Harry Reid on Rockefeller and Byrd

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1209/Reid_defends_deals_.html

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) offered a vigorous defense
Monday of the deals in the Senate reform bill that benefit individual
states, saying “it doesn’t speak well” of senators who didn’t secure
such deals.

Massachusetts only has one Senator and they managed to avoid a Medicare upcharge.

Apparently Reid's definition of a good legislator is he who ignores the common good to take home the pork...

ohio county wrote:http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1209/Reid_defends_deals_.html

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) offered a vigorous defense
Monday of the deals in the Senate reform bill that benefit individual
states, saying “it doesn’t speak well” of senators who didn’t secure
such deals.

Massachusetts only has one Senator and they managed to avoid a Medicare upcharge.

Apparently Reid's definition of a good legislator is he who ignores the common good to take home the pork...

Absolutely!! Michael Badinarik, libertarian condidate for president in 2004 stated the following. "The ONLY difference between republicans and democrats is who they let feed at the trough first". It makes no difference the party anymore, our so called elected representatives don't care about the public. Most all of them are malignant narcissistists whose only concern is themselves.

Our responsibility and what we truly owe these so called leaders, is best stated in the Declaration of Independance:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

If we are truly Americans in the sence of our founders, then we have a responsibility to either vote these gentlemen out of office, demand our state legislatures remove them, or take matters into our own hands and remove them and replace them with individuals who understand the blessings of liberty and will abide by the rule of law including the US Constitution.

Cato are you proposing revolution?

Andrea Cristobal wrote:Cato are you proposing revolution?

Yes, I am. Its time to clean house. Our founders fought against the very things our leaders on all three levels of government how are inflicting us with. Look at the healthcare reform bill for a moment, because it more than illustrates my point. Page 114, line 22 uses some weasal languaage and in that language makes congress and the president exempt from the very laws thay are trying to ram down our throats. If you've ever read the Federalist Papers you would note that the founders of this nation warned regarding laws not applying to congress. If the law they are making is good enough for us, then it is certainly good enough for them. If they choose not to live under the law they create then they must have some concerns about the law and it is tyranny to inflict on the public.

The Senate bill is over 2,000 pages in length. Read the 62nd federalist. about 2/3 of the way down the paper there is a warning about bills the are voluminous that they lead to tyranny.

Then where does congress get off requiring that I have insurance. What next are they going to require I buy a GM product. We are supposedly a free people and requiring me to have to purchase somehting is anything but liberty.

Consider hate Crimes for a moment. Our leaders have more or less made thought a crime and certain portions of the population of more value. What about equal protection under the law? If I want to speak against homosexuality or abortion I will do so the govenrment be damned. If I don't want to rent or sell to homosexual couples I will do so.

I never thought I'd see the day I had to get the permission of our city fathers to build an outbuilding or fence. That isn't the nation our founders envisioned.

Consider the tax situation in this country. Where is the representation for wealthier folks. It doesn't exist. They are taxed to death simply because they haven't the representation to counterbalance the moochiesr and wealth envy. When I talk about welathier folks I am talking about those of middle income on up. Nothing pisses me off more than to watch people who are healthier than I am buy food with food stamps simply because they choose not to better themselves. I had to better myself and I worked hard to do so. I was layed off from a good job once and I had to start for scratch I had a family and I was the bread winner. They can also. By the way we can go on about all the pork, foreign aid, and such that our illustrious leaders are so liberal with. We are over 12 trillion dollars in debt thanks to this.

That brings me back to health insurace. I was an EMT. When I did my training I watched people come into the ER in cars far superior to waht I owned, have expensive tattoos and an Ipod and be on medicaid. I have no sympathy for these people or those that want to take from me to give to them.

I could go on but I won't. Simply I will not give up my freedom or have the fruit of my labor extort to give to those who will not provide for themselves. If the byrds and rockefellers want to take from me to give to others, its time for them to go. We either do it during the next election, or we demand our baffoons in Charleston do it or we replace them. If that doesn't work, will then it beomes the right and responsibility of the people to remove them.

Cato wrote:

Andrea Cristobal wrote:Cato are you proposing revolution?

Yes, I am. Its time to clean house. Our founders fought against the very things our leaders on all three levels of government how are inflicting us with. Look at the healthcare reform bill for a moment, because it more than illustrates my point. Page 114, line 22 uses some weasal languaage and in that language makes congress and the president exempt from the very laws thay are trying to ram down our throats. If you've ever read the Federalist Papers you would note that the founders of this nation warned regarding laws not applying to congress. If the law they are making is good enough for us, then it is certainly good enough for them. If they choose not to live under the law they create then they must have some concerns about the law and it is tyranny to inflict on the public.

The Senate bill is over 2,000 pages in length. Read the 62nd federalist. about 2/3 of the way down the paper there is a warning about bills the are voluminous that they lead to tyranny.

Then where does congress get off requiring that I have insurance. What next are they going to require I buy a GM product. We are supposedly a free people and requiring me to have to purchase somehting is anything but liberty.

Consider hate Crimes for a moment. Our leaders have more or less made thought a crime and certain portions of the population of more value. What about equal protection under the law? If I want to speak against homosexuality or abortion I will do so the govenrment be damned. If I don't want to rent or sell to homosexual couples I will do so.

I never thought I'd see the day I had to get the permission of our city fathers to build an outbuilding or fence. That isn't the nation our founders envisioned.

Consider the tax situation in this country. Where is the representation for wealthier folks. It doesn't exist. They are taxed to death simply because they haven't the representation to counterbalance the moochiesr and wealth envy. When I talk about welathier folks I am talking about those of middle income on up. Nothing pisses me off more than to watch people who are healthier than I am buy food with food stamps simply because they choose not to better themselves. I had to better myself and I worked hard to do so. I was layed off from a good job once and I had to start for scratch I had a family and I was the bread winner. They can also. By the way we can go on about all the pork, foreign aid, and such that our illustrious leaders are so liberal with. We are over 12 trillion dollars in debt thanks to this.

That brings me back to health insurace. I was an EMT. When I did my training I watched people come into the ER in cars far superior to waht I owned, have expensive tattoos and an Ipod and be on medicaid. I have no sympathy for these people or those that want to take from me to give to them.

I could go on but I won't. Simply I will not give up my freedom or have the fruit of my labor extort to give to those who will not provide for themselves. If the byrds and rockefellers want to take from me to give to others, its time for them to go. We either do it during the next election, or we demand our baffoons in Charleston do it or we replace them. If that doesn't work, will then it beomes the right and responsibility of the people to remove them.

I can see that you are upset. Challenges are already being mounted to the new health care reform bill when it becomes law after committee reconciliation which I believe it will. Many things in it will be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Perhaps getting involved with a group attempting to have some of the provisions in it you disagree with removed in a legal challenge. That is certainly less drastic than revolution.

I am however a pragmatist. I have long thought and discussed it with others that feel the same, that a sad day is coming to America. Perhaps not in yours or my lifetime, but not too far in the future. Rick Perry (R-Texas Governor) has been a proponent. I believe that one day some of the states will secede. We will become two nations rather than one. The 'opposing forces' of differing political viewpoints have become so divergent that the path to that end is almost inevitable. Though I would prefer it not happen should it be stopped? Should we fight another war to prevent it? I don't believe so, I really don't. Some Americans hold some principles to be most dear, and others have different ideas of what is important. I think it would be a very sad day, but I do believe one day it will occur. The discussions I have had is where moderates will end up. To that I don't know the answer. If I were to be still alive, I honestly don't know. I disagree on some things with both sides.

Post deleted because I hit the button twixe and posted it twice.

[quote="Cato"]

Andrea Cristobal wrote:
I can see that you are upset. Challenges are already being mounted to the new health care reform bill when it becomes law after committee reconciliation which I believe it will. Many things in it will be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Perhaps getting involved with a group attempting to have some of the provisions in it you disagree with removed in a legal challenge. That is certainly less drastic than revolution.

Sweetie, I disagree with the entire package. Congress has no authority to even dabble in healthcare. Far worse then that is that I can trace most ofthe causes of healthcare inflation right back to Congress and State Legislatures. Further, when over half the people in this nation don't want the bill and yet congress presses forward somehting is bad wrong and those in congress no longer represent us.

Andrea Cristobal wrote: I am however a pragmatist. I have long thought and discussed it with others that feel the same, that a sad day is coming to America. Perhaps not in yours or my lifetime, but not too far in the future. Rick Perry (R-Texas Governor) has been a proponent. I believe that one day some of the states will secede. We will become two nations rather than one. The 'opposing forces' of differing political viewpoints have become so divergent that the path to that end is almost inevitable. Though I would prefer it not happen should it be stopped? Should we fight another war to prevent it? I don't believe so, I really don't. Some Americans hold some principles to be most dear, and others have different ideas of what is important. I think it would be a very sad day, but I do believe one day it will occur. The discussions I have had is where moderates will end up. To that I don't know the answer. If I were to be still alive, I honestly don't know. I disagree on some things with both sides.

You are right a sad day is coming, in fact it is already here. It has been here for many years. That day started about the time Woodrow Wilson was in office and has got nothing but worse since. It started with just a few deviations from constitutional authority and has blossomed into the mess we have today, where the government in one form or another involves itself in nearly every aspect of our lives. There are two bright spots, first is that some states may just have the courage to turn their backs on the leftists in Washington and secede. The other birght spot is that a number of people all over this nation are just plain fedup with the garbage in DC. I'm one of those by the way. I am praying on my knees that in 2010 we see a complete rejection of the leftists in DC and in Charleston. I'm doing all I can to help this along by the way, If not I will move to whatever state chooses to secede first. This is not the nation my forefathers fought for or worked to preserve and I want no part of it now.

I'm hoping that Alaska seceeds. With global warming it won't be too cold in the winter time, summers will still be longer so I can get my riding in and they'll have enough energy to sustain themselves while the liberal idiots can't even keep their lights on with wind and solar.

Some think a revolution is inevitable. I favor revolution to the end of our way of life.

I do believe it is inevitable. Do I think it is the solution? No. But neither do I think we should force states to remain who don't want to. I also think it will split primarily along geographic lines. The South and Texas. New England and California. Part of the Midwest will go one way and other parts the other. The West will split, Hawaii will stay with California and NE as will Washington State. Oregon and Alaska with the more conservative states. Just a 'model' a few of us have discussed if it came about.

Demographics of it all would be difficult to reconcile. Unfortunately I think the course is well on its way.

Or I could go to northern California. If they had their way, southern California would fall in the ocean. Or Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming would be nice. Anywhere that liberals, the vast majority of whom don't know what the fark they're talking about aren't.

The truly sad part of it all is is that liberals only make up about 20% of the population but it is they who are destroying this country. Places like NYC, southern California and Massachusetts and the liberal elitist politicians that lead them with a populace to stupid to rid themselves of the morons that are tearing this country apart are the problem.

A simple solution to secession would be to require a voting test. Were that to happen, liberals would be completely gone inside of 6 years but then they know that which is why they won’t allow it to happen. It would be a perfect solution though.

Actually Aaron the perfect solution would be if radical conservatives like yourself stopped blaming everything on liberals and the two sought a little moderation. That would be the solution. Not labeling EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH YOU A MORON.

I don't label all those who disagree with me a moron. I still have a profound respect for Sherman of which I told him. But it's not only him. I think Ziggy is a very intelligent person who articulates his viewpoint very well at times, to the point that there are a few things he has changed my opinion on. And Terry RC, were he not so easy to rile is a very smart person as well.

I only have problems with the less intelligent ones like yourself, those who can't even find a reason for their argument. Those are the only ones I label morons. The fact that you think I am a radical conservative is further proof of your ignorance.

Does that clear it up for you?

No what clears it up for me is that you are an idiot. I don't find one intelligent thing about you. I see puffed up conceit and arrogance. An empty shell that knows how to say, "And the Constitution says", "2% is two percent". Not one true argument. Just a lot of hot air out of a blow hard who really has no clue about anything rather than their own narrow view.

Does that clear it up for you?

With that type of response LRT, I'm starting to think you may not like me.

I want to know how 2% isn't two percent.

Andrea Cristobal wrote: I can see that you are upset. Challenges are already being mounted to the new health care reform bill when it becomes law after committee reconciliation which I believe it will. Many things in it will be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Perhaps getting involved with a group attempting to have some of the provisions in it you disagree with removed in a legal challenge. That is certainly less drastic than revolution.

I am however a pragmatist. I have long thought and discussed it with others that feel the same, that a sad day is coming to America. Perhaps not in yours or my lifetime, but not too far in the future. Rick Perry (R-Texas Governor) has been a proponent. I believe that one day some of the states will secede. We will become two nations rather than one. The 'opposing forces' of differing political viewpoints have become so divergent that the path to that end is almost inevitable. Though I would prefer it not happen should it be stopped? Should we fight another war to prevent it? I don't believe so, I really don't. Some Americans hold some principles to be most dear, and others have different ideas of what is important. I think it would be a very sad day, but I do believe one day it will occur. The discussions I have had is where moderates will end up. To that I don't know the answer. If I were to be still alive, I honestly don't know. I disagree on some things with both sides.

Interesting that you are a staunch supporter and advocate of that which you fear will be the direct cause of the destruction of the American way of life.

Sad, so sad and utterly pathetic.

Andrea Cristobal wrote:No what clears it up for me is that you are an idiot. I don't find one intelligent thing about you. I see puffed up conceit and arrogance. An empty shell that knows how to say, "And the Constitution says", "2% is two percent". Not one true argument. Just a lot of hot air out of a blow hard who really has no clue about anything rather than their own narrow view.

Does that clear it up for you?

Why shouldn't Aaron quote book Chapter Verse fromt he US Constitution afterall it is the supreme law of the land. it determines how our government is to function and what authority it is to have.

She doesn't understand the document we live by Cato. All she can do is take what I state and google it to try and find an answer.

You didn't hear it from me but I really don't think she's very bright.

But don't hold that against her because she tries to make up for it with enthusiasm in her pursuit of her liberal agenda.

SamCogar wrote:

Andrea Cristobal wrote: I can see that you are upset. Challenges are already being mounted to the new health care reform bill when it becomes law after committee reconciliation which I believe it will. Many things in it will be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Perhaps getting involved with a group attempting to have some of the provisions in it you disagree with removed in a legal challenge. That is certainly less drastic than revolution.

I am however a pragmatist. I have long thought and discussed it with others that feel the same, that a sad day is coming to America. Perhaps not in yours or my lifetime, but not too far in the future. Rick Perry (R-Texas Governor) has been a proponent. I believe that one day some of the states will secede. We will become two nations rather than one. The 'opposing forces' of differing political viewpoints have become so divergent that the path to that end is almost inevitable. Though I would prefer it not happen should it be stopped? Should we fight another war to prevent it? I don't believe so, I really don't. Some Americans hold some principles to be most dear, and others have different ideas of what is important. I think it would be a very sad day, but I do believe one day it will occur. The discussions I have had is where moderates will end up. To that I don't know the answer. If I were to be still alive, I honestly don't know. I disagree on some things with both sides.

Interesting that you are a staunch supporter and advocate of that which you fear will be the direct cause of the destruction of the American way of life.

Sad, so sad and utterly pathetic.

Actually Sam where did you read that I was a staunch supporter of this. I feel it is inevitable. Not in one post have I said that I agree with it. You find it for me. What is truly SAD AND PATHETIC is an obviously intelligent man who knows how to access resources deliberately misinterpreting what someone said to fit their agenda. (Whatever that might be) as you just did.

Aaron wrote:She doesn't understand the document we live by Cato. All she can do is take what I state and google it to try and find an answer.

You didn't hear it from me but I really don't think she's very bright.

But don't hold that against her because she tries to make up for it with enthusiasm in her pursuit of her liberal agenda.

Actually I understand it quite well. You however do not. It is the direct role of the Supreme Court to interpret it even when we don't like their interpretations. Your literalist point of view, removes from them their ability to do so, which is described in that Constitution you supposedly 'hold so dear'.

Your about as intelligent and bright as a two watt bulb. Every argument you make is the same as is seen on numerous forums. There is no originality or ingenuity. Just a fool's following of what the conservative line is on this issue. Even on C-Span a viewer took the same stand as the Health Care vote was being taken. He was flattened by a Constitutional scholar that the measures were not and would not be found unconstitutional. Not even with a John Roberts led court.

So have at your 'delusion' that you correctly comprehend and understand the Constitution because you do not. It is just that, a vain, petty, arrogant person's delusion.

And just in case you don't comprehend that here is a SIMPLE EASILY READ SOURCE OF INFORMATION FOR YOU!!!!

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_role_of_the_US_Supreme_Court

I understand the constitution perfectly well thank you, I know the role of the Supreme Court, I could make a case for universal health care, there is no such thing as a 2 watt bulb, I'm an originalist (because that is what the citizens of the United States voted on), it should be "you're" not "your" as in you're (meaning you are) not very bright, are you LRT and Stephanie is still waiting on you to explain how 2% is not 2%.

Don't keep the lady waiting as she's the one with the banning power but then you already know that, don't you!!!!!

Andrea Cristobal wrote:
Actually I understand it quite well. You however do not. It is the direct role of the Supreme Court to interpret it even when we don't like their interpretations. Your literalist point of view, removes from them their ability to do so, which is described in that Constitution you supposedly 'hold so dear'.

It is not their place to interpret the US Constitution, in the sence that they legislate from the bench. The catch is so many of the justices we now have do just that, they interpret the US Constitution in a manner that best represents a specific agenda they may have. Like both Scalia and Thomas I am an originalist when it comes to the US Constitution. What was unconstitutional in 1791 when it was ratified remains that way today unless changed by amendment. The same is true with what is constitutional. What was constitutional in 1791 remains so today unless changed by amendment. The US constitution is not the "living" document you and so many others seem to think it is. It doesn't say what you think it ought to say. It is a legal document that says some thing and does does say other things. It doesn't change over time nor does it change simply because we have an agenda it doesn't allow.

You do know that FDR's "New Deal" was pronounced unconstitutional until FDR threatened to stack the court. All of a sudden it became constitutional. That is a fine example of justices ruling to allow an agenda. That is why there is such a fight when a new justice is appointed. Speaking personally, I would want people on the bench that held the US Constitution as absolute and ruled accordingly, instead of folks that believe it is a "living" document.

Andrea Cristobal wrote:Your about as intelligent and bright as a two watt bulb. Every argument you make is the same as is seen on numerous forums. There is no originality or ingenuity. Just a fool's following of what the conservative line is on this issue. Even on C-Span a viewer took the same stand as the Health Care vote was being taken and he was flattened by a Constitutional scholar that the measures were not and would not be found unconstitutional even with a John Roberts led court.

So have at your 'delusion' that you correctly comprehend and understand the Constitution because you do not. It is just that, a vain, petty, arrogant person's delusion.

Insulting Aaron doesn't serve to make your arguement right. It only proves you have no real arguement. I have found that many, be they liberal or conservative, when they go on a rant have lost their arguement and have nothing left to say that is relevent to the discussion. That is how I know that I have won and arguement on this board. When the people I am discussing an issue go into a name calling rant, I know I've won.

Cato wrote:

Andrea Cristobal wrote:
Actually I understand it quite well. You however do not. It is the direct role of the Supreme Court to interpret it even when we don't like their interpretations. Your literalist point of view, removes from them their ability to do so, which is described in that Constitution you supposedly 'hold so dear'.

It is not their place to interpret the US Constitution, in the sence that they legislate from the bench. The catch is so many of the justices we now have do just that, they interpret the US Constitution in a manner that best represents a specific agenda they may have. Like both Scalia and Thomas I am an originalist when it comes to the US Constitution. What was unconstitutional in 1791 when it was ratified remains that way today unless changed by amendment. The same is true with what is constitutional. What was constitutional in 1791 remains so today unless changed by amendment. The US constitution is not the "living" document you and so many others seem to think it is. It doesn't say what you think it ought to say. It is a legal document that says some thing and does does say other things. It doesn't change over time nor does it change simply because we have an agenda it doesn't allow.

You do know that FDR's "New Deal" was pronounced unconstitutional until FDR threatened to stack the court. All of a sudden it became constitutional. That is a fine example of justices ruling to allow an agenda. That is why there is such a fight when a new justice is appointed. Speaking personally, I would want people on the bench that held the US Constitution as absolute and ruled accordingly, instead of folks that believe it is a "living" document.

Andrea Cristobal wrote:Your about as intelligent and bright as a two watt bulb. Every argument you make is the same as is seen on numerous forums. There is no originality or ingenuity. Just a fool's following of what the conservative line is on this issue. Even on C-Span a viewer took the same stand as the Health Care vote was being taken and he was flattened by a Constitutional scholar that the measures were not and would not be found unconstitutional even with a John Roberts led court.

So have at your 'delusion' that you correctly comprehend and understand the Constitution because you do not. It is just that, a vain, petty, arrogant person's delusion.

Insulting Aaron doesn't serve to make your arguement right. It only proves you have no real arguement. I have found that many, be they liberal or conservative, when they go on a rant have lost their arguement and have nothing left to say that is relevent to the discussion. That is how I know that I have won and arguement on this board. When the people I am discussing an issue go into a name calling rant, I know I've won.

That takes a lot Cato to say, when Aaron has consistantly insulted me. Insisting that I am someone that I am not, because it makes him look 'righter' somehow which is ludicrous. The source I posted is clear. The role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution. "Literalists" as I refer to them, refuse to see that when it comes to subject matter they don't like. But they have no objection to the word "militia" being consistantly interpreted as meaning 'average citizen' when it comes to the right to bear arms, though there are many who dispute that interpretation. The 'literalist' point of view like Aaron's is self-serving. When they don't want something like health care reform, the 'letter of the law' should apply. But when it comes to something they want, then allowances in the interpretation they have no problem with. It is profoundly hypocritical.

Aaron wrote:I understand the constitution perfectly well thank you, I know the role of the Supreme Court, I could make a case for universal health care, there is no such thing as a 2 watt bulb, I'm an originalist (because that is what the citizens of the United States voted on), it should be "you're" not "your" as in you're (meaning you are) not very bright, are you LRT and Stephanie is still waiting on you to explain how 2% is not 2%.

Don't keep the lady waiting as she's the one with the banning power but then you already know that, don't you!!!!!

All admins have banning power Aaron, that I know. If she were to, that would be her right. You however have been just as vocal in insulting me. Shouldn't in actuality she ban us both?