PDA

View Full Version : Resisting Obamacare, Ghandi Style


RobMoney$
03-25-2010, 07:56 PM
by Shikha Dalmia
Americans will lose control over basic decisions if this law stands.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/23/obamacare-politics-united-states-reform-opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia.html?boxes=opinionschannellighttop



President Barack Obama came into office promising hope and change. But he might get more change than he hoped for. By foisting ObamaCare on a deeply unwilling country he might have set the stage for the largest civil disobedience movement since the civil rights era, which, if it plays its cards right, could undo his legislation and his legacy.

President Obama is betting that come November the bruising, yearlong battle that he has just dragged the country through will be a distant memory. But that profoundly underestimates the dismay of a large segment of the public that sees what he signed Tuesday as a fraudulent piece of legislation based on fraudulent thinking backed by fraudulent facts enacted through a fraudulent process. (Yes, Americans do care about "process," Mr. President. It's another name for representative government.)

President Obama tried for a year to convince the country that the cure for rising health care costs and the swelling ranks of the uninsured was a de facto government takeover of the health care system--only to be rebuffed in poll after poll. And if there was any doubt as to where the public stood, it was put to rest by Republican Scott Brown's stunning December victory in Massachusetts, the land of Big Government.

But instead of backing down President Obama went for broke using tactics more reprehensible than the "business as usual politics" that he had pledged to change when he came to office.

First, there were the budgetary magic tricks that he and his Congressional enablers got the highly respected Congressional Budget Office to perform. The last CBO assessment--that pushed the bill through--showed that the Obama plan would reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion over 10 years. The reality, once all the double counting and fantasy savings are eliminated, is that it will add $562 billion.

But the CBO is not the only entity whose honor Democrats have violated--perhaps beyond repair. Federal taxpayers will also get royally screwed when they have to pay for all the sweetheart deals that Obama's Cogressional minions cut behind closed doors and whose true scope will only become apparent in the coming months. (Bart Stupak is rumored to have gotten $700,000 for airport repairs as his sell-out price.)

Worst of all were the shameless parliamentary tactics that Democrats deployed. The Founders deliberately constructed many roadblocks for new laws to prevent elected officials from straying too far from the will of the people. But Democrats could care less about parliamentary niceties.

They are poised to use the so-called nuclear option or "reconciliation" to square the House and the Senate bills. This option will allow the Senate to circumvent the normal committee process to make fixes to the House bill through a simple majority without risking a filibuster. But reconciliation is meant exclusively for budgetary matters--not ramrodding sweeping social legislation on a party-line vote. This is why the Senate parliamentarian--a completely nonpartisan figure--has to approve its use for every fix. But Democrats are poised to have Vice President Joe Biden overrule him should he dare to stand in their way. In short, instead of bending the cost curve, President Obama is bending the rules of accountable government.

It is hardly surprising then that Americans are feeling a growing panic as they watch their constitutional republic descend into a banana republic. President Obama is fond of quoting Mahatma Gandhi's line that "we should be the change we want to see." But Gandhi also said that "civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state has become lawless and corrupt." Americans instinctively understand this which is why pockets of resistance to ObamaCare are already emerging. The question is only whether they can be constructively harnessed into a grassroots, Gandhi-style civil disobedience movement powerful enough to undo this monstrosity.

The prerequisites for any movement's success are credible leaders and a moral high ground. The first means that opponents of ObamaCare cannot--cannot--let Mitt Romney come within sniffing distance of their cause. He is trying to position himself at the forefront of the Repeal ObamaCare movement to further his presidential ambitions. But he couldn't be a worse spokesman given that as governor he was responsible for implementing a universal coverage program in the Bay State that is identical in every essential respect to ObamaCare, including the individual mandate. He has to be banished from every anti-ObamaCare panel, podium and platform lest the movement be accused of partisanship and hypocrisy.

As for maintaining the moral high ground, ObamaCare opponents have to be very careful when invoking rhetoric from the revolutionary period. Tea Partiers quote the Founders, especially Thomas Jefferson who said that the "tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants." But any hint of violence--even inadvertent--will compromise their cause because there are crucial differences between our colonial and current rulers. The colonial rulers were monarchs who used violence to extract taxes from Americans to enrich themselves and their motherland. But Democrats are imposing mandates to force Americans to do something for their own alleged good--and taxes to redistribute wealth among Americans. This is wrong and completely at odds with the spirit of American freedom and self-reliance. But the Repeal ObamaCare movement can only succeed if it convinces potential beneficiaries of redistributionist policies of the rightness of its cause.

This can't be done by threatening a civil war--even metaphorically--against them. Gandhi's ahimsa--or nonviolent resistance that seeks to change minds by a firm and calm expression of one's own conscience --is a far better strategy.

To this end, the perpetrators of ObamaCare must be defeated in November and 2012. But right now it is entirely appropriate for Senate Republicans to stall the reconciliation process as much as possible. They are right in calling every point of order that they can--if only to call attention to the bill's manifest corruption. Likewise, the 30-plus states that are issuing sovereignty resolutions and exploring ballot initiatives that would protect their residents from Uncle Sam's coverage diktat are on the right track. Even if these efforts are ultimately thrown out in court because federal law trumps state law, they will make a powerful statement against the coercive nature of ObamaCare.

But the lawsuits that have a shot at sticking in court are the ones that various attorney generals around the country are preparing under the Constitution's commerce clause. This clause gives the federal government expansive powers to regulate interstate commercial activity. But it has never before been invoked to force Americans to purchase a product as a condition of lawful residence in this country. This crosses a line that might well make five Supreme Court justices balk.


Any strategy of nonviolent civil resistance has to first make a good faith effort to achieve its end through the available political and legal means. But there comes a time when changing the law requires acts of conscience.

For opponents of ObamaCare that time is Dec. 31, 2013. That's when the individual mandate will go into effect. If ObamaCare hasn't been repealed by Congress or nullified in court by then, its opponents would be justified in urging Americans to refuse to buy coverage or pay fines and dare authorities to come after them.

By some estimates, Uncle Sam will need to hire an additional 17,000 IRS agents or so just to enforce the coverage mandate. But even if a few million Americans simultaneously refuse to abide by it, they could easily overwhelm the system. Self-rule or swaraj, Gandhi said, requires a collective understanding of the immense capacity of citizens to "regulate and control" the coercive apparatus of the state through mass nonviolent resistance.

President Obama and his fellow Democrats are counting on this resistance petering out. That could happen. But it will be a lot easier for opponents to maintain this zeal in the age of social networking. Facebook already has numerous groups with millions of members demanding the repeal of ObamaCare. It won't be impossible to mobilize enough of them when the denouement arrives.

After all, this issue is not just about the fate of an industry. It is about maintaining control over basic decisions about one's own life and health. The stakes are too high to let ObamaCare stand.

Shikha Dalmia is a senior analyst at Reason Foundation and a biweekly Forbes columnist.



I wonder if Shikah would be interested in running for President anytime soon.

Sir SkratchaLot
03-25-2010, 08:14 PM
Oh my god the constitution is being torn into shreds!!!! It's the end of the world! The sky is falling the sky is falling!!! Everyone move to Costa Rica!!! If this bills passes everyone will instantly die!!! I knew this would happen if a black man ever got into the oval office!

RobMoney$
03-25-2010, 08:16 PM
Quote which part of her article you found sensationalistic.
I thought the tone of it was rather conservative myself

kaiser soze
03-25-2010, 10:02 PM
go ahead!

drink your own piss

RobMoney$
03-25-2010, 10:34 PM
If you're implying that Gandhi drank his own urine, as usual, you're completely wrong.

...and BTW, would you tell Steven Colbert he's wrong too.

Sir SkratchaLot
03-26-2010, 11:25 AM
Uh, that shit ain't conservative in any other way than in the political sense of the word "conservative", which is not what you meant when you said you thought it was "conservative."

First, it uses the term "ObamaCare." Seriously? This is a serious article? This is restrained in style?

Then it says this ridiculous bullshit
[Obama] might have set the stage for the largest civil disobedience movement since the civil rights era . . [he] profoundly underestimates the dismay of a large segment of the public that sees what he signed Tuesday as a fraudulent piece of legislation based on fraudulent thinking backed by fraudulent facts enacted through a fraudulent process. (Yes, Americans do care about "process," Mr. President. It's another name for representative government.)"
-Really? Americans care about process? Remember the 2000 election? Remember how Bush was defeated in the popular vote and the electoral vote counts were completely fucked in Florida and the stacked Supreme Court voted on strict political lines? Remember the riots then? Oh, yeah, there were no riots. We don't care that much about process. Also. Allllllsooooooo, this healthcare shit is not even REMOTELY close to the civil rights era! Note even close dood. The response is not even remotely close to the LA riots. The fact that homeboy is even comparing this to the civil rights era just shows how much of a cry-baby he is. He's not getting waterhosed or bitten by police dogs because of the color of his skin but he's acting like he did.

highly respected Congressional Budget Office
LOL

Worst of all were the shameless parliamentary tactics that Democrats deployed. The Founders deliberately constructed many roadblocks for new laws to prevent elected officials from straying too far from the will of the people. But Democrats could care less about parliamentary niceties.

They are poised to use the so-called nuclear option or "reconciliation" to square the House and the Senate bills.
LOL again. This is strait up politics. First, if you want to get into the "will of the people" I have to go back to the 2000 election. You thought I forgot about that didn't you? Where was this jackass back then. Oh yeah, he didn't care then because it served HIS ideology. Second, it was the republicans who first threatened the "nuclear option" in Bush's first term because of opposition to his judicial appointments by the Democratic run house and senate. These "nuclear option" Congressmen were the EXACT SAME congressmen (Orin Hatch ring a bell?) that pulled the same type of obstructionist tactics when Clinton was in office. It ain't "Democrats". Its politicians in general. And its the pot calling the kettle black (yet again) in this instance. You can't take advantage of that type of shit when it helps you and then expect to turn around and call foul when the other side does it. Third, you point out to me in the Constitution where these congressional rules practices are unconstitutional and I'll give you a million dollars. The Founders weren't concerned with micromanaging. That was the brilliance of the US Constitution in the first place. The bill passing process was entirely constitutional.

It is hardly surprising then that Americans are feeling a growing panic as they watch their constitutional republic descend into a banana republic.
What? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaat??? That doesn't even make any sense. Okay, I'm pretty sure the dude just found another phrase with the word "republic" in it to make his usage sound clever. Obama is turing America into a clothing store? But let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say he meant banana republic as a pejorative term originally used to refer to a country that is politically unstable, dependent on limited agriculture (e.g. bananas), and ruled by a small, self-elected, wealthy, and corrupt clique. Ummmmmmmm. Bush was self elected. Republicans are the wealthy ones. The health care bill is designed to help the disadvantaged (even though I know Glenn Beck says it's secret purpose is to force abortions on everyone.)

President Obama is fond of quoting Mahatma Gandhi's line that "we should be the change we want to see." But Gandhi also said that "civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state has become lawless and corrupt." Americans instinctively understand this which is why pockets of resistance to ObamaCare are already emerging. The question is only whether they can be constructively harnessed into a grassroots, Gandhi-style civil disobedience movement powerful enough to undo this monstrosity.
So, let me get this strait, he wants to use Gandhi-style tactics to fight something Gandhi would whole-heartedly support (i.e. making sure everyone has health care)? That's like the KKK using Martin Luther King tactics. I mean, I guess there's nothing inherently illogical about the idea, but it is kind of shitty.

As for maintaining the moral high ground, ObamaCare opponents have to be very careful when invoking rhetoric from the revolutionary period. But he just got done going off about how the "Founders" are all up in heaven freaking out because Obama is pissing on the Constitution. I'm pretty sure the Founders are from the revolutionary period. I'm also CERTAIN the Founders didn't work as a homogenous unit. The Constitution was created due to conflict and compromise. I know that Rush, Glen, and Neil all like to think the founders were on their side but that's just them ntrying to convince people who don't actually know anything about history to agree with them.

But Democrats are imposing mandates to force Americans to do something for their own alleged good--and taxes to redistribute wealth among Americans. This is wrong and completely at odds with the spirit of American freedom and self-reliance.
What about compulsive jury duty? What about compulsive military duty? What about laws to keep people from harming themselves with drugs and alcohol? Prostitution? What about forcing people to pay taxes to pay for roads? Firefighters? Police? Why isn't he complaining about the fact that you MUST have car insurance? This dude is completely off the hinges and out of touch with both reality and history. Our society has ALWAYS had mandates. It's just that this doooshbagget wants to pick and choose which mandates he likes so that he can force HIS ideology down everyone's throats.

To this end, the perpetrators of ObamaCare must be defeated in November and 2012. But right now it is entirely appropriate for Senate Republicans to stall the reconciliation process as much as possible.
Didn't he just go off like 5 seconds ago about Democrats "abusing" process?

So yeah, the tone was "conservative" in the way that Rush Limbaugh is "conservative." It's “conservative” in that it's cry-baby ideologue rhetoric. It's not "conservative" as an antonym to "sensationalistic". It's not restrained in style or moderate. It's ridiculous.

Echewta
03-26-2010, 01:01 PM
CBO is acually pretty respected and stays amazingly neutral.

It took me twice as long to get to work today because of the Obamaroadblocks and having to check my I.D. I was lucky and had running clean Obamawater for most of the night. Got to shower!

RobMoney$
03-26-2010, 07:43 PM
Uh, that shit ain't conservative in any other way than in the political sense of the word "conservative", which is not what you meant when you said you thought it was "conservative."

First, it uses the term "ObamaCare." Seriously? This is a serious article? This is restrained in style?

Then it says this ridiculous bullshit

-Really? Americans care about process? Remember the 2000 election? Remember how Bush was defeated in the popular vote and the electoral vote counts were completely fucked in Florida and the stacked Supreme Court voted on strict political lines? Remember the riots then? Oh, yeah, there were no riots. We don't care that much about process. Also. Allllllsooooooo, this healthcare shit is not even REMOTELY close to the civil rights era! Note even close dood. The response is not even remotely close to the LA riots. The fact that homeboy is even comparing this to the civil rights era just shows how much of a cry-baby he is. He's not getting waterhosed or bitten by police dogs because of the color of his skin but he's acting like he did.


LOL


LOL again. This is strait up politics. First, if you want to get into the "will of the people" I have to go back to the 2000 election. You thought I forgot about that didn't you? Where was this jackass back then. Oh yeah, he didn't care then because it served HIS ideology. Second, it was the republicans who first threatened the "nuclear option" in Bush's first term because of opposition to his judicial appointments by the Democratic run house and senate. These "nuclear option" Congressmen were the EXACT SAME congressmen (Orin Hatch ring a bell?) that pulled the same type of obstructionist tactics when Clinton was in office. It ain't "Democrats". Its politicians in general. And its the pot calling the kettle black (yet again) in this instance. You can't take advantage of that type of shit when it helps you and then expect to turn around and call foul when the other side does it. Third, you point out to me in the Constitution where these congressional rules practices are unconstitutional and I'll give you a million dollars. The Founders weren't concerned with micromanaging. That was the brilliance of the US Constitution in the first place. The bill passing process was entirely constitutional.


What? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaat??? That doesn't even make any sense. Okay, I'm pretty sure the dude just found another phrase with the word "republic" in it to make his usage sound clever. Obama is turing America into a clothing store? But let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say he meant banana republic as a pejorative term originally used to refer to a country that is politically unstable, dependent on limited agriculture (e.g. bananas), and ruled by a small, self-elected, wealthy, and corrupt clique. Ummmmmmmm. Bush was self elected. Republicans are the wealthy ones. The health care bill is designed to help the disadvantaged (even though I know Glenn Beck says it's secret purpose is to force abortions on everyone.)


So, let me get this strait, he wants to use Gandhi-style tactics to fight something Gandhi would whole-heartedly support (i.e. making sure everyone has health care)? That's like the KKK using Martin Luther King tactics. I mean, I guess there's nothing inherently illogical about the idea, but it is kind of shitty.

But he just got done going off about how the "Founders" are all up in heaven freaking out because Obama is pissing on the Constitution. I'm pretty sure the Founders are from the revolutionary period. I'm also CERTAIN the Founders didn't work as a homogenous unit. The Constitution was created due to conflict and compromise. I know that Rush, Glen, and Neil all like to think the founders were on their side but that's just them ntrying to convince people who don't actually know anything about history to agree with them.


What about compulsive jury duty? What about compulsive military duty? What about laws to keep people from harming themselves with drugs and alcohol? Prostitution? What about forcing people to pay taxes to pay for roads? Firefighters? Police? Why isn't he complaining about the fact that you MUST have car insurance? This dude is completely off the hinges and out of touch with both reality and history. Our society has ALWAYS had mandates. It's just that this doooshbagget wants to pick and choose which mandates he likes so that he can force HIS ideology down everyone's throats.


Didn't he just go off like 5 seconds ago about Democrats "abusing" process?

So yeah, the tone was "conservative" in the way that Rush Limbaugh is "conservative." It's “conservative” in that it's cry-baby ideologue rhetoric. It's not "conservative" as an antonym to "sensationalistic". It's not restrained in style or moderate. It's ridiculous.



1. "Obamacare" is a pretty common term for the bill at this point.
What's your issue with it's use?
It's not like it's an insult to anyone or anything?

2. Well, the fact that it's published by Forbes Magazine lends enough credibility to the article for me.
So YES, it is a serious article.
The fact that you question it's credibility only exposes YOUR ineptitude.
Let's see, who's more qualified to determine if an opinion piece is credible, Forbes Magazine, or some guy on the BBMB named Sir Scratchmyballs?
I think the answer is Forbes muthafuckin Magazine.

3. Yeah, nobody was pissed about Bush stealing the election.
The media didn't cover it at all. :rolleyes:

4. So let's get this straight, you're saying "Fuck it, Bush bent the rules to get elected, why should anyone have a problem with Obama bending the rules to shove Obamacare up our asses?"
And you're disparaging someone who writes for Forbes?
AHAHAHHAAAhahahahaa.

"Well Bush did it too".
Classic loser liberal mentality.
Droppin' Science, Yeahwho, and kaiser soze already use the classic liberal motto of "Well Bush did it too" as an excuse for everything Obama screws up.
When you're using "W", the undisputed worst president until now, as a measuring stick for Obama, you've failed.
He didn't run on "More of the Same " platform, he ran on the "Change" platform.


5. Nobody compared it to the Civil Rights struggle "DOOD".
The statement was that this "might have set the stage for the largest civil disobedience movement since the civil rights era"

SINCE THE CIVIL RIGHTS ERA.
Do you understand what the author is trying to say, AT ALL? (who BTW is a woman. If you had actually clicked on the link I provided you would have seen a nice picture of her right at the top of the story.)
"Since that era".
It didn't say "Just Like that era".

6. Well, if you're fine with the manner in which this was passed then you aren't paying attention very much.
Tell ya what, why don't you show me where in the Constitution it says that the President can buy votes in Congress for the fee of a Billion Dollar airport upgrade?

7. And LOL @ "Republicans are the wealthy ones".
As if the Democrats are poor, or have your best interest at heart.
How naive can you be.


8. She's not making a statement on wether Gandhi would be for, or against this Bill.
Gandhi would be for whatever the will of the people supported.
And the civil unrest that's occuring is a statement to that.
She's advocating civil disobedience to protest a corrupt and tyrannical government , something Gandhi most certainly would be all for.

9. Yes, you MUST have car insurance.
But there's nothing that says that you MUST own a car.

yeahwho
03-26-2010, 11:02 PM
CBO is acually pretty respected and stays amazingly neutral.

It took me twice as long to get to work today because of the Obamaroadblocks and having to check my I.D. I was lucky and had running clean Obamawater for most of the night. Got to shower!

I'm surprised you weren't ask to step outside your vehicle and treated to a new free Obamacare Colomaoscopy. I think those random road ass checks don't kick in till July 2014.

RobMoney$
03-27-2010, 01:31 PM
What about compulsive jury duty? What about compulsive military duty? What about laws to keep people from harming themselves with drugs and alcohol? Prostitution? What about forcing people to pay taxes to pay for roads? Firefighters? Police? Why isn't he complaining about the fact that you MUST have car insurance? This dude is completely off the hinges and out of touch with both reality and history. Our society has ALWAYS had mandates. It's just that this doooshbagget wants to pick and choose which mandates he likes so that he can force HIS ideology down everyone's throats.

All mandates that are funded and benefit citizens of the state.
And as I previously said, you are mandated to carry car insurance, but you aren't mandated to own a car.

Medicare is an unfunded mandate thrust upon the states.
The states are broke.
So broke that I bet we will see some become insolvent.
HCR is making a bad situation much worse.

Any bets which state will be the first to go bankrupt?
I am betting on California.

DroppinScience
03-28-2010, 05:00 AM
Frank Rich: "The Rage Is Not About Health Care"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html?hp

But the explanation is plain: the health care bill is not the main source of this anger and never has been. It’s merely a handy excuse. The real source of the over-the-top rage of 2010 is the same kind of national existential reordering that roiled America in 1964.

If Obama’s first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play. It’s not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver — none of them major Democratic players in the health care push — received a major share of last weekend’s abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan “Take our country back!,” these are the people they want to take the country back from.

yeahwho
03-28-2010, 05:53 AM
Politically, this frustration is epitomized by the Tea Party movement. It may have some legitimate concerns (taxation, the role of government, etc.), but its message is lost in the madness. And now the anemic Republican establishment, covetous of the Tea Party’s passion, is moving to absorb it, not admonish it. Instead of jettisoning the radical language, rabid bigotry and rising violence, the Republicans justify it. (They don’t want to refute it as much as funnel it.)

There may be a short-term benefit in this strategy, but it’s a long-term loser.

Read on,

Whose Country Is It? (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/opinion/27blow.html?src=me&ref=general)

Sir SkratchaLot
03-29-2010, 09:18 AM
1. "Obamacare" is a pretty common term for the bill at this point.
What's your issue with it's use?
It's not like it's an insult to anyone or anything?

Sure buddy, "Obamacare" is not just conservative rhetoric. And I guess "teabagger" is just a common, everyday, term for the Tea Party movement! All this time I thought it was political rhetoric. Silly me.


2. Well, the fact that it's published by Forbes Magazine lends enough credibility to the article for me.
So YES, it is a serious article.
The fact that you question it's credibility only exposes YOUR ineptitude.
Let's see, who's more qualified to determine if an opinion piece is credible, Forbes Magazine, or some guy on the BBMB named Sir Scratchmyballs?
I think the answer is Forbes muthafuckin Magazine.

Your argument lacks so much substance that it only took you two paragraphs to resort to name calling.

Fact: The motto of Forbes magazine is "The Capitalist Tool." Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Okay, I'm not going to get into name calling. Fact: The editor-in-chief of Forbes Magazine is Steve Forbes who was a republican presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000. Fact: In December 2006, Steve Forbes joined the board of directors of the health care industry funded advocacy organization FreedomWorks. Fact: In 2009, FreedomWorks responded to the growing number of Tea party protests across the United States, and is currently one of several groups active in the "Tea Party" tax protests. Sounds politically biased to me!


3. Yeah, nobody was pissed about Bush stealing the election.
The media didn't cover it at all. :rolleyes:

4. So let's get this straight, you're saying "Fuck it, Bush bent the rules to get elected, why should anyone have a problem with Obama bending the rules to shove Obamacare up our asses?"
And you're disparaging someone who writes for Forbes?
AHAHAHHAAAhahahahaa.

"Well Bush did it too".
Classic loser liberal mentality.
Droppin' Science, Yeahwho, and kaiser soze already use the classic liberal motto of "Well Bush did it too" as an excuse for everything Obama screws up.
When you're using "W", the undisputed worst president until now, as a measuring stick for Obama, you've failed.
He didn't run on "More of the Same " platform, he ran on the "Change" platform.

Uh, man, the point is, don't complain and cry about how unfair everything is unless you're willing to man up and refuse to use the same political tactics. If it was really about PROCESS, then you would have been complaining about all of the republican abuses. But it's really about ideology and your own agenda, which is why you (and Forbes) are only complaining about the process when it hinders your own personal agenda.

And yeah, Obama did run on "change". He's pushing to change the health care system. You want it to stay the same, which is why you're mad. You should have gotten more people to vote for the "more of the same" camp.


5. Nobody compared it to the Civil Rights struggle "DOOD".
The statement was that this "might have set the stage for the largest civil disobedience movement since the civil rights era"

Um, doooood, that right there is comparing the health care opposition crew to the civil rights era. And again, the size and scope of this "movement" is not anywhere close to the size and scope of the civil rights era. The feminist and gay rights activists have way bigger marches than the tea party anti-tax people. I bet THAT makes you mad!


SINCE THE CIVIL RIGHTS ERA.
Do you understand what the author is trying to say, AT ALL? (who BTW is a woman. If you had actually clicked on the link I provided you would have seen a nice picture of her right at the top of the story.)
"Since that era".
It didn't say "Just Like that era".

She's saying, "This movement is big! Just like the civil rights movement!" That's called a "comparison." What she should have done is joined the feminist movement and compared that to the civil rights era movements. Then she would have at least been accurate!


6. Well, if you're fine with the manner in which this was passed then you aren't paying attention very much.
Tell ya what, why don't you show me where in the Constitution it says that the President can buy votes in Congress for the fee of a Billion Dollar airport upgrade?

Well, having extensively studied the Constitution and the case law interpreting it for many years I can safely tell you that it doesn't generally get that specific. And, when it does get specific, it usually doesn't tell anyone what they CAN do. When it gets specific, it tells people what they CAN'T do. I.e. the governmet can't unreasonably search someone's home, the government can't impose on your freedom of speech. When it gives powers it's usually pretty vague like "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." It was written that way on purpose.

So, you're just totally off base on this one. Instead of watching FOX news and just accepting what they tell you about the Constitution, try reading the Constitution! Start with Article II. You'll find that there's a LOT of grey area there.


7. And LOL @ "Republicans are the wealthy ones".
As if the Democrats are poor, or have your best interest at heart.
How naive can you be.

And what's the democratice equivalent to Forbes magazine?


8. She's not making a statement on wether Gandhi would be for, or against this Bill.
Gandhi would be for whatever the will of the people supported.
And the civil unrest that's occuring is a statement to that.
She's advocating civil disobedience to protest a corrupt and tyrannical government , something Gandhi most certainly would be all for.

9. Yes, you MUST have car insurance.
But there's nothing that says that you MUST own a car.

There's the sensationalism again "tyrannical govenrnment." You'd think we live in Singapore. "No Mr. Evil Government!!!! Don't give me medicine!!!!! Noooooooooooooooo!!!!! Help us Ganhdi!"

Here's an idea for civil disobedience. Why don't you boycott healthcare!!!!