Fire Nancy Pelosi!

Dixie said:
ZOMG.. How long does this phase last? Get a hold of yourself, moron... the bill has not gone into effect yet, there are still quite a few hurdles it has to cross before the old nag is at the finish line. If it ever does see the legal light of day, there are 36 states and counting, ready to file motions of injunction against the Federal government over Constitutionality. This thing will be challenged and re-challenged until it is ultimately defeated, because it is a behemoth we can't afford. Ultimately, Democrats will get some of what they wanted, it can't all be repealed, but the vast majority of it can and will be repealed. You can act like a fool and wax philosophical about Selma, and pretend this is some great milestone achievement America has hoped and dreamed for... but the polls say you are living in LaLa Land.
Click to expand...

Those against government health care argued that nothing in the Constitution made health care a right. Now they're going to argue that the bill is unconstitutional.

Care to explain how something that's not in the Constitution can be unconstitutional?

PA's AG is one of those who is going to challenge and I'm waiting with bated breath to see how he does it.
 
TuTu Monroe said:
New poll for Nancy is 11%. :eek:
Click to expand...

Let's show the chart. Eleven per cent favorable doesn't translate to 89% unfavorable. :pke:

image6323224.gif
 
Bittermark said:
As I've said before, as long as UHC passes, I don't care if the Republicans gain 100 goddamn seats. This is now the road America has gone down, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.
Click to expand...
If Rs gained 100 seats, and an equivalent in the Senate it would be repealed with a veto-proof majority. You do care.
 
Damocles said:
The goal is to take the majority and "fire" her as Speaker. Nobody is suggesting she'll lose in her district.
Click to expand...

You have a tiny shot at majority, and teabagger whinning is not the best strategy. Fiscal conservatism and anti war would work.
 
Topspin said:
You have a tiny shot at majority, and teabagger whinning is not the best strategy. Fiscal conservatism and anti war would work.
Click to expand...
Yup. This will work with a few, but IMO the Rs best chance is to create something more like the "Contract With America" that underlines passing a strong Balanced Budget Amendment to be ratified by states, a "Sunshine Law" that makes it so this "sausage factory" politics behind closed doors ends, clarifying that support for wars will be with declarations... These things would be the majority of what got them there. While some will be motivated by "Fire Nancy" more will come for the actual fiscal conservatism and opening government.
 
Damocles said:
Yup. This will work with a few, but IMO the Rs best chance is to create something more like the "Contract With America" that underlines passing a strong Balanced Budget Amendment to be ratified by states, a "Sunshine Law" that makes it so this "sausage factory" politics behind closed doors ends, clarifying that support for wars will be with declarations... These things would be the majority of what got them there. While some will be motivated by "Fire Nancy" more will come for the actual fiscal conservatism and opening government.
Click to expand...

agreed, but the teabaggers have taken over your party. They should do what you are saying but there isn't more than trace evidence of it happening.
 
christiefan915 said:
Those against government health care argued that nothing in the Constitution made health care a right. Now they're going to argue that the bill is unconstitutional.

Care to explain how something that's not in the Constitution can be unconstitutional?

PA's AG is one of those who is going to challenge and I'm waiting with bated breath to see how he does it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
T&A said:
It would be funny if Cindy Sheehan somehow caused her to lose her seat...
Click to expand...

Cindy ran against her in '08. She got a real small number. Every time Nancy comes home the local media always talks about how 'safe' she is and the 'friendly audiences' she faces here. Baring a catostropic f' up on her part her seat is safe until she chooses to retire.

However your point is taken it would be quite funny.
 
cawacko said:
Cindy ran against her in '08. She got a real small number. Every time Nancy comes home the local media always talks about how 'safe' she is and the 'friendly audiences' she faces here. Baring a catostropic f' up on her part her seat is safe until she chooses to retire.

However your point is taken it would be quite funny.
Click to expand...

Don't even say that with a straight face! :palm:
 
Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top