more then 44 moderate dems will vote no, and 57 liberal dems will vote no. they can't force it through. both groups from the dem caucus sent letters to speaker pelosi. saying that there isn't enough public support. looks like there more worried about mid-term elections. this is a great defeat for MR.HUSSEIN, one of many more I hope.
I am so friggin happy! This could have been the death of my livelihood.
Congratulations America we won!
Now can we do something about opening up insurance across state lines and tort reform?
with every victory, we will drive the leftist/obamaist alliance back, and retake our great nation.
Before you do that...
Can you please give me a "heads-up" and let me know how FAR back you want to take it?
Sometimes I feel like taking it back to a time when we had a Whig party. (And now that I said that, somebody will try to twist it into me wanting to re-institute slavery, which I do not want.)
Seriously it should be taken from both the Democrats and the Republicans. While I am quite libertarian myself, the Libertarian party may not be much of a choice, as too many of them seem quite fucked in the head. (Why the hell would anyone show up at a National Convention in a Star Fleet uniform?)
What we really need to do is follow the Constitution based on what it says, and not on one or another political party being able to define, or change its meaning, just because they happen to be in the right position at the right time.
Y'all confuse me.
Next year when the economy recovers and Obama starts making international head way his approval rating is going to sky rocket and the whole Healthcare thing, whether he passes it or not is going to be forgotten. Thats how it always is...
On a side note I recently cameback from a trip to the US. I last visited a couple of years ago. I have no fuckn idea what u're talkn about with this "taking our country back." Its all in you're mind driven by prejudice. Honestly grow the fuck up and visit some other countries around the world and actually see what the world is made up of. Obama is NOT taking your freedom away from you; you can still buy your 5 yer old kid a gun, you can still walk around the street dressed like you're a member of a racist group and you can still call your president whatever.
If you're gonna attack YOUR own leader that atleast provide some evidence to back up your agrument and not just some propoganda.
So freedom is when you get to keep your toys?
Nobody asked you, foreigner.
Where are you getting this information? Do you have a link?
You honestly think the economy will have recovered by next year? You want to buy some beach front property I have in Arizona?
Let me guess, lots of beach, little ocean?
If your not going to add anything intelligent to the conversation, please don't participate.
Sounds like you are the one spouting propaganda here. It is not racist to disagree with the actions of the president.
The act of calling racism whenever a person disagrees with a position is a very common, and overused tactic, to verbally beat people into submission. It is a way of not only talking around a subject, to avoid actually getting into an intelligent conversation, but also gives the person using this tactic a feeling of superiority.
Now, this is a bit off of the main topic, but it is something that interests me. I have to say that I have two problems with following the Constitution based on what it says. Number one, what exactly is the correct way to interpret it? How can we ever be 100% certain what they meant? Secondly, how do we know that is what the founders wanted?
Jefferson made it quite clear in the following statments that he didn't favor sticking to one golden set of laws that each successive generation was obligated to follow.
"A generation may bind itself as long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held and may change their laws and institutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man."
"Can one generation bind another and all others in succession forever? I think not. The Creator has made the earth for the living, not the dead. Rights and powers can only belong to persons, not to things, not to mere matter unendowed with will."
"I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self-evident: 'That the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;' that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it... We seem not to have perceived that by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independent nation to another."
"The generations of men may be considered as bodies or corporations. Each generation has the usufruct of the earth during the period of its continuance. When it ceases to exist, the usufruct passes on to the succeeding generation free and unencumbered and so on successively from one generation to another forever. We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country."
I have always contended that perhaps we should take the relevant portions that our forefathers left us but to throw out or ammend things that aren't very useful or make for difficult application. It just seems so odd and downright absurd to try to live life today utilizing doctrine written centuries before when things were much different than today.
Doesn't this binding go both ways? Binding future generations to huge government entitlements they won't be able to pay for?
Can you please name which parts of the Constitution you consider "dated?"
Absolutely! I'm just unclear as to where I said anything about being a proponent for any sort of government entitlements.