What's more ludicrous?

Someone who believes 100% of the Kenyan/birther/Muslim rumors about Obama on their face, with no substantiation or verification, or someone who immediately dismisses every negative about Obama out of hand, again with no effort to substantiate or verify?

The knee-jerk reactions on both sides are pretty pathetic.

CommieTom, you are a total idiot fool.

(02-11-2012 02:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What's more ludicrous?

Someone who believes 100% of the Kenyan/birther/Muslim rumors about Obama on their face, with no substantiation or verification, or someone who immediately dismisses every negative about Obama out of hand, again with no effort to substantiate or verify?

The knee-jerk reactions on both sides are pretty pathetic.

One word, Breitbart.

The guy is a shill. If he had something of any real importance, just release it. Don't go to CPAC with all this bluster and tease it.

(02-13-2012 10:24 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-11-2012 02:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What's more ludicrous?

Someone who believes 100% of the Kenyan/birther/Muslim rumors about Obama on their face, with no substantiation or verification, or someone who immediately dismisses every negative about Obama out of hand, again with no effort to substantiate or verify?

The knee-jerk reactions on both sides are pretty pathetic.

One word, Breitbart.

The guy is a shill. If he had something of any real importance, just release it. Don't go to CPAC with all this bluster and tease it.

Kind of like Pelosi going on CNN telling them she has things on Newt that she'll release at the "right" time?

And Tom I'm still waiting on you to tell me by what right Obama has to dictate to religious institutions that they must provide something that runs counter to their fair, or by what right he has to tell a private company they will offer a product for free.

(02-13-2012 10:32 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  .......... or by what right he has to tell a private company they will offer a product for free.

Nothing is free. Somebody somewhere is paying for it.

(02-13-2012 10:42 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 10:32 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  .......... or by what right he has to tell a private company they will offer a product for free.

Nothing is free. Somebody somewhere is paying for it.

This is a given. However, the question remains, by what right does a president have to tell a company they will offer it for free? Meaning you walk in, get it, and don't pay?

The issue here isn't the cost being passed to paying people in the form of higher premiums, though that is bad. The greater issue is the government telling a company they must provide a product for free. This is a massive power grab by Obama that is being largely ignored.

The high price of gas is making it difficult for me to pay the bills. Obama should declare I get it for free. Car insurance keeps going up, Obama should declare it be given to me for free. Milk is stupid expensive these days. Dear Leader should proclaim it free for all.

Odds on Breitbart having a new book come out at the same time?

(02-13-2012 10:47 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 10:42 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 10:32 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  .......... or by what right he has to tell a private company they will offer a product for free.

Nothing is free. Somebody somewhere is paying for it.

This is a given. However, the question remains, by what right does a president have to tell a company they will offer it for free? Meaning you walk in, get it, and don't pay?

The issue here isn't the cost being passed to paying people in the form of higher premiums, though that is bad. The greater issue is the government telling a company they must provide a product for free. This is a massive power grab by Obama that is being largely ignored.

The high price of gas is making it difficult for me to pay the bills. Obama should declare I get it for free. Car insurance keeps going up, Obama should declare it be given to me for free. Milk is stupid expensive these days. Dear Leader should proclaim it free for all.

Obama has no right to do this. Unfortunately for that clown, not only does he think he has the right to do it, but once public opinion sours on his lame Kenyan ass he gets to backtrack on it and change the rules again without hardly being called out on it. This guy has made a joke out of the Oval Office and if his replacement does the same crap using Obama's antics as a precedent, we're hosed. Right now we're not much different than a bankrupt 3rd world country ruled by a power grabbing dicatator, Fidel Hugo Kim Jung Obama.......dare I include Adolf?

(02-13-2012 11:01 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 10:47 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 10:42 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 10:32 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  .......... or by what right he has to tell a private company they will offer a product for free.

Nothing is free. Somebody somewhere is paying for it.

This is a given. However, the question remains, by what right does a president have to tell a company they will offer it for free? Meaning you walk in, get it, and don't pay?

The issue here isn't the cost being passed to paying people in the form of higher premiums, though that is bad. The greater issue is the government telling a company they must provide a product for free. This is a massive power grab by Obama that is being largely ignored.

The high price of gas is making it difficult for me to pay the bills. Obama should declare I get it for free. Car insurance keeps going up, Obama should declare it be given to me for free. Milk is stupid expensive these days. Dear Leader should proclaim it free for all.

Obama has no right to do this. Unfortunately for that clown, not only does he think he has the right to do it, but once public opinion sours on his lame Kenyan ass he gets to backtrack on it and change the rules again without hardly being called out on it. This guy has made a joke out of the Oval Office and if his replacement does the same crap using Obama's antics as a precedent, we're hosed. Right now we're not much different than a bankrupt 3rd world country ruled by a power grabbing dicatator, Fidel Hugo Kim Jung Obama.......dare I include Adolf?

Oh grow a pair!

Doesn't mean sh@t, when the Republicans have no viable candidate to defeat him.

(02-13-2012 01:14 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  Doesn't mean sh@t, when the Republicans have no viable candidate to defeat him.

Hey now, independents love Santorum.

I think it's pretty amazing when we have found something even Tom can't defend Obama on. (not that he isn't dying to.)

No matter how many tiimes you repeat it does not make it any truer, commietom.

Conservatives are soooo pissed poor people are getting health insurance and sooooo pissed women are getting access to a drug the Institute of Medicine says is "medically necessary."

(02-13-2012 11:01 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 10:47 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 10:42 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 10:32 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  .......... or by what right he has to tell a private company they will offer a product for free.

Nothing is free. Somebody somewhere is paying for it.

This is a given. However, the question remains, by what right does a president have to tell a company they will offer it for free? Meaning you walk in, get it, and don't pay?

The issue here isn't the cost being passed to paying people in the form of higher premiums, though that is bad. The greater issue is the government telling a company they must provide a product for free. This is a massive power grab by Obama that is being largely ignored.

The high price of gas is making it difficult for me to pay the bills. Obama should declare I get it for free. Car insurance keeps going up, Obama should declare it be given to me for free. Milk is stupid expensive these days. Dear Leader should proclaim it free for all.

Obama has no right to do this. Unfortunately for that clown, not only does he think he has the right to do it, but once public opinion sours on his lame Kenyan ass he gets to backtrack on it and change the rules again without hardly being called out on it. This guy has made a joke out of the Oval Office and if his replacement does the same crap using Obama's antics as a precedent, we're hosed. Right now we're not much different than a bankrupt 3rd world country ruled by a power grabbing dicatator, Fidel Hugo Kim Jung Obama.......dare I include Adolf?

Article I section 8

Quote:The Congress shall have power To ... regulate Commerce ... among the several States,

Article II section 3

Quote:he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,

The Affordable Care Act was passed pursuant to Congress' Constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, and Obama is executing the law faithfully as is his Constitutional responsibility. In other words, he does have the right to do it.

And insurance companies don't have to offer contraception, and employers don't have to sign on with one who does. You can still sign up for a plan that doesn't offer it and pay the fine. To avoid the fine though they have to provide a plan that covers medically necessary treatment for men AND women.

I'm just pissed this didn't all happen in the 1930's. Then I wouldn't have had to read all the outraged Facebook status updates.

(02-13-2012 04:28 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Conservatives are soooo pissed poor people are getting health insurance and sooooo pissed women are getting access to a drug the Institute of Health says is "medically necessary."

Try again fool. This isn't about birth control, it's about government intrusion into freedom of religion. While I know you love the idea of government infringing on religious freedom as much as possible, the founders had a much different idea.

The commerce clause doesn't give anyone the right to subvert the 1st amendment fool. If you hadn't slept through your constituional law class you might know that.

Fool.

So which pisses you guys off more: better health care for the poor or better health care for women? I know it's hard but you have to choose.

(02-13-2012 04:35 PM)Max Power Wrote:  So which pisses you guys off more: better health care for the poor or better health care for women? I know it's hard but you have to choose.

Neither better health care for the poor nor better health care for women pisses me off. I'm in favor of better health care for everyone.

What pisses me off most of all is a bunch of liars passing legislation that they claim will mean better health for the poor and better health for women, and getting the votes of the poor and of women in return, when the reality is that it will mean paying more for worse health care--for everyone.

That does piss me off.

So...anyway...let's lay odds on whether we will see these "videos" or Trump's "I can't believe what their finding" in Hawaii stuff first.

(02-13-2012 04:35 PM)Max Power Wrote:  So which pisses you guys off more: better health care for the poor or better health care for women? I know it's hard but you have to choose.

I can't wait until being gay is illegal and we can own the brown people again. That way only white male land owners would be able to vote and we can execute liberals because they refuse to own guns..

you're an idiot.

(02-13-2012 04:35 PM)Max Power Wrote:  So which pisses you guys off more: better health care for the poor or better health care for women? I know it's hard but you have to choose.

It's a shame your hatred of America and the Constitution is so consuming. If you weren't such a raging d0uchebag and repugnant individual I would pity you.

Fool.