Health overhaul to increase costs

[1bad65]

Nice to see that you subscribe to the immature "well he did it too!" mentality.

That's your entire argument on the Golman Sachs campaign money thread!!!

[1bad65]

Earlier I posted this:

"If they run out of money (and remember, EVERY Gov't program runs over budget), they will either ration care or have to raise taxes. If they cannot get tax cuts passed through Congress, guess what option is left... "

RC said I was a hypocrite because of this. I had no idea why he would say that. Honestly, I still don't see the hypocracy, but there is a problem that is my fault.

I misstyped. It should say: "If they cannot get tax increases passed through Congress, ..."

So, my post did not make sense as typed. I made an error. And I'm remedying that now. I still don't see my hypocracy though... (but yes, I do see my foolishness )

[Reality_Check]

Earlier I posted this:

"If they run out of money (and remember, EVERY Gov't program runs over budget), they will either ration care or have to raise taxes. If they cannot get tax cuts passed through Congress, guess what option is left... "

RC said I was a hypocrite because of this. I had no idea why he would say that. Honestly, I still don't see the hypocracy, but there is a problem that is my fault.

I misstyped. It should say: "If they cannot get tax increases passed through Congress, ..."

So, my post did not make sense as typed. I made an error. And I'm remedying that now. I still don't see my hypocracy though... (but yes, I do see my foolishness )

I did not call you a hypocrite about that. I said that you would be a hypocrite if you insisted that President Obama return the money contributed by Goldman Sachs while not having done the same for the money contributed to President Bush's campaigns by Enron. That was also on a different thread.

In this instance I was busting your chops regarding your typo (and yes, I did realize it was a typo but couldn't resist pointing it out).

[1bad65]

I did not call you a hypocrite about that. I said that you would be a hypocrite if you insisted that President Obama return the money contributed by Goldman Sachs while not having done the same for the money contributed to President Bush's campaigns by Enron. That was also on a different thread.

1) Bush didn't run on 'Change'.

2) Bush didn't run on demonizing Wall Street while taking money from Wall Street.

[1bad65]

In this instance I was busting your chops regarding your typo (and yes, I did realize it was a typo but couldn't resist pointing it out).

You obviously realized it was a typo well before I did. Doh!

[Reality_Check]

So if it is illegal, when can we expect Obama to be arrested and/or impeached for breaking the law?

If one of his death squads actually succeeds in assassinating Anwal al-Awlaki, I would hope that his Administration would have to face the consequences. You see, unlike you apparently, I believe the rule of law applies no matter which party controls the White House.

[1bad65]

If one of his death squads actually succeeds in assassinating Anwal al-Awlaki, I would hope that his Administration would have to face the consequences. You see, unlike you apparently, I believe the rule of law applies no matter which party controls the White House.

According to you, he is breaking the law merely by ordering the 'hit'. If the 'hit' is illegal, he has already broken the law. Why wait to arrest/impeach him until someone is, by your logic, assassinated?

[Reality_Check]

According to you, he is breaking the law merely by ordering the 'hit'. If the 'hit' is illegal, he has already broken the law. Why wait to arrest/impeach him until someone is, by your logic, assassinated?

My mistake. My earlier post on page 3 of this thread was unclear. If the Obama Administration were to kill an American citizen (such as Anwar al-Awlaki) without the due process afforded to him by the Constitution, that would be illegal. As such, if that were to occur, they should suffer the consequences. I hope that clarifies my position.

[1bad65]

My mistake. My earlier post on page 3 of this thread was unclear. If the Obama Administration were to kill an American citizen (such as Anwar al-Awlaki) without the due process afforded to him by the Constitution, that would be illegal. As such, if that were to occur, they should suffer the consequences. I hope that clarifies my position.

I understand your position, but legally you are way off. It's a crime to order, plan, etc a 'hit'. The legal system does not have to wait for the target to actually die before charges can be brought.