• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Angry Man Tells Specter: God Will Judge You

And those people are who YOU vote in. If you're guy doesn't get in and the other guy votes on something you don't like, too bad.

oh, no, not, "too bad", as we're seeing of late. :rofl

It's obvious, that when people get enough of the stupid ****, they get out and do something about it.



again you or I or the guy in the moon may not like taxes, tax structures, tax levels, tax brackets etc but that does not make all taxes punitive. It may or may not make any taxes punitive.

What in your mind does "haves give to the have nots " mean ? That is just too oopen and nebulus of a term for me.

You're wrong. When one group is targetted with higher taxes, on the assumption that that group has gained it's wealth unjustly, the taxes then become punitive. Sorry if you don't get it.
 
I watched the Hardball interview of Katie Abram. When asked she said she had no idea how much they made or anything relative to their personal finances because her husband handled all of that. She did say that they had a high deductible plan and a HSA account with 5 grand in it.

Basically she knew nothing about the plans before congress. She evidently was unaware that Medicare is government socialized health coverage. She basically, like many people on both sides of this issue, argued from ignorance.

Here is the thing though. I have no doubt at all that if her husband was to lose his job, and thus they could no longer afford health insurance through the private sector, she would be lined up to sign her kids up for SCHIP in a heartbeat. Just like she pointed out that her parents would soon be on Medicare and she would not be advising them to not enroll even though its nothing but pure socialism.

Further sign people just do not have a clue...
Obama-Nazi Sign Made By Ill Woman On Medicare
...Diane Campbell of Kingston, N.H., held a sign with Mr. Obama's face superimposed on a Nazi storm trooper, a sign, she said, that was made by her chronically ill mother.

Her mother's hereditary autoimmune disease is treated with expensive transfusions of gamma globulin, paid for by Medicare. Her sister, Louise, was born with no arms and one leg, and is also covered by Medicare, the government-run, health-insurance program for the elderly and disabled.

"Adolf Hitler was for exterminating the weak, not just the Jews and stuff, and socialism -- that's what's going to happen."

We have become a nation of idiots. The Idiocracy of American is upon us, and we did not even know it because too many would rather watch Survivor or other fake reality TV B.S. than actually be informed.
 
I watched the Hardball interview of Katie Abram. When asked she said she had no idea how much they made or anything relative to their personal finances because her husband handled all of that. She did say that they had a high deductible plan and a HSA account with 5 grand in it.

Basically she knew nothing about the plans before congress. She evidently was unaware that Medicare is government socialized health coverage. She basically, like many people on both sides of this issue, argued from ignorance.

Here is the thing though. I have no doubt at all that if her husband was to lose his job, and thus they could no longer afford health insurance through the private sector, she would be lined up to sign her kids up for SCHIP in a heartbeat. Just like she pointed out that her parents would soon be on Medicare and she would not be advising them to not enroll even though its nothing but pure socialism.


yes yes yes you are right on target that is exactly what she said and didn't say. You are also very correct that some on both sides are arguing from ignorance. At least Ms. Lady Katie was nice about it. She did exhibit her ignorance but she is a nice ignorant lady not like a lot of those who scream.
Lady Katie does not know socialsm from veganism.
 
Last edited:
Further sign people just do not have a clue...
Obama-Nazi Sign Made By Ill Woman On Medicare


We have become a nation of idiots. The Idiocracy of American is upon us, and we did not even know it because too many would rather watch Survivor or other fake reality TV B.S. than actually be informed.

This health care debate has made me more libertarian in my beliefs than anything else in my entire life. Its not because I think that the people in our government are all evil and bent upon establishing a totalitarian state. It's because I can't stand hypocrites and I would rather my personal tax dollars go to buying crack for whores than to go to some stupid hypocrite like her.
 
oh, no, not, "too bad", as we're seeing of late. :rofl

It's obvious, that when people get enough of the stupid ****, they get out and do something about it.

You're wrong. When one group is targetted with higher taxes, on the assumption that that group has gained it's wealth unjustly, the taxes then become punitive. Sorry if you don't get it.

I am hardly wrong and I do get and I have gotten it for a lon long time. You use the phrase "gained it's wealth unjustly" . "unjustly" is a word subject to interpretation. What does that mean to you ? I know what it means to me but you used it so how are yopu using it ?
 
This health care debate has made me more libertarian in my beliefs than anything else in my entire life. Its not because I think that the people in our government are all evil and bent upon establishing a totalitarian state. It's because I can't stand hypocrites and I would rather my personal tax dollars go to buying crack for whores than to go to some stupid hypocrite like her.

I absolutely agree with you. It is also a reason why we can never have direct democracy; people are just too ignorant, ill-informed, and downright moronic.
Democracy is great and all, but it does have it's downside and this is one of them.
 
This health care debate has made me more libertarian in my beliefs than anything else in my entire life. Its not because I think that the people in our government are all evil and bent upon establishing a totalitarian state. It's because I can't stand hypocrites and I would rather my personal tax dollars go to buying crack for whores than to go to some stupid hypocrite like her.

We cannot say that she is a hypocrit per se since we do not have any other words from her except what she read at Spector and her TV appearances. I think that she is a nice lady who that that she knew something and got fired up by someone or something. It could be that her husband and her are right on the fringe of making enough money to be taxed more on the part over the treshold. Her husband may be complaining about taxes. We don't know.

I missed her Fox news appearance but I am sure that Saun Vannity made out as if she was the logic of Socrates and the eloqence of Horatio !! Of course Vannity speaks from the toilet so everything is up for him.
 
Last edited:
I did not watch the CNN bit, but did watch Hardball. Lawrence O'Donnell made some very good points, that in summary this woman is just grossly uneducated and ill informed. I have no doubt that this woman is probably even unaware of what Medicare is.

And therefore, isn't entitled to an opinion? I really hope Libbos purblically push that notion.

There was a time when slavery was legal and considered constitutional. Why, even the SCOTUS said that blacks weren't leagal citizens. It just goes to show, that something isn't neccessarily constitutional, or even right, just because a politician, or a SC justice says so.
 
I absolutely agree with you. It is also a reason why we can never have direct democracy; people are just too ignorant, ill-informed, and downright moronic.
Democracy is great and all, but it does have it's downside and this is one of them.

Too bad you live in America. Huh?
 
Let us discuss what Nice Lady Katie read to The Senator Mr. Spector: "This is about the systematic dismantling of this country…you have awakened a sleeping giant," a woman named Katy Abram said to Specter, reading from a prepared statement. "

Oh. I see. It's a sin for a person to speak from notes.

But relying almost entirely on teleprompter puppeteers is acceptable if your a Messiah.

Lady Katie read this statement and she was emotional and nice about it. She said that everyone in the room agrred with her. Now Katie Abram was on HARDBALL with the last hour and 1/2 and she was nicely asked about what she meant by this statement that she read and she could not explain herself.

So we the great forumites of DP can now speculate as to what she meant.
We can has that she meant this or that or this and that, or maybe that and this.

You can.

I'm not a mind reader, just God.

I think that she may actually believe that the government is making economic policies that she does not think it should.

That's a novel idea.

Wonder where she got that, the Constitution, hmmmmm...?

The problem is that I wonder if she really knows why. Now I am not saying that she is any more un-informed than anyone else but she did go to the townhall and read a staement that accused Sen Spector of "systematic dismantling of this country" and if she the Nice Lady says something like that they need to be ready willing and able to al least try to explain it.

By your own admission you don't know what the word "unconstitutional" means, yet you want to condemn a woman for failing to explain her meaning?

That is the flip side of free speech. It may not be a requirement of free speech but it sure as heck would go a long way to sustain your credibility.

Since when have Messiah zealots been concerned about credibility? Is this some standard they only apply to Americans and not themselves?

I do not expect Katie Abram to expound like a talking head but a hint of what and why you are saying what you are would be nice.

Some people, like Katie and the Messiah, don't think well on their feet. So what? Katie's heart is in the right place, the Messiah doesn't have one.
 
However, it does say that it's a, "Government of the people, by the people and for the people". IMO, that implies public referenda.

Well, your opinion is wrong.

The people have the right to confront their oppressors....oops, their Congressthings, and petition them for redress. They do not have any legal mechanism for national referenda. It's not in the Constitution, which shapes a republic, not a democracy.
 
No not everything was spelled out in the Constitution. It cannot be and should not be.

Yes, don't skip over the part where I educated you on the word "amendment". Do some research and learn about it.

Other than that, the Constitution limited what the Congress can do, and the Congress is not currently allowed to steal the national health care system.

Welcome to the place where words have real meaning, not your meaning.


The founding fathers also did not forbid the government from financing health care did they!!!

Yes, they did. They said that since the Constitution doesn't specifically authorize the federal government to regulate health care, that task devolves upon the individual states.

When you go to your homeroom tomorrow, ask your teacher about the Tenth Amendment, okay? You seemed to have missed that one, as well as the others.
 
Last edited:
Well, your opinion is wrong.

The people have the right to confront their oppressors....oops, their Congressthings, and petition them for redress. They do not have any legal mechanism for national referenda. It's not in the Constitution, which shapes a republic, not a democracy.

No it's not. Your's is. Your completely misinterpreting the Constituion.
 
And therefore, isn't entitled to an opinion? I really hope Libbos purblically push that notion.

There was a time when slavery was legal and considered constitutional. Why, even the SCOTUS said that blacks weren't leagal citizens. It just goes to show, that something isn't neccessarily constitutional, or even right, just because a politician, or a SC justice says so.

I have not heard anyone say that Lady Katie is not entitled to an opinion. The point is this, if you want to read a statement that accuses and Senator, a President, a government of dismantling the constitution and do it where the natiional media will be maybe you should learn or at least memorize a few facts.

She did admit that she hardly ever watched the news and was not interested in "history" . Ok there are a lot of people like that but learn a few things before you accuse someone of doing something wrong.

If she never had gome to a baseball game never watched baseball, and never played baseball or siftball should she stand up in in public forum and expound profusely about baseball ?? I hardly think so.
 
No it's not. Your's is. Your completely misinterpreting the Constituion.

Oh.

If that's the case, I'll go to Washington and eat it.

All you have to do is cite the clause in the Constitution authorizing national referenda, ie, citizens voting directly on national matters bypassing the Congress.

Good luck with that.
 
No it's not. Your's is. Your completely misinterpreting the Constituion.

Scarecrow is right on target. We have the right of redress and petition not referendum. There are states that have referendum for certain things are that varies by state. There is no formal national referendum.
 
Scarecrow is right on target. We have the right of redress and petition not referendum. There are states that have referendum for certain things are that varies by state. There is no formal national referendum.

And, the Constituion outlaws a national referendum. Right? Therefore, if Congress suggested a national referendum, it would be illegal?
 
And, the Constituion outlaws a national referendum. Right? Therefore, if Congress suggested a national referendum, it would be illegal?

It would be deemed unconstitutional.

Read Article 1 Section 8 carefully. It doesn't allow Congress to enact a national referendum.
 
And, the Constituion outlaws a national referendum. Right? Therefore, if Congress suggested a national referendum, it would be illegal?

That is not what I said and you know it. IF there is no provision for a national referendum in the Constitution and there is no prohibitation of a referendum then we can have one. REMEMBER IF IF there is no provision for a national health insurance financing in the Constitution BUT IF THERE IS NOT prohitting of it then that is legal and actually Constitutional to have a national health plan.

So since we apparently agree that the Constitution does not prohibit a referendum and does not prohibit national health plans we can have both even id we may not like one, he other or neither of tjose things.
 
Last edited:
That is not what I said and you know it. I do not recall any provision for a national referendum in the Constitution just as there is no provision for a national health insurance financing in the Constitution. Yet I did state in a post that not everything that is legal and actually Constitutional is in the Constitution.

So since we apparently agree that the Constitution does not prohibit a referendum and does not prohibit national health plans we can have both even id we may not like one, he other or neither of tjose things.

It's what Scarecrow said and you said he's right on target.
 
It would be deemed unconstitutional.

Read Article 1 Section 8 carefully. It doesn't allow Congress to enact a national referendum.

thanks crow we all who are discussing this need to read that section. And we need to interpret unless it is very specific.
 
That is not what I said and you know it. IF there is no provision for a national referendum in the Constitution and there is no prohibitation of a referendum then we can have one.

Damn that pesky Tenth Amendment.

No, we can't have one until the Constitution is amended.


REMEMBER IF IF there is no provision for a national health insurance financing in the Constitution BUT IF THERE IS NOT prohitting of it then that is legal and actually Constitutional to have a national health plan.

Damn that pesky Tenth Amendment.

No, we can't do that legally until the Constitution is amended.


So since we apparently agree that the Constitution does not prohibit a referendum and does not prohibit national health plans we can have both even id we may not like one, he other or neither of tjose things.

Okay, you can apparently agree with the guy that's wrong if you want. But I've read the Bill of Rights.
 
Back
Top Bottom