• 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

hey screcrow I just read Section 8 - Powers of Congress and there is nothing there either allowing nor prohitinging referendums. In fcat there is no mention of referendums.

Do you have a copy you can splash here ?

BUT LOOK AT THIS "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

DAMN we gave them the right to impose those punitive taxes !!! lol sorry that is for APTDS nad I am just teasing
 
Last edited:
Gee, that's not what it says.

I said it doesn't allow a national referendum.

If you wish to refute that, cite the clause that permits it.

Refresh your memory of the Tenth Amendment, while you're at it.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The ability to create public referenda is not delegated to the Congress, hence Congress can't do it.
 
oh I can find it and did biut there is no referndum in that section or article

Right.

That means it's not a power Congress has.

Did you see the words "steal the nation's health care industry" in Article 1, Section 8?

No?

That means Congress doesn't have that power, either.
 
No it's not. Your's is. Your completely misinterpreting the Constituion.

The constitution basically does 2 things:

1. It restricts the powers of government. For example, you are not granted the right of freedom of expression by constitution, but rather the government is restricted from restricting your right to freedom of expression.

2. It protects the individual from a tyranny of the majority. Basically, the constitution weighs your negative rights over your positive rights. You have positive rights such as the right to vote, petition your government and so on. However, they only go so far as to not impede the negative rights of others. Such as their right to privacy. Their property rights and so on.

A national referendum is essentially a tyranny of the majority.
 
look guys article iv section 4 says that we can only have a ' Section 4 - Republican government "

That means that Obama AND THE DEMOCRATS have to go home - Chicago you birthers come on not Niarobe !!!

OH NO that means that Igloo Girl is now the Veep but Mccain will make a good president !!

darn this Constitutin thing it does get in the way of political fun !!

LOL !!!
 
Right.

That means it's not a power Congress has.

Did you see the words "steal the nation's health care industry" in Article 1, Section 8?

No?

That means Congress doesn't have that power, either.

no but did you see ' Thou Shalt Not Have a NATIONAL health Care system" ? No, well thats is why we got Medicare HA HA !!!

YUP we all can play the game and have some fun!!
 
Right.

That means it's not a power Congress has.

Did you see the words "steal the nation's health care industry" in Article 1, Section 8?

No?

That means Congress doesn't have that power, either.

BTW I have worked in insurance for over 30 years and switched from property CAUSUALTY to Health Care since 1992 so if the national HC comes about and the private companies do not get the contracts to administrate it I will either go work for the government or go back to property causualty.

I am now self employed but I live off major insurers since I perform audits for them so I will have to become a government whore to survive and hope I can get a gov contract.

So from a personal basis I can lose big time. I see the initial stages of this going as a hybrid of government and private sectors. What will happen in 20 years who really knows. Who in 1945 thought that in the late 1960's we would have medicare!! Mybe some but who believed that it would really happen. I recall in the early sixties people tring to argue that Medicare is "unconstitutional". They lost right !!!!

So it's either be a government whore or a private sector whore. The private sector at least has less written rules but the big fish still eat the small fish and the smller and so on. The government is the shark !!!
 
BTW I have worked in insurance for over 30 years and switched from property CAUSUALTY to Health Care since 1992 so if the national HC comes about and the private companies do not get the contracts to administrate it I will either go work for the government or go back to property causualty.

I am now self employed but I live off major insurers since I perform audits for them so I will have to become a government whore to survive and hope I can get a gov contract.

So from a personal basis I can lose big time. I see the initial stages of this going as a hybrid of government and private sectors. What will happen in 20 years who really knows. Who in 1945 thought that in the late 1960's we would have medicare!! Mybe some but who believed that it would really happen. I recall in the early sixties people tring to argue that Medicare is "unconstitutional". They lost right !!!!

So it's either be a government whore or a private sector whore. The private sector at least has less written rules but the big fish still eat the small fish and the smller and so on. The government is the shark !!!

Since you have worked in life and health insurance for years I would be interested what your thoughts are as to what should be done to reform our health care / health insurance system. Maybe if you could start another thread on this and lay out what you think is wrong now and what should be done. I am interested in your opinion on it as you obviously would know a lot about it.
 
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.

I was referring to the hypocrite in the article sam_w posted that was on Medicare and railing against socialism.
 
no but did you see ' Thou Shalt Not Have a NATIONAL health Care system" ? No, well thats is why we got Medicare HA HA !!!

YUP we all can play the game and have some fun!!

Yes, I can play the game, because I can read the Tenth Amendment.

You can't read the Tenth Amendment, so you're losing the game.
 
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".
You're not an independent, so why the phoney label?
 
You're not an independent, so why the phoney label?

You want to play that game? Tell you what, why don't you go police all the right wingnuts here that use Independent, Moderate, and Centrist? Well? Put your money where your mouth is, otherwise STFU.
 
You're not an independent, so why the phoney label?

He's probably an Independent for the same reason that others in this thread label themselves as such, because they view themselves as Independents. I've noticed a number of those who label themselves as Independents on this messageboard strongly support conservative positions, too. And someone's label doesn't always mean they support every single agenda consistent with the associated ideology. This board has many liberals who support some conservative positions, and vice versa.
 
Last edited:
He's probably an Independent for the same reason many others in this thread label themselves as such, because they view themselves as Independents. I've noticed a number of those who label themselves as Independents on this messageboard strongly support conservative positions, too. And someone's label doesn't always mean they support every single agenda consistent with the associated ideology. This board has many liberals who support some conservative positions, and vice versa.
Around here the conservatives are labeled conservative, and sometimes libertarian, but very seldom anything else. Most of those are closet liberals.
 
Around here the conservatives are labeled conservative, and sometimes libertarian, but very seldom anything else. Most of those are closet liberals.

I think you'd have a difficult time persuading those who seem to lean strongly to the right on many issues with the label 'Independent' that they are, in fact, closet liberals. But good luck to you in that endeavor!
 
Last edited:
Around here the conservatives are labeled conservative, and sometimes libertarian, but very seldom anything else. Most of those are closet liberals.

I don't agree. I do not wear a conservative label because I don't want to be identified with the rabid self proclaimed "conservatives" who are nothing more than neocon or Republican lap dogs.

I lean left or right depending on the issue which is why I wear moderate, but make no mistake, I am a social conservative for the most part.
 
Last edited:
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.

We understand, BUT the title of the thread must MATCH the title of the article you are discussing. It's clear you created your own title since you misspelled Katy's first name. ;)
 
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".

Saw the interview on MSNBC and this woman was revealed as someone of below average intelligence and education taken in by Right-Wing hyperbole and talking points.

She really had no clue what she was talking about. She didn't really understand how medicare works or other publicly funded safety nets.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_09xPF_9UjM&feature=related"]YouTube - "Hardball": Katy Abram Told Medicare Is "Successful Socialism"[/ame]

Watching it again -- this woman has no clue how Government works and how good she has it. She doesn't even know how much her family makes.

She is the winner of the STFU award this week.
 
Saw the interview on MSNBC and this woman was revealed as someone of below average intelligence and education taken in by Right-Wing hyperbole and talking points.

She really had no clue what she was talking about. She didn't really understand how medicare works or other publicly funded safety nets.

Watching it again -- this woman has no clue how Government works and how good she has it. She doesn't even know how much her family makes.

She is the winner of the STFU award this week.

Hey Hazlnut,
You both have a right to your opinion and you don't have to agree. There is NO REASON to get nasty.
I was at that town hall meeting and it was on the most part civil. I also watch this lady getting ambush by the media.
Her point is this nation was founded on principles that are being violated by our government. Her call is a call for GOVERNMENT REFORM. She is making a call to return to our founding principles and the US Constitution.
Her point is valid. Any law that cannot be placed within the Constitution is without merit. Our government has NO AUTHORITY to pass this sweeping legislation.
Where Article 1 section 8 has “…and general Welfare of the United States;” does not include health care. The reason is that the proposed bill if made law VIOLATES states’ rights and individuals’ rights to make it happen.
Social Security, Medicare, Welfare and Medicaid WILL FAIL. They are unsustainable. They are not successful they should be on the chopping block of history.
Socialism breads tyranny. That is what happened in the USSR and in NAZI Germany. The progressive movement gave birth to both and is trying to separate from its children.
You cannot logically deny the facts. Maybe you could call me some names and give me the STFU award. If given the chance I would like to ask one of my Senators about this RAPING of our founding principles and how they intend to return us to them.
None have the courage.
 
Hey Hazlnut,
You both have a right to your opinion and you don't have to agree. There is NO REASON to get nasty.
I was at that town hall meeting and it was on the most part civil. I also watch this lady getting ambush by the media.

It's not about getting nasty -- but when someone says something like her 'dismantling of the country' statement -- I want to know what she means. The same questions asked by MSNBC (and only them so far) came to mind. WTF are you talking about, lady?

The MSNBC interviewer really took pity on her when he saw that she had no real understanding of the what the health care reform bill was attempting to do and could only repeat back a string of right-wing talking points. She was not a very well-informed person and if he had hammered on her any more, then he would have come off as a bully.

I am not a fan or regular watcher of MSNBC, but CNN and FOX have both been giving air time to these average people with opinions on the health care bill. The majority of these opinions are based on gross misinformation. How does that help the debate? How does get other people better informed about the bill's pros and cons?

Real experts on health care policy and economics are given a measly half-hour segment on Sunday morning or on C-Span. They have raised legitimate issues with the bill and are able to intelligently discuss and communicate the complicated formulas and policies. I watch these shows. Mrs. Abrams doesn't know they exist.

Her point is this nation was founded on principles that are being violated by our government.

How so? She was completely unable to articulate her position with any real examples. She revealed herself as someone who really doesn't understand many basic concepts of public policy and government in our country.


Her call is a call for GOVERNMENT REFORM. She is making a call to return to our founding principles and the US Constitution.
Her point is valid. Any law that cannot be placed within the Constitution is without merit. Our government has NO AUTHORITY to pass this sweeping legislation.
Where Article 1 section 8 has “…and general Welfare of the United States;” does not include health care. The reason is that the proposed bill if made law VIOLATES states’ rights and individuals’ rights to make it happen.
Social Security, Medicare, Welfare and Medicaid WILL FAIL. They are unsustainable. They are not successful they should be on the chopping block of history.

At least you are able to answer the questions she was not. So, you are for the elimination of the 'safety net' programs? I agree, they are expensive and there are sometimes abuses in these programs.

But without them, we're talking about massive amounts of people, especially the elderly, being turned out into the streets and/or left to die. Are you for that? Are you for families, children who find themselves with out health insurance through no fault of their own being denied any care whatsoever?

My children get regular check-ups. I'm guessing, based on what Mrs. Abrams said, so do her children. It's easy for us to sit up on our secure and insured hill and say 'no problem here'. But step outside of your own community. A factory closes, a local economy goes south, people are laid off and lose their coverage. No more regular check-ups. No more screening for health issues that could be treated before they get worse.

I'd like to put you and Mrs. Abrams in a waiting room with the parents of a child who has gone into a coma with undiagnosed diabetes, or stopped breathing due to an asma attack that could have been stopped with an inhaler, or has a form of cancer that was treatable in the early stages. You look at them and explain your concept of 'general welfare.'

Most reasonable people, conservative and liberal, agree that we are a compassionate nation with a history of smart 'safety net' programs. We learned from the massive poverty and crime during the Great Depression that it is in our best interest to be proactive in preventing poverty, crime, homelessness, with smart, pragmatic programs. The programs you mentioned are not prefect and have all undergone a lot of fine-tuning over the years. And there will always be someone looking for new ways to beat the system.



Socialism breads tyranny. That is what happened in the USSR and in NAZI Germany. The progressive movement gave birth to both and is trying to separate from its children.

You, like Katie Abram, really don't have a grasp on some basic concepts of government and the various types of government. It is difficult to discuss politics with you, because we come from different educational backgrounds. If I sound elitist, well, that may be from your POV.

But I encourage you to brush up on your 20th Century history and poli sci.



You cannot logically deny the facts. Maybe you could call me some names and give me the STFU award. If given the chance I would like to ask one of my Senators about this RAPING of our founding principles and how they intend to return us to them.
None have the courage.

The country is indeed swinging, in some respects, to the left with the expansion of the Federal Government. But that's the platform Barack Obama ran on. And he won the election. This is the Democrats attempt to fix many problems in the financial, energy, and health industries. But there are no FACTS that in anyway indicate a move towards socialism or total government take over of any of these industries. If you believe that, you've been grossly misinformed.

Many people come to political forums armed with what they think are the facts. They are content to know what they already know and are not very receptive to new or conflicting information. I would love to sit down with you and Katie Abrams, a computer and several reference books and just spend and hour or so helping you get better versed on basic poli sci, economic, and public policy concepts.

There are also a a number of folks who come to discussion forums simply as partisan or party shills. They are not really interested in discussing anything. They post many times a day, usually copy-pasting opinion pieces and links to stories they saw on other partisan blogs or sites. They argue as true believers, however it is sometimes obvious that they are smart enough and educated enough to see through their own BULL****.

I encourage you to listen to both sides, retreat and do some independent fact checking from a non-partisan source, then listen some more. And go to Wikipedia or your library and read up on Socialism and try to get a better understanding of what socialism in its many forms is and what it is not.
 
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".

As usual, you are wrong.

Article XII
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Bill of Rights - Text Version | Freedom Documents


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.
 
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.

Slavery WAS Constitutional until the 14th amendment was passed. I'm not saying it was right, just Constitutional.... that is why we have the amendment process, to update the Constitution to reflect changing conditions and societal views.
 
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.
See Article XII of The Bill Of Rights. (Those are the first 12 Amendments to 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.
 
Back
Top Bottom