• 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

F107HyperSabr

DP Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
2,617
Reaction score
375
Location
Connecticut
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
CNN.com - Transcripts

CBS new reports on Katy Abram-and SEN SPECTOR
Angry Man Tells Specter: God Will Judge You - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

"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. She later appeared on Fox News, which covered the Specter event along with the other cable networks. " - KATY ABRAM told Spector.

This real nice lady told Sen. Spector that he needs to bring the country back to what the "founding fathers" had created via the Constitution.

CNN had Nice Lady Katie Abram on in this morning and they just threw soft balls at her and did not ask her what she meant by bring the country back to what the founding fathers created and not make it into a "Russia" or "Socialist". .

Now I am waiting for he transprpt from HARDBALL on MSNBC to come out becasue Nice Lady Katie was on HARDBALL a few minutes ago and she was ver very very nicely asked what she meant by country back to what the founding fathers created not make it into a "Russia" or "Socialist". .

Again Lady Katie was real nice and sweet but she did not show that she knew what she was saying to Sen. Spector or at best she was too nervous to try and explain what exactly about the Constitution she was talking about regarding health care reform.

At least Lady Katie was nice and did not scream or shout. But unfortunately she had no clue as to if or how the Contstitution could make health care reform "unconstitutional".
 
Last edited:
Perhaps she was talking about her God given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I would that's what she meant, because the healthcare bill takes away all that.
 
I hate to sound like a broken record, but it is a pet peave...please read the Breaking News rules:

II - All Opening Post threads posted in *BN* must have:

• Link to an article from a bona-fide news organization.
• Dateline within the past 48 hours.
Exact same title as the cited article.
• Quoted short excerpts from the article.

• Your own unique content to spur discussion.
 
Just an add on Lady Katie did know the words such as TARP, bailout, banks, but she just couold not explain how or if any of these things were actually unconstitutional.

She appears to be a lady, and nice, real nice!!!
 
I hate to sound like a broken record, but it is a pet peave...please read the Breaking News rules:

Hey she was on CNN this morning and I found what I could. I actually watched her on CNN between 6:00AM and 7:35:00AM this morning.

I also made comments as to what I tought about her comments.

I do not understand what you belive that I am missing!
 
At least Lady Katie was nice and did not scream or shout. But unfortunately she had no clue as to if or how the Contstitution could make health care reform "unconstitutional".

The fact that the Constition doesn't say Congress can regulate health care is what makes it unconstitutional.

Let me know when you find the words "regulate health care" in the constitution.

No, you're wrong, "general welfare" isn't it.
 
The fact that the Constition doesn't say Congress can regulate health care is what makes it unconstitutional.

Let me know when you find the words "regulate health care" in the constitution.

No, you're wrong, "general welfare" isn't it.


I wanna see the part that makes punitive taxes leagal.
 
I hate to sound like a broken record, but it is a pet peave...please read the Breaking News rules:

I found a news article from CBS and plunked it into by post. I tried the best that I could find and I made every reasonable effort to comply with the spirit and the rules for BN.
 
I wanna see the part that makes punitive taxes leagal.

Which taxes are those, the taxes on people who have jobs, or just the taxes on people who get million dollar bonuses that upset Congressthings? The Rapist President got HIS congress to pass retroactive taxes in 1993, a clear violation of the Article 1, Section 9.
 
Which taxes are those, the taxes on people who have jobs, or just the taxes on people who get million dollar bonuses that upset Congressthings? The Rapist President got HIS congress to pass retroactive taxes in 1993, a clear violation of the Article 1, Section 9.

All of it. I wanna see what legal right the government has to impose anything beyond reasonable income and sales taxes, that aren't voted on in a public election.
 
All of it. I wanna see what legal right the government has to impose anything beyond reasonable income and sales taxes, that aren't voted on in a public election.

You are aware that the Constitution provides absolutely no mechanism for public referenda, right?

The people never vote on issues.
 
The fact that the Constition doesn't say Congress can regulate health care is what makes it unconstitutional.

Let me know when you find the words "regulate health care" in the constitution.

No, you're wrong, "general welfare" isn't it.

There are many things that we do and have done since the adoption of the Constitution that were not in the Constitution but just because they were not in the Constitution that does not make them "unconstitutional".

You want to discuss why health care was not in the Constitution well I will tell you. In the 18th century health care was herbs, home mecine, and for those few who happened to live near an APOTHOCARY maybe a few chemicals that few people actually knew how or why they may have worked.

Health care was not a major undertaking ( no pun intended) so why would the founding fathers put it into the Constitution.
 
I wanna see the part that makes punitive taxes leagal.

the problem is that your term 'punitive taxes " is subjective. You would have had a leg to possibly stand upon if the Constitution had forbade taxes.

It does not forbid taxes. Some people may decide that any and all taxes are punitive. So what!! If taxes are not forbidden you can call taxes punitive, bad, socilaist, communist, nazist, what ever label you want but if they are not prohibited you lose!!
 
There are many things that we do and have done since the adoption of the Constitution that were not in the Constitution but just because they were not in the Constitution that does not make them "unconstitutional".

Actually, that's exactly what it means.

Welcome to a place where people use words correctly.

Try doing it.

You want to discuss why health care was not in the Constitution well I will tell you. In the 18th century health care was herbs, home mecine, and for those few who happened to live near an APOTHOCARY maybe a few chemicals that few people actually knew how or why they may have worked.

So you admit that they had medicine in the 18th century. that's a start.

Are you aware that the people that wrote the Constitution had access to this medical care?

Good for you.

Are you aware that not one of them expected their neighbors to pay for their own medical care?

Probably not.

Are you aware that not one of them expected to be forced to pay for anyone else's medical care?

Probably not.

Are you aware that they expected the people to pay for their own damn medical care, and if they didn't they could die, and that was that?

Well, welcome to the real world.

The nonsense of socialised medicine wasn't included in the Constitution because it's wrong.

Just in case you didn't notice Constitution has a mechanism to correct oversights the original framers made. It's called the Amendment process.

Y'all want to wreck the country by nationalizing health care? Fine, don't claim it's Constitutional until you get a friggin' amendment ratified.

Health care was not a major undertaking ( no pun intended) so why would the founding fathers put it into the Constitution.

Why would they indeed, when they were trying to craft a document to preserve liberty, not destroy it?
 
Last edited:
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. "

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.

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

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.

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.
 
You are aware that the Constitution provides absolutely no mechanism for public referenda, right?

The people never vote on issues.

However, it does say that it's a, "Government of the people, by the people and for the people". IMO, that implies public referenda.
 
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. "

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.

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

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.

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.


Ok, let's discuss Miss Kaite. She's a great American who has seen through all of the Libbos's BS. God bless her!

Believe it, or not, an American citizen doesn't have to be a constitutional scholar to call, "BS", when they see the government doing something wrong.
 
the problem is that your term 'punitive taxes " is subjective. You would have had a leg to possibly stand upon if the Constitution had forbade taxes.

It does not forbid taxes. Some people may decide that any and all taxes are punitive. So what!! If taxes are not forbidden you can call taxes punitive, bad, socilaist, communist, nazist, what ever label you want but if they are not prohibited you lose!!

No it's not. When a president promises that he's going to make the haves give to the have nots and imposes taxes to do just that, then those are punitive taxes.

The taxes that have been imposed on energy companies and on the citizenry for health care are, indeed, punitive taxes. Remember when PBO talked about all that, "economic justice"???
 
Actually, that's exactly what it means.

Welcome to a place where people use words correctly.

Try doing it.



So you admit that they had medicine in the 18th century. that's a start.

Are you aware that the people that wrote the Constitution had access to this medical care?

Good for you.

Are you aware that not one of them expected their neighbors to pay for their own medical care?

Probably not.

Are you aware that not one of them expected to be forced to pay for anyone else's medical care?

Probably not.

Are you aware that they expected the people to pay for their own damn medical care, and if they didn't they could die, and that was that?

Well, welcome to the real world.

The nonsense of socialised medicine wasn't included in the Constitution because it's wrong.

Just in case you didn't notice Constitution has a mechanism to correct oversights the original framers made. It's called the Amendment process.

Y'all want to wreck the country by nationalizing health care? Fine, don't claim it's Constitutional until you get a friggin' amendment ratified.



Why would they indeed, when they were trying to craft a document to preserve liberty, not destroy it?

No not everything was spelled out in the Constitution. It cannot be and should not be. Things, institutions, concepts that were not yet inexistence cannot be in the Constitution. Now you are corect that I am aware that there was some rudimentory form of "medicine" in the 18th century. Yet the founding fathers did not project the possibility of advances in science and technology to someday render health care to be a major portion of GDP so they did not adress it.

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

Now your opinion is "The nonsense of socialised medicine wasn't included in the Constitution because it's wrong."

No I believ that it was not in there becasue as I stated the founding fathers did not anticipate that it would be so big. That is not a crfitism of them it is just a fact.

Did the founding father even think of whether health care was a right or a privelege ? I don't think so becasue agian it was not a big deal back then.

The founding fathers di believe that men had the right to be be free. Yet they beleived or at least stated that only White men had a right to be be free. Blacks who were slaves maybe could get that privelege to be free.

Slavery was not forbidden in the Constitution by the founding fathers. Yet we rew as a people and a nation and eventually made it forbidden. Well someone who wnats to keep things that way they were when the original Constitution was written will say and have said that doing away with slavery is unconstitutioinal. Try to defend that position today!!!!
 
Ok, let's discuss Miss Kaite. She's a great American who has seen through all of the Libbos's BS. God bless her!

Believe it, or not, an American citizen doesn't have to be a constitutional scholar to call, "BS", when they see the government doing something wrong.

I hear that term "great American " used and missused by that vane fool SAUN VANNITY but he only calls someone a "great American" if he agrees with them.

I hope that you are not calling the nice Lady Katie a "great American" only because you agree with what she read.

I give her credit for using her right of free speech and she behaved like a lady not like a lot of the wacko and freaks that have yelled and insulted and lied at the townhalls.
 
However, it does say that it's a, "Government of the people, by the people and for the people". IMO, that implies public referenda.

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.
 
Last edited:
No it's not. When a president promises that he's going to make the haves give to the have nots and imposes taxes to do just that, then those are punitive taxes.

The taxes that have been imposed on energy companies and on the citizenry for health care are, indeed, punitive taxes. Remember when PBO talked about all that, "economic justice"???

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.
 
However, it does say that it's a, "Government of the people, by the people and for the people". IMO, that implies public referenda.

I tought that "Government of the people, by the people and for the people" was actually from a speech by some very famous and mostly a well respected American president and not in the Constitution.

Inspirational Quotes
"Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth."....Inspirational Quotes by Abraham Lincon.

You see this is why I have to challenge anyone who makes statements about what is in the Constitutional and what isn't. People, and myself included, do not have the entire Constitution memorized. Furthermore even if all of us had every word in the Constitution memorized that does not mean that we would all agree what every word or phrase meant.

Some of us can go around and make obnoxious or pompous statements that we are at a place were words have meanings well, whose meaning? yours, mine, or President Obama's, or maybe Timothy McVEA's ?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom