Replies

The public relations blitz to sell us on the act’s virtues never followed through. Okay............

Why is it that, even two years after the law passed, they still feel the need to sell us on how wonderful Obamacare is?

Why is it that, to paraphrase Nancy Pelosi, that having passed it to see what’s in the law, that the law is as unpopular as ever?

Why is it that liberals continue to tell us that, once people find out what’s in the law, that then they support Obamacare???

Everything about this law, from the original political back room dealing and bending congressional rules of order to get it passed, to the final Supreme Court ruling by John Roberts’ tortured logic, really reeks, in my opinion.

The NYT is trying to tell us the Health Care law is unpopular because the Adminstration never really tried to sell it. I believe I read just last week that the President himself, the greatest orator in the history of the ultraverse, has given 144 seperate speeches on the Health Care bill since it was passed. If so, he has only himself to blame.

Supreme Court ruling by John Roberts’ tortured logic,

I'm not sure the word "logic" even with the word "tortured" in front of it, could be used for any portion of his opinion. I read an article to my hubby about this which had quotes from the opinion. Gobbily-gook, was my hubby's opinion of Robert's opinion. Honestly, it seemed to me that he would state something, and then contradict himself one or two sentences later.

I sometimes think that I get more out of an article when I read it aloud to my husband. I remember having the same reaction when I would read articles to him that had quotes from Obama's book. I would actually have to stop and say, "this is terrible, how did he ever become Havard Law Review President?" I reacted in a similar fashion when reading pieces of the "opinion" from Roberts.

This is the second opinion from the Court this week, in which I am wondering if they are thinking about anything in a logical fahsion. With "Arizona", they say that it is okay for the police to ask for identification in order to get info on whether the person is in the country illegally. However, no "immigrant" (notice how they lump legal and illegal immigrants together) has to carry any papers or cards that would tell the officials that they are (or are not) in the country legally. So, you can ask, but there is no way to really know because no one has to carry any papers. Legal immigrants used to be told that they needed to have their green card with them at all times in order to produce it if asked. Now, not so much.

It's nothing more than snake oil that's being sold to whomever hasn't made up their minds whether to give the Socialist/Marxist apparatus four more years to further entrench themselves. For the moment, they now have/will have control over 1/7th the nation's economy (or what's left of it), and they'll do anything - illegally, in all likelihood - to keep it. Willard had better win it by four points or more, or it's over with. And that's as much applicable to the Pubbie Senate candidates, as well. I hope people are as pissed off as they say they are, because we're going to need to lay a brutal beatdown in November, not eking out one and two point wins here and there. When the fog lifts the next morning, the political landscape is still going to look like the day after the Battle of Antietam, win or lose.

"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

--H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920