Brilliant

**Galen Sevinne** · 08-26-2009, 10:43 PM

No other way to describe this but simply brilliant. I think it is even simple enough for you guys to follow. So tell me connies, what scares you about this? What quivers your mygy here? What stands behind the dark shadows? Enlighten me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jng4TnKqy6A

**effo5231** · 08-27-2009, 12:59 AM

We've been over this Galen... logical appeals to reason based cause brain tumors.

**Greg** · 08-27-2009, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

No other way to describe this but simply brilliant. I think it is even simple enough for you guys to follow. So tell me connies, what scares you about this? What quivers your mygy here? What stands behind the dark shadows? Enlighten me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jng4TnKqy6A

It is unconstitutional.

**Galen Sevinne** · 08-27-2009, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by TRAP

Maybe this will light it up for you Galen, I mean enlighten you.

http://www.strangepolitics.com/content/item/105965.html

If you need some viagra, you can get it a the Clinton Presidential Library.

Come on baby, light my fire
Come on baby, light my fire
Try to set the night on fire, yeah

Seriously...look at her hands. She is such a man.

Stay on topic Trap.

**Rochardrik** · 08-27-2009, 12:51 PM

... unconstitutional? Who says? They bled people to cure them when the constitution was written.... That didn't cost as much as a hospital stay... oh, yeah, there weren't hospitals then... What a ridiculous response!
I guess they really aren't smart enough to debate the subject, Galen!:grbac: :insane:

**Galen Sevinne** · 08-27-2009, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by Rochardrik

... unconstitutional? Who says? They bled people to cure them when the constitution was written.... That didn't cost as much as a hospital stay... oh, yeah, there weren't hospitals then... What a ridiculous response!
I guess they really aren't smart enough to debate the subject, Galen!:grbac: :insane:

I think their final stance will be that common sense is unconstitutional.

**jonboy79** · 08-27-2009, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by Rochardrik

... unconstitutional? Who says? :

umm... The CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES....

I know that is not important to Liberals, but it is to Conservatives.

**Rochardrik** · 08-27-2009, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by jonboy79

umm... The CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES....

I know that is not important to Liberals, but it is to Conservatives.

Where? Show me... and since there was NO SUCH ISSUE then... how could it have been included? Please don't take offense, but stupidity IS surmountable!!!. If the writers of the constitution could have envisioned a country with 50 states, not 13, and high speed transportation, and twitter, and cell phones, then they MIGHT have been able to write a constitution that would NEVER be changed or amended....... but they couldn't, and didn't!
That line is tired, belabored and just inapplicable, Please stop! It shows a lack of ability to have a reasonable, logical thought! I could go on, but I would just incite your anger further, and I don't want to do that!

**Rochardrik** · 08-27-2009, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by TRAP

Hey Galen Buddy - If you dont like those hands, Im sure youd like these - especially these buns.

You can call Clinton for some viagra.

:grbac:

http://www.whiterabbitcult.com/wp-co...arah-palin.jpg

Horrifying! I shall not sleep for weeks!

**Galen Sevinne** · 08-27-2009, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by jonboy79

umm... The CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES....

I know that is not important to Liberals, but it is to Conservatives.

riiiight. so here is the point of the post where Jonboy is asked to support his claim and well, as they used to say in t.v. land, "goodnight jonboy"

I actually took the time to google - "healthcare reform" unconstitutional - to see what winger was starting this angle. Michelle Bachman seems to be taking the charge on this one. Enough said there...but I will go on since I have some time. (HR insert AdHominum attack here)

Its unconstitutional because Bachman says, "it’s not within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, for us to design and create a national takeover of health care"

But, "There is nothing in any of the health care bills under consideration which resembles a “national takeover of health care.” Conservatives like to use this language when referring to the public health option. Like other insurers, the public option would collect premiums from people who choose to buy into it, and then spend those premiums to insure these participants"

Had Bachmann bothered to read Article I of the Constitution before going on Fox, she would have learned that Congress has the power to “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises” and to “provide for….the general welfare of the United States.”

and, "It’s important to note just how radical Bachmann’s theory of the Constitution is. If Congress does not have the power to create a modest public option which competes with private health plans in the marketplace, then it certainly does not have the authority to create Medicare. Similarly, Congress’ power to spend money to benefit the general welfare is the basis for Social Security, federal education funding, Medicaid, and veterans benefits such as the VA health system and the GI Bill. All of these programs would cease to exist in Michele Bachmann’s America

So what we have is the libertarian circle jerk here suggesting that Govt. really can't do anything. As pointed out in my other thread, it is hard to get through a couple hours a day without utilizing something that the government has touched.

Spend some time in a developing nation where the electricity goes off every other day, tap water is contaminated by Giardia, food is poisioned with salmonella and hepatitas, roads are dirt with the frequent landslides blocking you and when your house catches on fire, you better hope you have a couple dozen buckets, a couple dozen friends, and pond with a couple dozen yards.....then get back to me with your libertarian wet dream.

**jonboy79** · 08-27-2009, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by Rochardrik

Where? Show me... and since there was NO SUCH ISSUE then... how could it have been included? Please don't take offense, but stupidity IS surmountable!!!. If the writers of the constitution could have envisioned a country with 50 states, not 13, and high speed transportation, and twitter, and cell phones, then they MIGHT have been able to write a constitution that would NEVER be changed or amended....... but they couldn't, and didn't!
That line is tired, belabored and just inapplicable, Please stop! It shows a lack of ability to have a reasonable, logical thought! I could go on, but I would just incite your anger further, and I don't want to do that!

Because you have no concept of what the document is about. There are not finite provisions on what they can do. The Constitution is a document hat sets out parameters for a Federal government and how the powers are seperated between that and the state governments. They rightly so figured that issues liek these should be more localized and handled by the states. the Fed government was only intended as protection and governance to keep the states together.

**Galen Sevinne** · 08-27-2009, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by jonboy79

Because you have no concept of what the document is about. There are not finite provisions on what they can do. The Constitution is a document hat sets out parameters for a Federal government and how the powers are seperated between that and the state governments. They rightly so figured that issues liek these should be more localized and handled by the states. the Fed government was only intended as protection and governance to keep the states together.

Seriously Jonboy...your lights still on. you're wasting electricity.