What do you think of today's health care ruling from supreme court?

[Buckskin]

OBAMACARE....the biggest tax hike in the  history of mankind

Another tow the party line republican talking point  mcConnell, Ryan, Beohner and others keep repeating so lame stream media picks it up

Has no basis in fact it's not even close to the biggest , even Reagan, Bush's , and clinton's were larger-

Only problem here is that this is projected tax increase (nobody knows how much it will actually be) and you are not counting how much it will increase the deficit.  They will not be able to tax, fine or impose what this beast really will cost so we will become Europe in less than a decade.  As well, ZerObamacare is the largest tax increase that was sold as not being a tax in the history of the world...  Hope some day you liberals take off those rose colored glasses and realize the hole you are digging that will be used to bury our great country...

[saddlebum]

The majority’s rewriting of the individual mandate as a tax did not escape the attention of the four dissenting Justices. Those four Justices had determined that the entire ObamaCare law should be invalidated. They correctly explained that “to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. . . . [The majority] today decide[d] to save a statute Congress did not write.”
 
By upholding ObamaCare, the majority has allowed one of the biggest tax increases in American history to stand. ObamaCare includes twenty new or higher taxes on families and small businesses. This tax increase will take place despite the fact that President Obama pledged that he would not raise taxes on any American making less than $250,000, which is most Americans, and assured Americans that the individual mandate was not a tax.
 
Although ObamaCare is now the law of the land, it can still be repealed. To achieve that end, it is up to the American people. The majority of Americans continue to oppose ObamaCare and want its repeal. It is up to that majority to effectuate their will at the ballot box this November and to continue to apply political pressure to ensure that their elected officials do what they were elected to do: repeal ObamaCare.
 
Good read at,
http://aclj.org/obamacare/supreme-court-rewrites-obamacare-allows-huge-tax-increases

[scootrd]

Only problem here is that this is projected tax increase (nobody knows how much it will actually be) and you are not counting how much it will increase the deficit. 

Right-wing media are pushing an inaccurate report on Obamacare’s impact on the deficit. The report, by Charles Blahous at the Koch-funded George Mason University Mercatus Center, pushes a well-debunked claim about Obamacare. Using faulty math, Blahous—a former official of President George W. Bush’s administration—falsely declared that health reform “clearly” increases the deficit by $340 billion.

The facts are clear. As the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has repeatedly noted, the Affordable Care Act effectively reduces the deficit by billions.

    According to the CBO, Obamacare would reduce federal deficits by $127 billion over the 2012–2021 period.

    When Republicans threatened to repeal health reform, the CBO determined that a repeal would increase the deficit by $147 billion.

    Just last month, the CBO found that the insurance coverage provisions of Obamacare will actually cost $50 billion less that it had originally projected.

[Buckskin]

Buckskin: 

Anyone with an ounce of commonsense can figure out that the government cannot run anything without ballooning our deficit.  They cannot deliver a letter without adding to the deficit, of course this has a lot to do with the union.... And you think they will be able to run health care... As they say, ignorance is bliss...

.
Excuse me, sir.  Hasn't the HC market been in the hands of primarily the private sector when Reagen made it for profit and with the injection of HC corporation intermediaries and this got us in the mess and inflationary spiral we're in??.
And that these same HC intermediaries essentially wrote Obamacare and Romneycare thru the bipratisan Max Baucus committee,,,and this is how we got Obamacare (the good and bad and tax of it all), and that what most citizens wanted was simple single payer public option, actually the most conservative least bureaucratic solution to a HC problem,,,,only HC corps couldn't compete with that?  Sorry, you can't blame the OBmacare monstrosity on government_ _you can blame on the absence of proper government, and on HC corps.
.
.
..TM7

Ahhh, yes I can blame the Obamacare monstrosity on government.... And do.  If they would have tried the little things before turning us into a European style HC system it would have helped tremendously.  Just because HC intermediaries wrote most of the damn thing doesn't mean they passed it. Government passed it, they are to blame.  Only government is to blame for the creation of the tax.
 
Tort reform, allow the purchasing of insurance across state lines and malpractice limits are just a few of the things that would greatly reduce HC costs without adding ANY tax, ANY fees, ANY fines, ANY debt.  Could be done in a 10 page document and could be implemented the day after passing through congress.

[Buckskin]

Only problem here is that this is projected tax increase (nobody knows how much it will actually be) and you are not counting how much it will increase the deficit. 

The facts are clear. As the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has repeatedly noted, the Affordable Care Act effectively reduces the deficit by billions.

    According to the CBO, Obamacare would reduce federal deficits by $127 billion over the 2012–2021 period.

    When Republicans threatened to repeal health reform, the CBO determined that a repeal would increase the deficit by $147 billion.

    Just last month, the CBO found that the insurance coverage provisions of Obamacare will actually cost $50 billion less that it had originally projected.

I will take that bet.  You suggest the stakes and in 2021 you will owe me whatever you are willing to put up.  I hope you are extremely confident so I will be able to afford my tax bill in 2021...  Again, the government cannot deliver a letter without losing money...

[saddlebum]

Only problem here is that this is projected tax increase (nobody knows how much it will actually be) and you are not counting how much it will increase the deficit. 

Right-wing media are pushing an inaccurate report on Obamacare’s impact on the deficit. The report, by Charles Blahous at the Koch-funded George Mason University Mercatus Center, pushes a well-debunked claim about Obamacare. Using faulty math, Blahous—a former official of President George W. Bush’s administration—falsely declared that health reform “clearly” increases the deficit by $340 billion.

The facts are clear. As the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has repeatedly noted, the Affordable Care Act effectively reduces the deficit by billions.

    According to the CBO, Obamacare would reduce federal deficits by $127 billion over the 2012–2021 period.

    When Republicans threatened to repeal health reform, the CBO determined that a repeal would increase the deficit by $147 billion.

    Just last month, the CBO found that the insurance coverage provisions of Obamacare will actually cost $50 billion less that it had originally projected.

President Obama's landmark healthcare overhaul is projected to cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, reports the Congressional Budget Office, a hefty sum more than the $940 billion estimated when the healthcare legislation was signed into law. To put it mildly, ObamaCare's projected net worth is far off from its original estimate -- in fact, about $820 billion off.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-price-tag-shifts-940-billion-1-163500655.html
 
Again! I post where my information comes from................

[cwlongshot]

I got this Email today;



Why Chief Justice Roberts Made the Right Long-Term Decision With ObamaCare



Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.

It will be a short-lived celebration.

Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.

And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown threw his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.

Brilliant.

SHARE this interesting piece with your friends by clicking the buttons below!

 
This article, written by I.M. Citizen, gives a much different perspective of Justice Robert’s decision. Comment below and let us know what you think. Also check out I.M. Citizen’s blog - quite interesting.

[saddlebum]

Only problem here is that this is projected tax increase (nobody knows how much it will actually be) and you are not counting how much it will increase the deficit. 

Right-wing media are pushing an inaccurate report on Obamacare’s impact on the deficit. The report, by Charles Blahous at the Koch-funded George Mason University Mercatus Center, pushes a well-debunked claim about Obamacare. Using faulty math, Blahous—a former official of President George W. Bush’s administration—falsely declared that health reform “clearly” increases the deficit by $340 billion.

The facts are clear. As the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has repeatedly noted, the Affordable Care Act effectively reduces the deficit by billions.

    According to the CBO, Obamacare would reduce federal deficits by $127 billion over the 2012–2021 period.

    When Republicans threatened to repeal health reform, the CBO determined that a repeal would increase the deficit by $147 billion.

    Just last month, the CBO found that the insurance coverage provisions of Obamacare will actually cost $50 billion less that it had originally projected.

 
The Estimated Net Cost of the Insurance Coverage Provisions Is Smaller Than Estimated in March 2011CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012-2021 period-about $50 billion less than the agencies' March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period. (For comparison with previous estimates, these numbers cover the 2012-2021 period; estimates including 2022 can be found below.)
The net costs--specifically the combined effects on federal revenues and mandatory spending--reflect:

• Gross additional costs of $1.5 trillion for Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), tax credits and other subsidies for the purchase of health insurance through the newly establised EXCHANGES and related costs, and tax credits for small employers,
• Offset in part by about $0.4 trillion in receipts from "penalty" payments, the new excise tax on high-premium insurance plans, and other budgetary effects (mostly increases in tax revenue).

Those amounts do not encompass all of the budgetary impacts of the ACA. They do not include federal administrative costs, which will be subject to future appropriation action. Also, they do not include the effects of the many other provisions of the law, including some that will cause significant reductions in Medicare spending relative to that under prior law and others that will generate ADDED TAX REVENUES relative to those under prior law.
 
CBO and JCT have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012-2021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA has not been updated.Gross Costs Are Higher, but Offsetting Budgetary Effects Are Also HigherThe current estimate of the gross costs of the coverage provisions—$1,496 billion through 2021—is about $50 billion higher than last year's projection; however, the other budgetary effects of those provisions, which partially offset those gross costs, also have increased in CBO’s and JCT’s estimates—to $413 billion—leading to the small decrease in the net 10-year tally.
Over the 10-year period from 2012 through 2021, enactment of the coverage provisions of the ACA was projected last March to increase federal deficits by $1,131 billion, whereas the March 2012 estimate indicates that those provisions will increase deficits by $1,083 billion.
The net cost was boosted by:

• An additional $168 billion in estimated costs for Medicaid and CHIP, and
• $8 billion less in estimated revenues of the exise tax on certain high-premium health insurance plans.

But those increases were more than offset by a reduction of:

• $97 billion in the projected spending for the tax credits and other subidies for health insurance provided through the exchanges and related spending
• $20 billion in the projected costs for tax credits for small employers, and
• $107 billion in deficits from the projected revenue effects of changes in taxable compensation and "penalty payments" and from other small changes in estimated spending.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43080
 
NOTICE, that the difference is made up by raising "taxes" by a LARGE margin. That is the CBO's reasoning behind "lower costs". That and the presumption that the economy will get better. And if some employers get "tax credits" and "subsidies" for going with the government run "exchanges", THEN WHO PAYS FOR THAT?? Middle income tax payers, thats who! Lots of funny math going on here, if you ask me. Estimations and projections. If I'm not mistaken, no CBO "projection" has EVER been on target! And the numbers have changed in this model serveral times. And is still in the process of changing, per CBO admission on their website. The CBO's "projections" have ALWAYS been far lower than actual costs. That is a historical fact!
saddlebum
     
Congressional Budget Office projections less accurate than a horoscope

The CBO doesn't have a good track record for making such predictions, they have only been issuing these types of reports since 1981 and there simply isn't enough historical data to make accurate projections. In 2003 and 2004 the office fell short again in estimating projected deficits, repeating a pattern of over- and underestimating both deficits and surpluses demonstrated ever since the office was created, back in 1974.
 
Looking at more recent numbers, in January 2007 the CBO forecast GDP growth of 2.3, 3% in 2008, and 2.9% each year after that, until 2012. The CBO "assumed" that the housing decline would stop, that the economy would not be thrown into a recession, and that gas prices would remain low. Wrong on all counts.
 
http://backseatdriver.newsvine.com/_news/2009/03/20/2573501-congressional-budget-office-projections-less-accurate-than-a-horoscope

[Gary G]

From Congressman Ron Paul:
[/size]"The Court has a dismal record when it comes to protecting liberty against unconstitutional excesses by Congress. Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a ‘mandate.' The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance, or simply compel you to pay a tax if you don't. The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse. The fundamental hallmark of a free society should be the rejection of force. In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of "Obamacare" without paying a government tribute."

[Buckskin]

From Congressman Ron Paul:
"The Court has a dismal record when it comes to protecting liberty against unconstitutional excesses by Congress. Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a ‘mandate.' The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance, or simply compel you to pay a tax if you don't. The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse. The fundamental hallmark of a free society should be the rejection of force. In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of "Obamacare" without paying a government tribute."

Wait a minute... I thought Scooter and TM were Ron Paul guys???

[Dixie Dude]

This thing ain't over, 18 Republican governors are not going to let it be implemented.  There are about 30 Republican governors, so it could end up being a majority.  One of the biggest reasons the republican's are so much against the bill is it has NO Republican ideas except the mandate.  No tort reform, no buying across state lines.  Less government telling doctors and insurance companies what they can and cannot do.  Not being turned down for pre-existing conditions is only one of the good things about it.  However this can be handled like car insurance across state lines.  With car insurance, one can have several accidents, and several traffic tickets, and be dropped from some insurance, but can still get it by shopping around.  Same could be set up with health insurance.  It is not my fault if someone drinks, smokes, uses drugs, is obese, they should pay a higher premium for their insurance.  Get smart and stop doing the things that run up your insurance rates. 

[Cabin4]

OBAMACARE....the biggest tax hike in the  history of mankind

Another tow the party line republican talking point  mcConnell, Ryan, Beohner and others keep repeating so lame stream media picks it up

Has no basis in fact it's not even close to the biggest , even Reagan, Bush's , and clinton's were larger-

This chart has no basis in reality.

Its not all in effect yet, not all the tax elements of the bill have been colloected yet on it, so how can you compare it to a GDP number that has not happened yet?   Talk about bunk & spin.....
 
obama said he would not raise taxes on people making under $250k. He and his democrat congress, senate and outside purveyors of the socialist machine are all liars and the SCOTUS ruling proves as such. The middle class will pay the price, a pay dearly.

 

[Dixie Dude]

What TM said about the health care is a form of NAZISM.  It isn't total government control, thus not Communism.  By weaving a tight web between government mandates and collections and private insurance companies, you have Nazism.  The Nazis before WWII wove a tight web with the capitalist industry.  Thereby when the time came, they made the aircraft companies switch from making passenger planes to bombers.  They switched the vehicle manufacturing to military trucks, tanks, and staff cars.  The commadered the trains for troop transports east and west, and brought back Jews, Poles, Russians, Slavic peoples and made slaves out of them.  Nazism is monopoly or oligarthy capitalism married at the hip with government.  Communism is complete government control.  Even our laws prohibit monopolies, yet our government and the SEC allows it.  20-30 smaller oil companies bought up by the big 5 or 6.  They are now allowing it with cell phones, only two big cell phone companies left, AT&T and Verison.  All others are much smaller.  They didn't bust up Microsoft because almost all computers in the world use Microsoft products, developed in America, and our government can get Microsoft to plant viruses and bugs anytime they need to do something like shut down Irans computers.  Too many big banks, too many big corporations, too much big government.  They all need to break up and allow true competition for services and products. 

[BBF]

Re Post 135
 
So Ford,GM, Chrysler etc all kept cranking out cars during WWII instead of military vehicles.  Really ??
 
Manufacturing switches from civilian products to military, it wasn't a voluntary decision regardless of type of Govt.
 
The first M-1 Garand I got as an E-1 was made by Underwood. Several years later my "Issue" typewriter was also made by that Co in civilian form.
 
Romney pledged to repeal Obummer care with something workable.We'll see what he comes up with if he gets elected.
 
BTW. There are countries that have a National Health Care system that actually works. It will probably require a rethinking of national priorities.  Fancy that !

[DDZ]

Re Post 135
 
Romney pledged to repeal Obummer care with something workable.We'll see what he comes up with if he gets elected.
 

No matter what, you can bet the government will still be involved in it. Once the foot is in the door, its never removed. Governments intervention in things tend to spread like a fire. What ever Obamcare is now, isn't nothing compared to what it will become. They just love to blow smoke up our butts and tell us "look what we are doing for you"

[saddlebum]

Lawyers Have Already Drafted 13,000 Pages of Regulations for New ObamaTax Law
 
With the Supreme Court giving President Obama’s new health care law a green light, federal and state officials are turning to implementation of the law — a lengthy and massive undertaking still in its early stages, but already costing money and expanding the government.
 
The Health and Human Services Department “was given a billion dollars implementation money,” Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg of Montana said. “That money is gone already on additional bureaucrats and IT programs, computerization for the implementation.”
 
“Oh boy,” Stan Dorn of the Urban Institute said. “HHS has a huge amount of work to do and the states do, too. There will be new health insurance marketplaces in every state in the country, places you can go online, compare health plans.”
 
The IRS, Health and Human Services and many other agencies will now write thousands of pages of regulations — an effort well under way: 
 
“There’s already 13,000 pages of regulations, and they’re not even done yet,” Rehberg said.
 
“It’s a delegation of extensive authority from Congress to the Department of Health and Human Services and a lot of boards and commissions and bureaus throughout the bureaucracy,” Matt Spalding of the Heritage Foundation said. “We counted about 180 or so.”
 
There has been much focus on the mandate that all Americans obtain health insurance, but analysts say that’s just a small part of the law — covering only a few pages out of the law’s 2700.
 
“The fact of the matter is the mandate is about two percent of the whole piece of the legislation,” Spalding said. “It’s a minor part.”
 
Much bigger than the mandate itself are the insurance exchanges that will administer $681 billion in subsidies over 10 years, which will require a lot of new federal workers at the IRS and health department.
 
“They are asking for several hundred new employees,” Dorn said. “You have rules you need to write and you need lawyers, so there are lots of things you need to do when you are standing up a new enterprise.”
 
For some, though, the bottom line is clear and troubling: The federal government is about to assume massive new powers.
 
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/07/lawyers-have-already-drafted-13000-pages-of-regulations-for-new-obamatax-law/

[DDZ]

For some, though, the bottom line is clear and troubling: The federal government is about to assume massive new powers.
 

And.... we are about to gain a massive amount of additional debt. What is another trillion or two, when we have already, a pile that will never diminish. Just think of all the new job claims Obama will be able to brag about. The number of federal jobs needed to run this bureaucracy will be in the tens of thousands. Wonder where all the money will come from? Oh thats right the government has lots of it. What was I thinking.     

[Gary G]

For some, though, the bottom line is clear and troubling: The federal government is about to assume massive new powers.
 

And.... we are about to gain a massive amount of additional debt. What is another trillion or two, when we have already, a pile that will never diminish. Just think of all the new job claims Obama will be able to brag about. The number of federal jobs needed to run this bureaucracy will be in the tens of thousands. Wonder where all the money will come from? Oh thats right the government has lots of it. What was I thinking. 

Plenty of money, they can even make their own; the heck with the rest of us. They put us in prison if we try to do that and then make or friends and family pay for it.


(My prediction- we will never see Obamacare. They can't pay for the one they have now.)

[Cabin4]

As much as I hate this new law, the one thing I would avoid saying is that it will add to the national debt or annual budget deficit. We just dont know that yet. A tax increase by Congress can take care of that! What we do know for sure is:
 
1. Taxes will go up and most on those making less than $120k.
2. The federal government has amassed new unprecedented power & control over the The People
3. It will force jobs overseas and reduce employment opportunity for people here
4. Business will reduce jobs or go out of business because of this
5. Obama and the democrates are bold face liars
6. The main stream media are knowingly propagating the lies for this administration

 

[45-70.gov]

DATE:   July 5, 2012

TO:       USF & NRA Members and Friends

FROM:  Marion P. Hammer

            USF Executive Director

            NRA Past President

Be very careful, ANYTHING you say or tell your doctor in confidence may not be confidential at all anymore, if he/she enters it or has entered it into your medical records.  Particularly, whether you have guns in the home and where they are stored.

The Florida law, to stop doctors from interrogating children and their parents about gun ownership and guns in the home, and entering the information into medical records, is especially important now given the current state of healthcare in our country.  And on June 29, in an order that reads like it was written by the Brady Campaign and the anti-gun lawyers of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Miami Judge Marcia Cooke struck down the so-called "Docs & Glocks" law, which would have protected Florida's gun owner privacy rights.

Judge Cooke's order ridiculed the law saying supporters of the law couldn't provide anything but "anecdotal information" to prove the law was needed to protect patients from discrimination.  She said, the state's arguments in favor of the law rest on a "legislative illusion."

Apparently, Judge Cooke doesn't care that what she calls "anecdotal information" is about real people and real invasions of privacy.

Now, if you own guns or have guns in your home, a doctor can refuse to treat you or your children.

its a back door to gun control

but what did anyone expect from a democrat

thats just what they do.....a snake will bite you just because thats what they do

[mcbammer]

DATE:   July 5, 2012

TO:       USF & NRA Members and Friends

FROM:  Marion P. Hammer

            USF Executive Director

            NRA Past President

Be very careful, ANYTHING you say or tell your doctor in confidence may not be confidential at all anymore, if he/she enters it or has entered it into your medical records.  Particularly, whether you have guns in the home and where they are stored.

The Florida law, to stop doctors from interrogating children and their parents about gun ownership and guns in the home, and entering the information into medical records, is especially important now given the current state of healthcare in our country.  And on June 29, in an order that reads like it was written by the Brady Campaign and the anti-gun lawyers of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Miami Judge Marcia Cooke struck down the so-called "Docs & Glocks" law, which would have protected Florida's gun owner privacy rights.

Judge Cooke's order ridiculed the law saying supporters of the law couldn't provide anything but "anecdotal information" to prove the law was needed to protect patients from discrimination.  She said, the state's arguments in favor of the law rest on a "legislative illusion."

Apparently, Judge Cooke doesn't care that what she calls "anecdotal information" is about real people and real invasions of privacy.

Now, if you own guns or have guns in your home, a doctor can refuse to treat you or your children.

its a back door to gun control

but what did anyone expect from a democrat

thats just what they do.....a snake will bite you just because thats what they do

I   know   some   doctors   that   are   avid   hunters  .  If   one   ask   about   guns   its  because  he   interested   in   it   for   his   use.  I  think   they   also   take  a   oathe   not   to   refuse   treatment   to   anyone.

[lakota]

yes and politicians take an oath to defend and uphold the constitution. An oath is just a bunch of worthless words to a lot of people

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk

[rickt300]

Why can't we find them guilty of treason if they don't uphold their oath?

[Cabin4]

Why can't we find them guilty of treason if they don't uphold their oath?

Lets hope they can get Holder. He has been found in contempt of Congress. Now they need to go after him in a civil trial because the DA said he wont prosecute Holder. He is a criminal and lets hope they go after him in a civil trial.

[DDZ]

Never works out to well for us when the government investigates itself. 

[Cabin4]

I'm not so sure about that. It might not work out the best, but there are good things that can come from finding the criminals inside our government. Even know we rely on the government to police itself. Who else can.....

[DDZ]

I agree, there are good things that can happen when criminals are found in government, but when was the last time government found a criminal within itself? Even when they know there is a criminal within, nothing is ever done about it. I think the problem is that there are many criminals within our government. How can government find and root out criminals when government itself is criminal. Its not hard for us to see the criminal acts, but our government is unaware, or they just don't care.   

[saddlebum]

I agree, there are good things that can happen when criminals are found in government, but when was the last time government found a criminal within itself? Even when they know there is a criminal within, nothing is ever done about it. I think the problem is that there are many criminals within our government. How can government find and root out criminals when government itself is criminal. Its not hard for us to see the criminal acts, but our government is unaware, or they just don't care.   

The difference between government criminals and citizen criminals is that one gets censured and the other gets prosecuted and punished.

[mcbammer]

I  like   to  be   on   the   same   health  care   plan  that  the   congress  has. 

[Dixie Dude]

Found out something about Justice Roberts.  He was raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools all his grade school life.  He graduated Yale law school (where bush went).  He worked for a law firm on gay rights.  He advised Jeb Bush when Florida was in question in the 2000 election of Bush.  He got payback from Bush to the supreme court.  He lived with a guy after law school for 8 years.  He got married when he was 41 to a Brown graduate who was working for women's rights.  He was never a true conservative.  His job was only payback for helping advise the Bushs' in 2000 in which Bush won by winning Florida.  Hmmmm.
 
He seems to be a social liberal but a fiscal conservative.