, the USDA and the FDA. All of these examples are 'general welfare' provided to the states, not the individual. The same can be said for the interstate highway system, it is provided for the states, not the individual... if it were, the feds would have to build an exit ramp into everyone's driveway. The interstate is there for the state, some individuals use it, some don't, it benefits some individuals but not all, however, it benefits the state to have an interstate highway, therefore, adheres to the "general welfare" clause.

Now, let's discuss "keeping people healthy" for a bit... IS that what you expect this current bill to do? Because, from what I have seen and read, it will simply not keep people healthy or make them any healthier than they presently are. It will result in higher costs to consumers, less availability because of the strain on the system, and if the VA and health clinics are any example, a considerable decline in quality of care as well... so the idea that this will "keep people healthy" is questionable at best. Then we get into, what is "healthy" ....does it mean the same thing to all of us universally? What if I am opposed to traditional medicine, and prefer to stay healthy through natural means? Why should I be forced to by insurance for medical coverage I never intend to use? So we get into a little tricky area trying to define a "one-size-fits-all" solution here, individuals are all different, they have different needs and desires, and different criteria for what "healthy" is, or what is required to achieve good health.

Perhaps that is precisely why the Constitution doesn't mandate the Federal government administer our health care? Perhaps that is why the Constitution enumerates specific limited powers to the government, and delegates all other powers to the people and states?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I was just being a smart ass. PiMP's comment was asinine.

lol.....you call me asinine and you have the balls to post this?....

The track record and the mountains of evidence that have proven the efficacy of these reforms are so self evidently apparent that only the blindest of partisans or a person completely and totally clueless about the complexity of health care reform could make what can only generously be called a staggeringly ignorant comment.

mountains of evidence showing what just passed is "efficient".....you worthless excuse for a debater, you don't even know what the reforms are yet let alone know what their impact is going to be, don't pretend you have "mountains of evidence" about their efficiency......

since you've made that statement despite a complete lack of ANY evidence to back you up, how is it that we are ideologically driven and you are not?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

No were not but first we had to dig ourselves out the vast hole that witless moron Bush and his neocon cohorts put us in but at least by re-instating pay-go, allowing tax cuts for the wealthy, we can't afford at a time of war, expire and reforming a health care system that's eating up more than a 6th of our economy is putting us back into a fiscally sane track.

have you been living somewhere that utilizes pay-go?........we could have used a place like that Sunday when they passed the health care bill.....

 

[KingCondanomation]

General welfare. What constitutes a person's general welfare? When you ask someone how they're doing are you asking how much money they made last week? If they exercised their right to free speech? If they went to church on Sunday?

Promoting the health of the nation is promoting the general welfare. Nothing is more important than a person's health. By what twisted logic could anyone conclude otherwise?

You need to back up a step.
It explcitly says "provide the common defense" and "promote the general welfare". A good example of promoting the general welfare is like the surgeon general issuing warnings. If the founders wanted government to provide the general welfare (ie: provide healthcare or insurance), they would have explictly used the word provide like they did for defense.

"I believe the states can best govern our home concerns and the federal government our foreign ones." – Thomas Jefferson

 

[apple0154]

The Constitution of the United States was never written or intended to give the Federal government ANY control over your personal life! When it enumerates powers to the Federal government, it does so in context of Federal government pertaining to individual states, not individual people.

Let's start at the beginning.

(Excerpt)The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the fundamental purposes and guiding principles that the Constitution is meant to serve. In general terms it states, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped it would achieve. (End)

That seems straight forward enough. "the fundamental purposes and guiding principles"

Fundamental: serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis;

Guiding: to supply (a person) with advice or counsel, as in practical or spiritual affairs.

The essential purpose and advice/counsel. The essential purpose of something is usually specific, it's spelled out. Guiding is more general such as advice and counsel.

Now let's stake a look at what follows.

(Excerpt)We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (End)

"Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

Posterity: all descendants of one person:

Do states have posterity? Do States have descendants?

"Ourselves and our posterity." That is not in the context of States. That is in the context of individual human beings.

"Promote the general welfare and the blessings of liberty." Do you think the government is "promoting the general welfare and the blessings of liberty" on a person suffering from COPD who is neither able to afford the proper medication nor leave their house? And what would be the "general welfare and the blessings of liberty" enjoyed by his posterity when he can't work and properly feed and clothe his children?

The Constitution was written for the PEOPLE.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Huh? What do you mean, Huh? The Constitution of the United States was never written or intended to give the Federal government ANY control over your personal life! When it enumerates powers to the Federal government, it does so in context of Federal government pertaining to individual states, not individual people. IF this were not the case, there would be absolutely no need for States. What would the purpose be, if the Federal government were charged with providing for our individual welfare?

Yes, keeping people healthy does benefit the states, that is how we ended up with the CDC in Atlanta, the USDA and the FDA. All of these examples are 'general welfare' provided to the states, not the individual. The same can be said for the interstate highway system, it is provided for the states, not the individual... if it were, the feds would have to build an exit ramp into everyone's driveway. The interstate is there for the state, some individuals use it, some don't, it benefits some individuals but not all, however, it benefits the state to have an interstate highway, therefore, adheres to the "general welfare" clause.

Now, let's discuss "keeping people healthy" for a bit... IS that what you expect this current bill to do? Because, from what I have seen and read, it will simply not keep people healthy or make them any healthier than they presently are. It will result in higher costs to consumers, less availability because of the strain on the system, and if the VA and health clinics are any example, a considerable decline in quality of care as well... so the idea that this will "keep people healthy" is questionable at best. Then we get into, what is "healthy" ....does it mean the same thing to all of us universally? What if I am opposed to traditional medicine, and prefer to stay healthy through natural means? Why should I be forced to by insurance for medical coverage I never intend to use? So we get into a little tricky area trying to define a "one-size-fits-all" solution here, individuals are all different, they have different needs and desires, and different criteria for what "healthy" is, or what is required to achieve good health.

Perhaps that is precisely why the Constitution doesn't mandate the Federal government administer our health care? Perhaps that is why the Constitution enumerates specific limited powers to the government, and delegates all other powers to the people and states?

 

[christiefan915]

What a lame-brained thing to say... If it's not in the constitution, how can it be unconstitutional.... DUH! Because it is NOT IN the constitution! That's how! MORON!

If you ever bothered to read it (which I know you haven't), the Constitution clearly enumerates certain specific powers to the Federal government, then it says, all other power resides with the states and the people. It simply doesn't say the Federal government can have power over your health care. Being that it doesn't enumerate that power to the Federal government, it is reserved for the states, and states DO regulate insurance.

This is a broad overreach of Federal power, and it is unprecedented and unconstitutional. Hopefully the SCOTUS will rule the same.

LOL, good ole Dixie, ever the charmer. </sarcasm>

FYI I've studied the Constitution, read numerous SC cases and don't agree with every decision they've ever made. I think Kelo v. City of New London was a judicial abortion and it was decided by a liberal majority so my opinion on the health care legislation isn't driven by partisan politics. I disagree with your assessment of overreach. Here is an opinion by a lawyer that spells out why I think any challenge to the law will fail.

Is it unconstitutional to mandate health insurance? It seems unprecedented to require citizens to purchase insurance simply because they live in the U.S. (rather than as a condition of driving a car or owning a business, for instance). Therefore, several credentialed, conservative lawyers think that compulsory health insurance is unconstitutional. See here and here and here. Their reasoning is unconvincing and deeply flawed. Since I’m writing in part for a non-legal audience, I’ll start with some basics and provide a lay explanation. (Go here for a fuller account).

Constitutional attacks fall into two basic categories: (1) lack of federal power (Congress simply lacks any power to do this under the main body of the Constitution); and (2) violation of individual rights protected by the “Bill of Rights.” Considering (1), Congress has ample power and precedent through the Constitution’s “Commerce Clause” to regulate just about any aspect of the national economy. Health insurance is quintessentially an economic good. The only possible objection is that mandating its purchase is not the same as “regulating” its purchase, but a mandate is just a stronger form of regulation. When Congressional power exists, nothing in law says that stronger actions are less supported than weaker ones.

An insurance mandate would be enforced through income tax laws, so even if a simple mandate were not a valid “regulation,” it still could fall easily within Congress’s plenary power to tax or not tax income. For instance, anyone purchasing insurance could be given an income tax credit, and those not purchasing could be assessed an income tax penalty. The only possible constitutional restriction is an archaic provision saying that if Congress imposes anything that amounts to a “head tax” or “poll tax” (that is, taxing people simply as people rather than taxing their income), then it must do so uniformly (that is, the same amount per person). This technical restriction is easily avoided by using income tax laws. Purists complain that taxes should be proportional to actual income and should not be used mainly to regulate economic behavior, but our tax code, for better or worse, is riddled with such regulatory provisions and so they are clearly constitutional.

Arguments about federal authority deal mainly with states’ rights and sovereign power, but the real basis for opposition is motivated more by sentiments about individual rights - the notion that government should not use its recognized authority to tell people how to spend their money. This notion of economic liberty had much greater traction in a prior era, but it has little basis in modern constitutional law. Eighty years ago, the Supreme Court used the concept of “substantive due process” to protect individual economic liberties, but the Court has thoroughly and repeatedly repudiated this body of law since the 1930s. Today, even Justice Scalia regards substantive due process as an “oxymoron.”

Under both liberal and conservative jurisprudence, the Constitution protects individual autonomy strongly only when “fundamental rights” are involved. There may be fundamental rights to decide about medical treatments, but having insurance does not require anyone to undergo treatment. It only requires them to have a means to pay for any treatment they might choose to receive. The liberty in question is purely economic and has none of the strong elements of personal or bodily integrity that invoke Constitutional protection. In short, there is no fundamental right to be uninsured, and so various arguments based on the Bill of Rights fall flat. The closest plausible argument is one based on a federal statute protecting religious liberty, but Congress is Constitutionally free to override one statute with another.

If Constitutional concerns still remain, the simplest fix (ironically) would be simply to enact social insurance (as we currently do for Medicare and social security retirement) but allow people to opt out if they purchase private insurance. Politically, of course, this is not in the cards, but the fact that social insurance faces none of the alleged Constitutional infirmities of mandating private insurance points to this basic realization: Congress is on solid Constitutional ground in expanding health insurance coverage in essentially any fashion that is politically and socially feasible.

http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/th...nstitutional-to-mandate-health-insurance.html

 

[KingCondanomation]

Let's start at the beginning.

(Excerpt)The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the fundamental purposes and guiding principles that the Constitution is meant to serve. In general terms it states, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped it would achieve. (End)

That seems straight forward enough. "the fundamental purposes and guiding principles"

Fundamental: serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis;

Guiding: to supply (a person) with advice or counsel, as in practical or spiritual affairs.

The essential purpose and advice/counsel. The essential purpose of something is usually specific, it's spelled out. Guiding is more general such as advice and counsel.

Now let's stake a look at what follows.

(Excerpt)We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (End)

"Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

Posterity: all descendants of one person:

Do states have posterity? Do States have descendants?

"Ourselves and our posterity." That is not in the context of States. That is in the context of individual human beings.

"Promote the general welfare and the blessings of liberty." Do you think the government is "promoting the general welfare and the blessings of liberty" on a person suffering from COPD who is neither able to afford the proper medication nor leave their house? And what would be the "general welfare and the blessings of liberty" enjoyed by his posterity when he can't work and properly feed and clothe his children?

The Constitution was written for the PEOPLE.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

You need to back up a step.
It explcitly says "provide for the common defense" and "promote the general welfare". A good example of promoting the general welfare is like the surgeon general issuing warnings. If the founders wanted government to provide the general welfare (ie: provide healthcare or insurance), they would have explictly used the word provide like they did for defense.

"I believe the states can best govern our home concerns and the federal government our foreign ones." – Thomas Jefferson

 

[apple0154]

You need to back up a step.
It explcitly says "provide the common defense" and "promote the general welfare". A good example of promoting the general welfare is like the surgeon general issuing warnings. If the founders wanted government to provide the general welfare (ie: provide healthcare or insurance), they would have explictly used the word provide like they did for defense.

"I believe the states can best govern our home concerns and the federal government our foreign ones." – Thomas Jefferson

Good point but let's take a closer look. Promote, as in having one insurance company/policy for all. That does not mean the government is paying for it. It can be privately run with government oversight.

The government would not be providing medical services. It would be promoting the efficient operation of medical care.

As others have noted we have the Food and Drug Administration. That does not mean the government is providing food and drugs but it does mean those who are have to abide by certain guidelines which seems to be what the government is going to do with medical insurance.

The government is not supplying medical services but they are setting down guidelines.

If we want to differentiate between "provide" and "promote" the government can promote universal medical. If the people want universal medical and want the government to oversee the program is there a law against that? Is there a law which prohibits the people's wish from being enacted?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

lol.....you call me asinine and you have the balls to post this?....



mountains of evidence showing what just passed is "efficient".....you worthless excuse for a debater, you don't even know what the reforms are yet let alone know what their impact is going to be, don't pretend you have "mountains of evidence" about their efficiency......

since you've made that statement despite a complete lack of ANY evidence to back you up, how is it that we are ideologically driven and you are not?

You're as ignorant on this topic as you are biology. There are more than 15 other developed nations who've gone way farther than this in reforming their health care system and not one of them, not one single one of them, spends even close to what we do. Only one, France, spends more than half of what the US does.

I mean you are beyond uninformed on this topic, you are beyond not know what the fuck you are talking about. As in biology you are PROFOUNDLY IGNORANT.

Oh. I'm sorry. I forgot. In your little right wing world the United States exist in a bubble and we have 200 foot high walls completely surrounding our borders and that no information, knowledge or data from the outside world could ever possibly be relevent to us. What a collosal nit wit.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

You're as ignorant on this topic as you are biology. There are more than 15 other developed nations who've gone way farther than this in reforming their health care system and not one of them, not one single one of them, spends even close to what we do. Only one, France, spends more than half of what the US does.

I mean you are beyond uninformed on this topic, you are beyond not know what the fuck you are talking about. As in biology you are PROFOUNDLY IGNORANT.

Oh. I'm sorry. I forgot. In your little right wing world the United States exist in a bubble and we have 200 foot high walls completely surrounding our borders and that no information, knowledge or data from the outside world could ever possibly be relevent to us. What a collosal nit wit.

/yawn....you know nothing, you say nothing, you prove nothing....

 

[zappasguitar]

Then why are many states suing over it?

Because there are that many partisan Governors and they refuse to listen to Washington unless there is a guy with an R after his name in the White House.

 

[zappasguitar]

Frankly, the "drown the government in a bathtub" strategy was bound to fail. It got ya'll a few quick electoral points, but now you guys are paying the price. Medicare, medicaid, SS, and the defense budget make up more than 80% of the budget. If you aren't serious about cutting any of that, you aren't serious about reducing taxes. Only increasing the deficit. Just face it. The Republican motto is dead. The knowledge from the internet has made us realize your fraud, the fraud that you could bring something from nothing.

Well said!

 

[Taichiliberal]

LOL, good ole Dixie, ever the charmer. </sarcasm>

FYI I've studied the Constitution, read numerous SC cases and don't agree with every decision they've ever made. I think Kelo v. City of New London was a judicial abortion and it was decided by a liberal majority so my opinion on the health care legislation isn't driven by partisan politics. I disagree with your assessment of overreach. Here is an opinion by a lawyer that spells out why I think any challenge to the law will fail.

Is it unconstitutional to mandate health insurance? It seems unprecedented to require citizens to purchase insurance simply because they live in the U.S. (rather than as a condition of driving a car or owning a business, for instance). Therefore, several credentialed, conservative lawyers think that compulsory health insurance is unconstitutional. See here and here and here. Their reasoning is unconvincing and deeply flawed. Since I’m writing in part for a non-legal audience, I’ll start with some basics and provide a lay explanation. (Go here for a fuller account).

Constitutional attacks fall into two basic categories: (1) lack of federal power (Congress simply lacks any power to do this under the main body of the Constitution); and (2) violation of individual rights protected by the “Bill of Rights.” Considering (1), Congress has ample power and precedent through the Constitution’s “Commerce Clause” to regulate just about any aspect of the national economy. Health insurance is quintessentially an economic good. The only possible objection is that mandating its purchase is not the same as “regulating” its purchase, but a mandate is just a stronger form of regulation. When Congressional power exists, nothing in law says that stronger actions are less supported than weaker ones.

An insurance mandate would be enforced through income tax laws, so even if a simple mandate were not a valid “regulation,” it still could fall easily within Congress’s plenary power to tax or not tax income. For instance, anyone purchasing insurance could be given an income tax credit, and those not purchasing could be assessed an income tax penalty. The only possible constitutional restriction is an archaic provision saying that if Congress imposes anything that amounts to a “head tax” or “poll tax” (that is, taxing people simply as people rather than taxing their income), then it must do so uniformly (that is, the same amount per person). This technical restriction is easily avoided by using income tax laws. Purists complain that taxes should be proportional to actual income and should not be used mainly to regulate economic behavior, but our tax code, for better or worse, is riddled with such regulatory provisions and so they are clearly constitutional.

Arguments about federal authority deal mainly with states’ rights and sovereign power, but the real basis for opposition is motivated more by sentiments about individual rights - the notion that government should not use its recognized authority to tell people how to spend their money. This notion of economic liberty had much greater traction in a prior era, but it has little basis in modern constitutional law. Eighty years ago, the Supreme Court used the concept of “substantive due process” to protect individual economic liberties, but the Court has thoroughly and repeatedly repudiated this body of law since the 1930s. Today, even Justice Scalia regards substantive due process as an “oxymoron.”

Under both liberal and conservative jurisprudence, the Constitution protects individual autonomy strongly only when “fundamental rights” are involved. There may be fundamental rights to decide about medical treatments, but having insurance does not require anyone to undergo treatment. It only requires them to have a means to pay for any treatment they might choose to receive. The liberty in question is purely economic and has none of the strong elements of personal or bodily integrity that invoke Constitutional protection. In short, there is no fundamental right to be uninsured, and so various arguments based on the Bill of Rights fall flat. The closest plausible argument is one based on a federal statute protecting religious liberty, but Congress is Constitutionally free to override one statute with another.

If Constitutional concerns still remain, the simplest fix (ironically) would be simply to enact social insurance (as we currently do for Medicare and social security retirement) but allow people to opt out if they purchase private insurance. Politically, of course, this is not in the cards, but the fact that social insurance faces none of the alleged Constitutional infirmities of mandating private insurance points to this basic realization: Congress is on solid Constitutional ground in expanding health insurance coverage in essentially any fashion that is politically and socially feasible.

http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/th...nstitutional-to-mandate-health-insurance.html

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Typical Dixie bullhorn....loud, long and saying NOTHING.

Just to clue you in, toodles....like murder there is NO statute of limitation on the crime of TREASON! Got that bunky? And it's UNLAWFUL to hold "secret" meetings regarding public policy when NO information on that meeting is made public. And since old Dead Eye Dick was running around carrying on to defend his "legacy" and denounce Obama, I think it fair that he should finally offer some clarity to the American people. I mean, you want to burn Pelosi at the stake for LEGALLY KICKING THE ASS OF THE NEOCON NOISE MACHINE, so it's only fair that I want some justice for Darth Cheney's chicanery.

As for this laughable foot stomping about Pelosi.....good luck with that one. Let me know how it works out for you.

I think you can shit in one hand and wish in the other and see which one fills up quicker. You are beyond delusional if you think this (or any) Congress is going to launch some sort of investigation in what Cheney did or didn't do as VP in 2006. It has as much chance of happening as an indictment against Bill Clinton, which also "could" happen, in a delusional person's world.

Newsflash, my intellectually stunted confederate fraud....the neocons already got their "indictment" against Slick Willy in the form of an article of impeachment (for lying to Congress about infidelity...a legal precedent if ever there was one!). Sad thing is, after all that the Slickster left with a better approval rating than the Shrub averaged for 8 years! All I'm saying is that if you dopes want to wail to the moon about Pelosi on some trumped up BS, I can wax nostaligic for a justice system that will hold little fascist shits like Cheney accountable on more concrete evidence.

Listen pinhead, I know you are feeling all cocky and arrogant today, on the heels of what you perceive to be a big win for your party, but trust me... you are in more trouble than you know. Rather than wishfully thinking about what you'd like to see happen to Dick Cheney, you best be concerned with how your party is going to hold power in November, because it is looking like it may be a bloodbath come November.

Whooo, struck a nerve! What's the matter bunky...having a hissy fit because I called out the POS Cheney who was running around talking smack about Obama and blowing smoke about his "legacy" with the Shrub? TFB...stop pissing your pants and DEAL with the issues I put forth.

Once the Republicans take back over, let me assure you, the LAST person they will be interested in investigating is Dick Cheney... although, they might be interested in launching an investigation into the shady Chicago-thug-style politics of this administration.

Wow...all the same neocon radio punditry talking points and wishful thinking spewed out in one paragraph...

Like... why did the president of the SEIU, Andy Stern, meet with Obama 22 times between inauguration day and July 31... what could possibly be so important that one man occupies that much of the president's time? I think the American people need to know what was discussed, what was the purpose of these meetings, and what kind of under-the-table dealings went on, in the lead up to socialized health care. Yeah, I think those 22 meetings trump Cheney's ONE meeting, and I think when Republicans take back power in November, we will have to investigate that, along with other things... Vann Jones... connections to ACORN... stuff like that. But NOT Dick Cheney, sorry!

Once again, you bray about only what your willfull ignorance allows. PAY ATTENTION: Stern was appointed to the bipartisan deficit reduction commission. He's the only labor rep there. So 22 previous meetings were the vetting process...capice?

http://mediamatters.org/research/201003010025

Again, you want Pelosi's scalp for whupping neocon ass fair and square? I want Cheney to cough up those secret energy policy meeting names and tell us just how secret documents got into Libby's hands in the first place. Fair is fair!

 

[Taichiliberal]

Frankly, the "drown the government in a bathtub" strategy was bound to fail. It got ya'll a few quick electoral points, but now you guys are paying the price. Medicare, medicaid, SS, and the defense budget make up more than 80% of the budget. If you aren't serious about cutting any of that, you aren't serious about reducing taxes. Only increasing the deficit. Just face it. The Republican motto is dead. The knowledge from the internet has made us realize your fraud, the fraud that you could bring something from nothing.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So 22 previous meetings were the vetting process...capice?

You mean, after Van Jones, they started actually "vetting" people? Wow... 22 meetings? That seems a bit much for a sub-cabinet-level position, doesn't it?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I want Cheney to cough up those secret energy policy meeting names and tell us just how secret documents got into Libby's hands in the first place. Fair is fair!

Sure thing! As soon as we get the 460,000 Freedom of Information Act requests granted, from this "Most Transparent" administration, we'll be glad to cooperate in fairness!

 

[christiefan915]

Sure thing! As soon as we get the 460,000 Freedom of Information Act requests granted, from this "Most Transparent" administration, we'll be glad to cooperate in fairness!

Sorry, no dice. After we get the sealed records from the reagan & bush 41 administrations, and the 5-plus million missing emails from the last, most secretive administration in history, then we'll talk.