Posted on 01/04/2011 10:32:49 AM PST by yoe
Rep. Peter King says that Republicans must have an “intelligent debate” over their opposition to the health care reform law and other policies backed by President Barack Obama, rather than stonewalling Democrats without discussion for the next two years.
A frequent Obama critic, the New York Republican said that his party must use substantive arguments to push back against the president. “Republicans have to conduct an intelligent debate, we have to show we're not just against President Obama and everything he does,” King said Monday night on Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor." Rep. Peter King says that Republicans must have an “intelligent debate” over their opposition to the health care reform law and other policies backed by President Barack Obama, rather than stonewalling Democrats without discussion for the next two years.
The House GOP is (House to vote on health care law repeal next week)
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/46985.html#ixzz1A5kSBNA8) to repeal the new health care law, an effort that's expected to go nowhere with the Senate and White House. But King believes there's more than symbolism at stake.
“This is a fight worth having,” said King, the incoming chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. It's a debate worth having. And I think it's going to frame the national debate for the next two years.”
King added he hopes the vote will open up a broader discussion of what the American health care system ought to look like. “I think we have to clear the slate and then show how we are going to replace it step-by-step,” he said.
Become Active in this effort to keep our good health care systems and common sense changes where needed in the rest. Keep your Congressmen and Senators feet in the fire on this one.....think of the money and time wasted by the Obama people because of the silly Progressive dream of Obama and his base to Socialize our medical system. To heck with those nits....full steam ahead to restoring American Values....not Obama's Socialism.
I cannot imagine Peter King doing anything intelligent IF there is a camera somewhere close to him.
And if there is someone between him and said camera, all you will see is A**holes and Elbows as he shoves them aside.
So there goes any hope for an intelligent debate.
Certainly not on O’Reilly’s show.
After King BOR had a nimrod RAT congressman from NJ on for “balance” and the nimrods first words were that the American people want us focused on jobs, not healthcare.
Of course O’Bloviator wassn’t bright or quick enough to ask where this notion came from, since the nimrod and his colleagues in Congress have spent most of their time on healthcare for the past 2 years.
The State governments can be socialist legally.. individually..
BUT, federal government socialism is illegal.. and unconstitutional..
“Intelligent debate” means “Democrats and Commies win!”
“Intelligent debate” is for poopy-heads.
Private property is a natural right of man and is protected by the US Constitution.
So, no, a State could not go socialist under the US Constitution and declare that all agriculture and business will now be owned and operated by the State (socialism).
He’s reading the polls: some provisions of the bill have 60-70% support - the strongest opposition is to the mandates.
Unless realistic alternatives are offered, Lib Democrats will keep offering amendments to force conservatives to go on record as “opposing” the popular provisions.
Not even the states can. From the Constitution, Article IV: Section. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...
Republican implies self-government. It means people helping themselves, not government taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
I did Not say communist I said socialist..
Although communism is socialism, socialism is not necessarily communism..
There are degrees of socialism..
We’ve had one for the past two years, Peter King.
It pisses me off when even reasonably articulate guys on our side like King act as if we didn’t present a slew of alternatives on this issue. Everyone on our side needs to be clear....we presented a different approach, the Democrats ignored us and rammed through a bill opposed by 60% of the country.
Each State has their own constitution.. or charter..
Federal Constitution over-reach is not only possible it is probable.
Not only probable but currently in effect..
Allowing the federal gov't "owning" any land except Washington D.C. is in your face over-reach..
Even Washington D.C. is "leased" not owned..
Washington D.C. is an intellectual(political) construct.. only the States are "REAL"(actual)..
The problems START when the federal gov't is treated as actual(REAL)..
Socialism is Communism sold by the glass.
My point is that there is, under our Constitution, a limit to socialism and socialist endeavors at both the Federal AND State levels.
Unfortunately, in Obama’s case, to defend the Republic everything he does HAS to be opposed.
Democrats are inherently like that but RINOs have no excuse..
Politically lazy is next to intellectually deluded..
Maybe but the Feds ARE doing it by taking over land through regulation. You may own and pay taxes the the govt tells you how you can use it... same thing as them owning it.
Yes, but under the subject of what is and what is not Constitutional, what the government is and is not actually doing is almost an afterthought.
My point is that socialism is Unconstitutional at either the State or Federal level, not that it isn’t happening, but that it is Unconstitutional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.