NOW the truth.Obama the mighty Robot beats Mitt Romney at
rock-paper-scissors every single time. Guess who woke-up to smell the coffee,
why it's none other then (an embarrassed Utahn), Utah's Gov. Gary
Herbert that boasted that the health care law largely upheld by the U.S. Supreme
Court is still bad policy 9he took those word's from Romney), and should be
repealed to avoid damaging the economy. But Utah's Gov. Gary Herbert is
not in Congress and can't do squat about it. Herbert's lack of
sophistication has gone too far in calling for the president's ouster.
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, labeled the ruling "only a temporary and hollow
victory" for the law. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said provisions of the law
that were upheld amount to "a 'gun to the head' of states."
The governor said it's not clear the state will accept the expansion of
Medicaid. So he wants to toss grandma unser the bus. Herbert is also under the
belief that Healthcare is a Privledge and not a Right. What is the GOP's
specific plan?. Taxation for wooing independents?.Waiting, waiting,
Wasn't the individual mandate Romney's idea for Mass? I've seen
the video of him speaking about it back in 2006ish.I think another
way this ruling helps Romney, because it shows that Mitt was right about health
care when he passed it in Mass.Oh, wait... that's right...
He's flip-flopped on this too.Never mind.
In 2010, the same year the president got his healthcare law through Congress,
Obama ripped into the Roberts court for a ruling that allowed corporations to
spend unlimited money in elections.This week the court again drew
the wrath of the White House as well as Pelosi and other Democrats in Congress
by reaffirming its 2010 decision by rejecting Montana's century-old ban on
businesses engaging in political spending.Pelosi voiced confidence
that the healthcare law she helped draft will meet any constitutional test.
"It is ironclad. We didn't do this off the back of our hand," she
said."We believe in judicial review in everything that we do. I
wrote a bill that would withstand any question of its conditionality."The court's four Democratic-appointed liberals, Justices Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, are widely expected
to vote to uphold the healthcare law.As a Democratic senator from
Illinois in 2005, Obama opposed Republican President George W. Bush's
nomination of Roberts to the Supreme Court.Pelosi sees Roberts
helping uphold U.S. healthcare law.
Amazing how the GOP is spinning this to appear like they somehow won.Flip and Flop.No wonder Mitt Romney won their nomination.He represents them well as being the bigest Flip-Flopper of all time.I used to refer to it as Obama/RomneycareNow it's just
Obamacare.Romney flipped, and wants no credit for it?So be it!
Romney won't repeal anything. This bills is just a taxation to the private
federal reserve enforced by the IRS. Romney is too pro-big government to repeal
In "THE LARGEST" swing state the Ron Paul campaign knows that seniors
would face death panels to decide if they get the care they need and the poorest
and middle class people will pick up most of this new tax, we know how urgent it
will be to make certain Romney is soundly defeated in November so THEY will hold
a rally at the University of South Florida Sun Dome the afternoon of Sun., Aug.
26, the day before the opening of the Republican National Convention in Tampa.
USF anticipates "a major rally with thousands of supporters." It will
begin at noon, with doors open at 11 a.m., and is free and open to the public.
The rally is in addition to a three-day festival planned by Paul supporters, but
not sanctioned by Paul himself, to be held at the State Fairgrounds over the
weekend prior to the convention. Paul's campaign has said he won't be
attending that event, and instead will appear at his own rally. That's
because Paul wants to play down long-standing conflicts between his supporters
and the RINO Republican Party establishment too pro-big government to repeal
sorry but Romney cannot really argue the tax angle otherwise he can no longer
claim he never raised taxes when he was governor since he backed and signed a
bill with the same mandate while he was governor.
You know what? Mitt Romney knows that what's good for his state may not be
good for the whole country. The national government has too much power already,
and letting them tax, (yes, TAX) not doing something is one of the worst ideas
I've ever heard. You want to call Romney a flip-flopper? What
is a flip-flopper anyway? Someone who changes his mind with no other
justification than political expediency? I'll tell you what, Romney has
plenty of good reasons for not letting Obama push on the nation what his own
state decided it wanted that have nothing to do with politics. So he's not
a flip-flopper. Romney has done more good with the Olympics than
Obama has done in almost 4 years in office. Obama's Department of
Injustice is a joke. It's clearly time for this administration to go.Vote for Mitt Romney and states' rights!
Obama2012We all want to call Romney a flip-flopper.Romney distortion: Romney said Obamacare meant "a larger and larger
government, more and more intrusive in your life -- separating you and your
doctor."The facts: Totally dishonest. In fact, this is one of
the most dishonest claims in American politics. First, this isn't about
government. Obamacare builds on and improves the nation's private health
care system.Second, here's what it fixes. Before Obamacare,
insurance companies had free rein to arbitrarily cap and cancel coverage, and
they could waste our premiums on overheads and big CEO bonuses. With Obamacare,
there will now be clear rules of the road to give patients and doctors more
control over their health care. These rules will make sure that you and your
doctor -- not your insurance company, and certainly not a Washington bureaucrat
-- have control over your health.
@brotherly kindness Romney imposed the same tax (yes TAX) when he
was Governor of Massachusetts that he is no railing against Obama for,
Roberts stopped the bleeding on the Commerce Clause, and he was able to get the
liberal justices to join him. That deserves a Bravo. Roberts called the
penalty what it was from the beginning----a tax. That changes the conversation
to what it should be, our-of-control entitlement. It is still taking from those
who have and giving to those who have not with little limitation and no
safeguards against abuse.