« KiRKWOOD |
| Say What? »
Posted on April 4, 2012 10:17 AM
And as a followup, Obamadictator actually threatened (gasp!) the high Court! Whatever happened to "checks and balances"?
Johnny Logan |
April 4, 2012 11:08 AM
April 4, 2012 11:08
This is Ogabe, remember?
Clueless, classless, careless, crude, and from his perspective it's clear that the Constitution is just an obstacle, written by dead white guys who owned slaves, having no bearing on what he (and his minions in the house and senate) want now...don't you know they were democratically elected? Why should they be hindered by something written hundreds of years ago in archaic language that "don't even read right"
April 4, 2012 2:59 PM
April 4, 2012 14:59
My feeling is this whole melee is complicit political theater orchestrated from behind closed doors. It's a sad truth that elitist incumbents value their incumbency over all else, & they protect their own. Incumbency before party, truth, & duty.
Iacta alea est. Iacta alea erat diu.
Call me cynical, but I won't be surprised when Justice Kennedy joins the Progs. I'll be giddy with joy if I'm wrong.
However, I do think a certain number of enacted provisions should stand--those where people have acted in good faith & there will be an undue burden placed on them if certain provisions are annulled.
EXAMPLE (the principle is easily transferable to other issues): I know a number of people who dropped individual coverage on young student adults to put them on their group plans--& if they're forced to switch back out, they'll have the pre-existing condition problems to deal with, even though there was never a break in coverage. I think it only right the people in that window be protected by a grandfather clause. It's a solid short-term fix that will last less than 3 years, & it's a WHOLE LOT easier to implement than the circus that would result from requiring former insurers to "re-accept" former policyholders.
There you go, Justice Kennedy. A reasonable, common sense solution to what the government will claim is a (if not the most) substantial issue if you vote "against"... & if you value your sworn duty to all of us above your status in your circle of "friends."
April 4, 2012 5:09 PM
April 4, 2012 17:09
In order to be elected to higher office in this good ol' US of A you must possess a large amount of personal wealth, either through family or personal fortune. Usually, those personages that fit into this catagory have truly never had to "do without", and therefore have no true idea what such a condition might actually be like. Thus, having no experience with the subject at hand, they are uniquely unqualified to render any sort of opinion, much less pass legislation regardng such concepts. To wit: you wouldn't send a high school English teacher to teach electrical engineering.
Possible Solution: Realign our election protocols to allow only those MOST qualified (experience + education, Like any other job) be subject to election.
Unfortunately, people with said qualifications are usually the least likely to even RUN for election, much less actually be elected...
Johnny Logan |
April 4, 2012 6:12 PM
April 4, 2012 18:12
The Chosen One has really displayed his ignorance this week. "Smartest Man in the World?" I don't think so.
April 4, 2012 6:32 PM
April 4, 2012 18:32
John Cox is a painter, cartoonist, and illustrator for hire. For information about purchasing existing work or commissioning new work, contact him by e-mail at john555cox [at] hotmail.com.
This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on April 4, 2012 10:17 AM.
The previous post in this blog was KiRKWOOD.
The next post in this blog is Say What?.
Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.