• John, we change and learn along with you.

    January 11, 2011 at 9:39 a.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    January 11, 2011 at 9:27 a.m.

  • Rebecca.

    I must apologize for thinking you were talking to me. Please accept my apology .

    January 11, 2011 at 5:04 a.m.

  • Where did John go?!?!?!

    Writein, I don't think I was responding to you, just sharing that the name-callers are racist too, if you think about it. I'm sorry that you felt pressured to apologize. Did you do anything wrong? Having a different opinion is not something you need to apologize for. I wouldn't.

    January 10, 2011 at 8:44 p.m.

  • Rebecca.

    Be serious. It is juvenile behavior for a person in their 50‘s, 60’s, or 70’s, to make FALSE ACCUSATIONS of their guns being taking away, killing babies, enslaving people, and destroying the nation. I guess you forgot all about people like Kenneth and WM/ PAUL TASIN. Yes, giving the attitudes and markup of this area over the course of four years, I will not apologize for my statement and I still stand by it. Whether you LIKE IT OR NOT !!!!!!!!

    January 10, 2011 at 4:26 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    January 10, 2011 at 10:30 a.m.

  • This is more fun. =D

    January 10, 2011 at 8:55 a.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    January 10, 2011 at 8:40 a.m.

  • I think it's racist to assume that when someone disagrees with a person - it is because of that person's race. If it's a choice to name-call when someone disagrees, then it's just juvenile behavior. If you don't agree with me then I guess I could assume (if I were so inclined) that you are a male chauvinist, being that I'm female, or maybe if you are female and disagree with me, then you are anti-German/Moravian/Scots-Irish/French... =P

    It reminds me of that episode of Millionaire's Club when Patti (?) tells Matt (a homosexual male in his late forties) that his obsession with boys twenty + years younger is bordering pedophilia. He shouted, "YOU are a homophobe!"

    Sorry, you guys weren't entertaining enough the other night so I had to resort to television.

    January 7, 2011 at 5:54 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    January 7, 2011 at 5 p.m.

  • Well I have been thinking about something Mike said.

    The average attention span of a man in America is about 23 minutes... LOL What about a woman? Sometimes when a person is angry the attention span can vary. Mike, have you ever made your spouse angry? What was the attention span?

    When I was a kid my sister spilled nair polish on my mom's new sofa. I think the attention span on that one was about 3 months. Maybe longer.

    January 7, 2011 at 3:14 p.m.

  • I looked at several exit polls conservative & liberal,so for those who put so much stock in the results:

    37% of 218,054,301 eligible voters turned out for 2010 US election day. Or 87,940,148. The overall ratio was 46 to 53 Dem to Reps or about 5million votes (1.6% of the entire US population, 2.3% of eligible voters.)

    Read more:

    About 150 million people voted in the 2008 presidential election,so the mid term message can and will mean whatever anyone makes it but those interested in RAW data:

    The economy prevailed as the most important issue, cited by 62 percent, compared with three others listed – health care, 19 percent; illegal immigration, 8 percent; and the war in Afghanistan, 7 percent.

    There will always be those that think their pet peeve is the issue of the century..... We have about 310,000,000 people scattered across 50 states. According to the latest numbers 31% identify themselves as democrats(that's a record low) 29% republicans and 40% independents or other.

    I'm not going to waste my day arguing(my New Year's goal) so argue with the data....Don't believe them,I don't care...Believe what you want and you will.....I believe in data not personal opinions based on what they pulled out the sky or what they see in their filtered surroundings.

    You have a good day.

    January 7, 2011 at 10:38 a.m.

  • Yes, I realize there were other issues, but the disregard and disrespect of so many people during the passing of health care made a huge block of voters intent on one goal.

    January 7, 2011 at 10:35 a.m.

  • Mike, as usual, you are not telling the other side of the story. You can put in all the opinions of whomever you want, but the other side of the story is that this bill that was passed is a financial disaster that will reduce the number of doctors and increase the number of patients, kill the insurance industry, kill jobs, hurt health care, and it needs to be fixed or repealed. That is not just my opinion but that of many middle aged, older and younger men and women and if enough of them are still unhappy and vote that direction, there will be another flush in 2012.

    Those in Congress need to figure out whom to listen to and do so or get ready to go home.

    January 7, 2011 at 10:31 a.m.

  • Anyone who thinks this past election was entirely about healthcare is sadly mistaken. There were many reasons, the economy and jobs being the main one. Another large part of it was the inaction on immigration reform. That angered a hube block of voters.
    Healthcare may have been an issue, but I think more of it had to do with the fact that the provisions do not take effect for years to come. That is too slow for a lot who needed it sooner. All of this waiting gives the insurance companies too much time to raise their prices in anticipation of what is to come.
    Add that to the notorious voter apathy in midterm elections, and there you have it. 2012 will not be the same.

    January 7, 2011 at 10:13 a.m.

  • "The only thing that mattered was attenting the Koch brothers' celebration party. The party was so good that two republican congressmen neglected to take their oath of office."

    Hmmmm, where did you get the information that it was a Koch brother's celebration party. Do you have ANYTHING to back up that statement - or is it you just got carried away with your partisan fervor and started making things up, again.

    The link I supplied says they left the floor to meet with supporters who had come to the Capitol to see Fitzgerald get sworn in and that the swearing in took place earlier than they were told that's why they were late.

    January 7, 2011 at 9:23 a.m.

  • Lol..jbj, reminds me of a middle- age man still bragging about his little league championship....He doesn't know that "According to USA today, the average length of an attention span of a man in America is 23 minutes.".... The only thing that mattered was attenting the Koch brothers' celebration party. The party was so good that two republican congressmen neglected to take their oath of office. They thought it was sufficient to raise their right hand while watching the swearing-in ceremony on The republicans were elected because of the near 10% unemployment; bad news for them, today unemployment went down to 9.4%... That's before the recent tax cut or the republican takeover of the house, so bookmark this day because the GOP will try to take all the credit for the recovery; and blame the Dems for the bad.....An allowance for seasonal jobs will cause the rate to be adjusted, but it's positive number.

    Next Wednesday, the house GOP will take a symbolic vote to repeal the Health Care Law, although CBO said a repeal would add $230 billion to the deficit. The GOP discredits the CBO when the numbers are not in their favor. Harry Reid will not bring up the repeal of Health Care because it's costly, the time on the floor, paperwork, staffers, and security for legislation that does not have the votes to override a presidential veto. The repeal vote it just to satisfy the Tea Party and their constituents.....jbj doesn't know that legislators love to clean out their desks, take a walk a few blocks up the road and join a lucrative lobbyist firm........It's not punishment,that's politics.

    January 7, 2011 at 8:56 a.m.

  • True one you are not listening. The Republicans did and do have a plan for health care and it is a health care plan, not a spending bill like the one that got passed, by hook or by crook, regardless of its unpopularity. Like it or not, the Republicans got elected to get rid of the health care that was passed and they know they will not stand a chance of re election if they do not at least address it. The voters do not even like the Republicans but hate the health care law enough to vote in a group of politicians on the promise of doing what they can to overturn it. Now, they have a choice. Do what the voters elected them to do or get ready to clean out their desks.

    January 7, 2011 at 6:46 a.m.

  • Because of the loss of jobs and high unemployment rate many hard working americans will lose or not be able to pay for affordable healthcare. It would benefit the country best by focusing on jobs as number one rather than the personal issue of trying to dismantle any symbol of success by president Obama. Listen closely to every interview that republican policticians give and they will zero in on "Obama Care" code for stop Obama. But no republican will ever publicy detail what they will do to ensure that those honest, deserving american families have access to affordable healthcare. Republicans have no excuse now for not being able to present and pass an affordable healthcare bill, except they do not have the moral or political courage to do so.

    January 6, 2011 at 9:19 p.m.

  • What is it with politicians? They just can't keep their hands off ANYTHING. I guess to be a politician, you must believe that government should regulate everything under the Sun. They just can't stand to see anyone or a company make a choice. Regardless of what the subject, they always know better. They've just gotta change it. Next, I guess they will say they need to regulate the internet for the sake of the children. That's always a good excuse.

    January 6, 2011 at 5:26 p.m.

  • Net neutrality will make the internet "affordable." Just like housing was made "affordable" and college tuitions, healthcare, banking and credit cards, and soon electricity, gasoline, and food - its just going to be so wonderful.

    January 6, 2011 at 2:33 p.m.

  • Mike.

    The courts will over turn Health Care, not Congress. Plus I think Congress can de-fund it.

    January 5, 2011 at 4:09 p.m.

  • My aim is not to confuse ...That's 358 total., but I don't see 51 Democrats in the senate plus two Independents that usually vote with the Dems voting for repeal or the vice president.

    In the house there may be as many as 13 democrats who could be persuaded to vote for repeal because of the district they are from and in the senate, there may be three democratic senators who would join republicans.... That's way short of repealing the health care law.

    January 5, 2011 at 4:02 p.m.

  • That's a nonissue because the republicans would need 290 votes to override a presidential veto. That would take 48 democrats in just the house of representatives... They don't have the votes, they don't control the senate and the president has that veto pen. They know they can't repeal the law, so they are going to try to defund certain portions.

    You forget one thing , it's not a one way proposition.... The insurance companies would not stay in business if people dropped their insurance and, so it is to their benefit to not let their lobbyist, bite off more than they can chew....IMO

    January 5, 2011 at 3:44 p.m.

  • If the healthcare bill is overturned, a lot of people are not going to have a choice but to drop their coverage and rely on indigent care, ER rooms, and free clinics, or county-run clinics, which will put it on the backs of taxpayers, local, state, and federal. It's a no-win situation.

    January 5, 2011 at 3:35 p.m.

  • born2Bme

    If everyone dropped their health care coverage it would force the government to have a single payer Universal Health Care, which would probably ease the burden on the taxpayer and employers while bringing down the high cost of insurance. It would also bring out the right crying "Socialism."..I think we are a long way from that.... Automobile insurance is different because not everyone owns an automobile but practically everyone will use health care at some time or another. When we buy mandated automobile insurance it's to cover the other driver.... The state's have more leeway than the Federal government.e.g.Massachusetts has mandated Health Care. .. That's the three differences that I know of.....

    If you read the language of the individual mandate; it states that the insurance companies would never be able to afford 31 million extra customers, pre -existing conditions, and other provisions unless they're were guaranteed the extra customers. Without that ,the whole burden of Health Care would be put on the healthy people to pay for those that used the emergency room. The insurance companies would weed out the unhealthy ones.

    This all sounds familiar and before the 12th for this month the republicans want to re-litigate the Health care Law that was recently passed.... The individual mandate is a separate issue.

    January 5, 2011 at 3:01 p.m.

  • Personally, I don't like the individual mandate clause, but what if everyone decided to just drop their health insurance and let the taxpayer (us) pick up the tab?
    I know this is not the same thing, but we are mandated to buy automobile insurance so the other driver is covered in case we cause the accident, and if we are mandated to cover our automobiles, why not our health and the health of our familes so the other taxpayers do not have to cover our costs?
    To me, it is very similar.

    January 5, 2011 at 2:36 p.m.

  • waywardwind

    The" individual mandate clause" is about whether it fits into the broad powers of the commerce clause in dealing with Health Care.... It doesn't extend to anything else that a vivid imagination can come up with.... It doesn't enhance or diminish the government control of Health Care or our daily lives because the article, I submitted states; the wording can be changed to "tax" and we all know that Congress has the power to levy taxes.

    It depends on the meaning of "wrong justices” it could be a dog whistle for something else. We have a system where we vote for the president United, States, he chooses his nominee and the senate votes up or down to confirm them. That's pretty fair system.

    As for the checks and balances, Congress still has many bullets in the chamber but do they have the will to use them.... They can always weaken “Citizen United" by imposing strict rules on their members, but they probably won't do that. I think judges will step down when they're incapacitated; in fact, several have done that, so I'm satisfied with the three branches of government because I'm aware that I'm not the only knife in the drawer and losing is not forever.

    January 5, 2011 at 2:23 p.m.

  • Mike, I didn't say I believe the government WOULD require the purchase of Chevrolets, I asked what would PREVENT them from doing so if they get away with requireing the purchase of health insurance by people who don't want to buy it. If they can require the one, they can require the other. It is a further insinuation of government control into the lives of private citizens.

    "Obama can quite literally remake the Constitution in his image."

    Mike, you conveniently left out the first part of that sentence and didn't replace it with an elipsis to so indicate. I started the sentence with, "If the wrong justices die or retire..." Nowhere was there a mention of Ginsberg. And Mike, I also believe the corporate campaign contribution decision was wrong. I have long complained that there is no check on the Court. Both the legislative and executive branches are checked and balanced by each other AND the court. There is NO check on the court by either of the other two branches. What with lifetime appointments and never having to worry about being elected, the only way to get a justice out of office is if he or she robs a bank or is demonstrated to get sexual kicks from small children. Beyond something like that, we're stuck with'em even when they are senile or eaten up with alzheimer's.

    January 5, 2011 at 12:22 p.m.

  • waywardwind
    Only those that ascribe to the opinions of the paranoid right wing blogosphere believe that the Federal government will ever require Americans to purchase automobiles. Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is not a czar. She has a title.

    I'm not saying anything because I'm not afraid to say I don't know but the information I gave came from attorneys that are supposed to know.

    The arguments the government will use are on line but you are going to have to look it up. The arguments for the opposition are also on line.

    For the benefit of the readers of this blog, I cut & pasted the government's argument:

    [ "Under what Constitutional authority may the Congress act to mandate, individually, the purchase health insurance? One legal scholar has opined that the Constitution would permit Congress to legislate such a health insurance mandate using its Commerce Clause authority or its general taxing authority.

    According to Wake Forest Law School Professor Mark A. Hall, Congress could act under the Commerce Clause to legislate an individual health insurance mandate because “heath care and health insurance both affects and is distributed through interstate commerce, giving Congress the power to legislate an insurance mandate using its Commerce Clause powers.” Professor Hall further believes that, under the taxing and spending power Congress could also craft an individual health insurance mandate by “using its taxing power to implement a ‘pay or play’ model to tax individuals that did not purchase insurance.”

    While Professor Hall concedes that Congress’s taxing power can be limited if a tax intentionally and directly burdens the exercise of a fundamental right, he believes that there does not exist any.
    “fundamental right” to be uninsured.".]

    The government already runs Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA, so it's not that hard to see a mandate fall under their lawful jurisdiction but that is my opinion.They also (under the direction of Congress)can overhaul the system.

    "Obama can quite literally remake the Constitution in his image. Lawsuits will be filed and which ever way the court decides?". Do you have a math deficiency? Replacing Ginsberg will still leave the courts with four liberals...BTW your conservative judges gave us the "Citizen United" ruling that provided unlimited campaign contributions from corporations and unions to influence our politicians... They overturned the basic principles campaign finance reform... Check how many times this conservative SCOTUS has ruled in favor of business over the individual.. I bet you won't.

    January 5, 2011 at 10:35 a.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    January 5, 2011 at 10:28 a.m.

  • Mike.

    Here is prime example of the Obama Derangement Syndrome from our State Rep.

    Allow me to “shamelessly” plug from my last blog.

    “ The question that should be asked is whether government have role in this? The intent of the bill is to save, not a child, but the political career and legacy of one, Geanie Morrison. Anyone who have a pulse and a brainstem could see hypocrisy in the actions of a housewife-turned-state rep and a hate talk radio hosted turned state senator. A few months ago, Senator Dan Patrick was whooping and hollering on WOAI’s Joe Pags about “Obamacare’s” incursion in America. At the Tea Party rally in Victoria, Texas, the State Rep Morrison voiced about freedom and the opposition to the Health Care Bill.
    If it is wrong for liberal Democratic Washington to force citizens to pay for Health Insurance, then shouldn’t it be wrong for Conservative Republican Austin to force women to have ultrasounds? If socialism is wrong then should FEUDALISM should be as well. One CAN NOT have his cake and eat it too.”

    January 4, 2011 at 9:55 p.m.

  • JBJ.

    You said, “I think the doubt in Obama's case came from his grandmother, who said he was born in Kenya.”

    That is B.S. because she is the STEP grandmother, there’s the difference. Where were the Birthers, when Obama’s American Grandmother was alive?

    You said, “People have more against Obama because he is so liberal, has nothing to do with the color of his skin.”

    That is B.S. Bill Clinton had a more favorable opinion in this part of Texas. Second, being a citizen in this area. I can tell you right now I hear the “N word” a lot more during his run and election.

    January 4, 2011 at 9:52 p.m.

  • writein, one only has to be a citizen for 9 years to be a senator.

    I think the doubt in Obama's case came from his grandmother, who said he was born in Kenya.

    People have more against Obama because he is so liberal, has nothing to do with the color of his skin.

    Btw, I never said he was not born in the US, I simply said that if a job has a requirement, documentation should be submitted. I didn't even say it was not, in his case, just supporting the right of one to ask for such evidence.

    January 4, 2011 at 9:44 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    January 4, 2011 at 9:37 p.m.

  • Well thanks, writein.

    but actually, if a job requirement is stated, documentation to prove a person is qualified should be submitted.

    Sometimes we have to show our driver's license. If we are smart we don't tell the cop to jump into a firey pit.

    January 4, 2011 at 9:29 p.m.

  • Libertarians like Waywardwind forgot there were/are two school of though on the Constitution. The Hamltonian and the Jeffersonian views of the Constitution.

    January 4, 2011 at 9:26 p.m.

  • Mike...I wasn't making any judgement about Bush's grounding flights after the 9-11 attack. I was simply reminding you that there was a lot of bellyaching about it. Perhaps because I worked for the airline, I heard more of it.

    As for as the mandate to buy insurance, I don't see any authority in the commerce clause. If Obama or his health czar or Congress can REQUIRE American citizens to purchase insurance against their will, what would stop them from requireing us to purchase Chevrolets? What would you Prius drivers think if the feds decided that in the interests of national economic recovery, citizens could only buy cars made by GM? It isn't any more far fetched than requireing us to buy insurance. As far as overhauling the entire health care industry is concerned, are you going to say the commerce clause allows that, also? I don't think the necessary and proper clause allows such sweeping action either. Of course, I have to remind myself that the Constitution doesn't mean what it says, but rather what at least five members of the Supreme Court SAY it means. If the wrong Justices die or retire, Obama can quite literally remake the Cosntitution in his image. Lawsuits will be filed and which ever way the court decides, the decisions will be appealed. This will end up in the Supreme Court and it'll be interesting.

    January 4, 2011 at 9:08 p.m.

  • JBJ.

    In order to be a driver, College Student, College Professor, State Senator, and U.S. Senator had to have a Birth Certification. If you asked me for my Birth Certification after I accomplish some office or honor. I would TELL YOU IN YOUR FACE to take a hike or take a leaping dive to a fiery pit.

    One thing wrong with you and other local conservatives os that I think you have all the sense in the world.

    January 4, 2011 at 9:08 p.m.

  • We had to show our birth certificates to get a driver's license. I think that anyone running for President should have to show his or hers. If there is a requirement that the birth certificate could verify, it should be required for everyone who runs for President or vice President.

    January 4, 2011 at 8:25 p.m.

  • Mike, I am still here, just noticed that you deleted my posts the last times I posted because they didn't back up your opinions, so I figured what the heck.

    I agree with what Reagan stood for in many cases, but the unions need no help from the government to be demonized. Regulation and government programs are necessary to some extent. To some extent. Not to the extent this admistration hopes to enjoy.

    Regulation, as used by this President, is wrong when it is contrary to what Congress and the voters want.

    "Obama derangement syndrome" is not an illness, but it affects more than just 20% of the population. If he has an approval rating of 50%, I would like to know where they are polling. Do you think if we had the election today things would be different than on Nov 2? Alot more than 20% expressed disapproval of him and the Congress that he was part of.

    One thing wrong with the Democratic party is that so many do not see things as they are.

    January 4, 2011 at 8:19 p.m.

  • Born2bme.

    You asked the most important of the day. "Why should the President of the USA show you his birth certificate?"

    But sadly, I have a simple but tragic answer. Because he is BLACK.

    January 4, 2011 at 5:49 p.m.

  • I usually dismiss comment's by reeder because they don't make any sense.

    Today,reeder, asked"Again, why don't you try to make suggestions to fix problems, rather than try to confuse the general public?" ....But when I wrote blogs making suggestions, reeder never responded.... On December 15th, I wrote a blog reminiscing about the old times in Victoria,reeder posted "Mike,If your friends in Washington don't wake up and see that the US is a centrist government, the word Democrat will soon be one of those obsolete terms you mentioned, followed shortly by Republicans Maybe we need to turn to more descriptive terms like Liberal and Conservative parties."...... What can I say when someone thinks this online forum is the general public, which I'm trying to deceive? Even when I write a blog that is not political; reeder tries it make it one.

    January 4, 2011 at 5:12 p.m.

  • woofwoof,

    Why should the President of the USA show you his birth certificate? Have you asked any of the past Presidents to show you theirs?
    All those who have needed to see it, have, and are satisified that he was born in Hawaii, otherwise he would never have gotten through the election. No one gets as far as he did without proof of where he was born.
    Think for yourself on this one and quit listening to wacko's who are doing nothing more than trying to make as much noise as they can to keep the less intelligent Americans fixated on foolishness, rather than the issues.

    January 4, 2011 at 5:06 p.m.

  • reeder are you for real? Mike has never tried to hide his "liberal bias" as you put it. He is what he is and proudly stands behind it.

    January 4, 2011 at 4:58 p.m.

  • I really don't care how people view the president, but I wrote about the 20% that are inflicted with Obama's derangement symptoms. He is not being hurt by those people because according to today's Gallup poll, the president enjoys a 50% approval...If you know your presidential history, that's outstanding with almost 10% unemployment.

    If I have a donkey for my avatar, and I have about five years of comment history; how am I trying to deceive the general public as you call it? I have never run away from my ideology; it's in my profile.... I'm proud of my obvious bias; I don't pretend to be something I'm not. Those cartoons really get to you; that's about the third time you've mentioned them.

    You didn't read the part where I commended the Bush administration for their foresight in their grounding of civilian aircraft on 9/11.... George W. Bush did sign an unprecedented number of signing statements that pretty much said pretty much said that although Congress passed a law, he would use his presidential discretion to abide or not. Those are the facts.

    As I've told to more than once;" hello pot meet kettle."... The blog I wrote was a response to "“Is the Obama Administration extending the power of the office of the president?… by Alton Easton.".. The silence from you was deafening when he wrote that.......Until you stop aiming all your criticisms at the liberal left, your comments illustrate your obvious bias.

    BTW You have options.

    January 4, 2011 at 4:52 p.m.

  • Mike,
    As a full fledged member of the Bush hating liberals, it comes as no surprise to see your comments about people who dislike Obama. You really try to conceal your true liberal self with your blogs, but the cartoons always betray your true self. Again, why don't you try to make suggestions to fix problems, rather than try to confuse the general public? The obvious answer is right in front of your name. Until you stop identifying yourself with the the liberal left, your comments illustrate your obvious bias. You liberals "bush-bashed" for the last ten years. You'll just have to take your medicine now.

    January 4, 2011 at 4:23 p.m.

  • Woofwoof.

    I wouldn’t even show you my birth certificate and I was born two or three counties over. The underlining is that the Birth Certificate became so important when America finally elects its first (and possibly only) Black President. Even that nut from Southern Lavaca County made me laugh by trying to sue and bring charges against the President.

    January 4, 2011 at 3:50 p.m.

  • Rebecca.

    I would suggest that you click on my wall and the wall of JBJ. You maybe enlighten.

    January 4, 2011 at 3:44 p.m.

  • I am not sure but I think you can find his birth certificate online...

    January 4, 2011 at 11:21 a.m.

  • "I don't see why anybody's talking about playing chicken with the debt ceiling. If we get to the point where you've damaged the full faith and credit of the United States.”

    The full faith and credit of the US is on the line. Many Congressmen say they will vote against raising the debt ceiling without a plan to dramatically cut spending - if not now, when?

    January 4, 2011 at 11:05 a.m.

  • woofwoof

    I don't blame president Obama for not catering to the likes of birthers, who will never be satisfied. I'd rather him concentrate on the economy and getting us out of two wars.

    As a comedian once said" I would love to go up to a birther, ask to see their identification, and then not accept it."

    I responded to your silly question but I will ignore any more along those lines.

    Believe what you want "This is America."

    January 4, 2011 at 10:48 a.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    January 4, 2011 at 10:46 a.m.

  • Why won't he show us his birth certificate?

    January 4, 2011 at 10:38 a.m.

  • waywardwind

    I decided a long time ago that it is a waste of my time (and yours) to argue with a fundamentalist; whether it is religion, constitution, or social justice. You have a comment history, and I can't remember you ever admitting that you were wrong. I will clarify some points, but I'm not a lawyer nor do I pretend to be, nor do I have any hopes that my words will even penetrate.

    Even though two out of three lower courts have ruled that the "individual mandate" IS constitutional; I think it's inevitable that it will reach the Supreme Court for a final decision. I think it comes down to the broad powers granted to Congress in the interstate commerce clause and the liberties reserved for individual citizens. I don’t think the Affordable Care Act violated the constitution because the mandate is not just about regulating the purchase of insurance but it is part of the broader picture of overhauling the health care industry, including the way medical services are delivered and paid for....I understand the argument that if Congress can mandate a purchase of any product; government powers will be deemed unlimited.... I look forward to the court challenge but republicans thought nothing of it when Senator Grassley supported it in 2007 and Senator Hatch in 1993... For the record, president Obama campaigned AGAINST the mandate and Hillary was for it. Today, he is ready for the court challenge.

    I limit my blogs, so they will fit on an 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper; I don't go into great detail, but you misunderstood what I meant by the grounding of civilian aircraft on 9/11... I commend the Bush Administration for having the foresight to take action, rather than shooting down airlines and killing innocent civilians for fear, they might be commanded to harm hundreds of thousands of people. In the same light, I want ANY president to have the authority to shut down the Internet in the event of a cyber attack. I can distinguish the words TEMPORARY and PERMANENT.

    Be truthful, you fit nicely into the Obama derange syndrome, and you wear it as a badge of honor. You started way back in the democratic primaries because your main complaint then was president Obama's middle name. You have even said he doesn't care about our troops but word imitation prevents me from repeating some sentences from your comment history... This is not about an individual mandate that will be required in the year 2014. The hate is there and will never go away..IMO..Hey, that’s your prerogative and your constitutional right but don’t try to sugarcoat it.

    January 4, 2011 at 9:46 a.m.

  • Writein, JBJ was never ugly. He/she just had a different opinion than you did. Not everyone comes here to fight - some come to argue or debate. Honestly, I thought JBJ was compassionate and kind compared to some of the people here.

    January 4, 2011 at 9:01 a.m.

  • PatB,

    I remember a drill we had in grade school where we would hide under our desk in the event we were hit with a nuclear attack. We trusted government back then. Today, the president can't even give a speech to our school children because the right feared it might be a start-up of reeducation camps.

    They are a paranoid bunch; remember HR45 (Obama is coming after our guns); Obama is going to confiscate our emails and put us on an enemies list. I like the one by a former blogger who thought he was part of the right wing terrorist groups, which Homeland Security was told to be on the lookout for.

    Cherish these memories Pat; they'll keep us laughing in our old age.

    January 4, 2011 at 8:45 a.m.

  • Patrick

    I think the Geogre Wallance's run in 1968 or the Nixon's southern Plan was the forerunner to the vicceral divide in America.


    I also notice JBJ isn't saying anything.

    January 4, 2011 at 3:43 a.m.

  • Mike...I'm surprised you don't remember any outcry about the grounding airliners after 9-11. I worked for an airline then and there was considerable. And, there were also great protests against the patriot act. You don't remember people protesting that Bush was walking on the Constitution wearing golf shoes and the like? I had my differences with Bush, but I'll tell you one thing he never did. He never tried to pass a law that would have required me to purchase something I didn't want even if it was a good idea. He KNEW the Constitution wouldn't allow such. I have asked many times for someone to point to the part of the Constitution that would allow the feds to require anyone to buy anything they didn't want or face fines and other penalties. So far, I'm still waiting. The health care reform bill is considered BO's signature feat of his first two years. I don't believe it can survive a challenge in the courts even if he vetoes any legislation that attempts to unravel the reforms.

    January 3, 2011 at 9:31 p.m.

  • Well said. I think the country and the government started downhill with Reagan. The visceral divide in the counrty started with him and it has only gotten worse since 1980.
    By the way,didn't I read where Obama had bee spotted on the "Grassy KNoll"lol
    Patrick T. Barnes

    January 3, 2011 at 5:14 p.m.