Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucco
1. I am not a wuber, whatever you want to call it. I am an american and resent you calling me and others names.
2. I agree that I disagree, and have since BEFORE he was even a candidate, with almost everything Obama has done and plans to do which would be the opposite of what he says.
3. I really think it is less than dispicable of you to allow yourself to even mention race. Of course you are accusing or you wouldnt have thought of it or posted it.
4. I support and have supported many Democratic programs so get off you high and might race baiting horse.
And to deal with all your stupid analogies...I do not watch Fox...I do not listen to Rush or any of the other generalities that are heaped and dealt on here.
Other americans other than you can have differing viewpoints and express them without being called names and/or implying motivation of race or even giving the outline of race. That is disgusting.
You sound and act as if you just came back from a football game and your team won. This was a SCOTUS ruling and is now the law of the land. You, and your ilk, who have been "spiking the ball" at a thunderous rate on here obviously do not abide the concerns of others. Most of the dissenters, those who opposed this ruling and the law itself, are asking questions that concern them like how do we pay for it.
I, like most, had not problem with many of, if not most of the ingredients in the bill, but greatly resent the manner in which it was done, and the slip shod manner the financial impacts were handled. Plus it does nothing whatsover for health care costs in anyway, nor tort reform in any way.
I also remind you of a few things to be considered, and not as a team victory or a rah rah sport...
"“We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders.”
“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”
This was from Judge Roberts and I concur.
|
Bucco,
I was not personally addressing you in my post. I will answer some of the points in your post, though.
1. Wuber was constructed by accident by me. It started as a shortened form for "uber-conservative" which means "extreme conservative" as I think many posters on this forum are. I, one day, made a typographical error and it came out as "wuber". I liked that new word. It still means "extreme conservative". If you do not think it fits you, that is fine and I mean no harm in calling someone an extreme conservative.
2. You may think it is dispicable for me to bring up race but I very much believe that racism is a major part of the reason that Obama is villified. I am not saying everyone who dislikes Obama's policies is a racist. I am saying that there are many racists who will go against anything Obama does because he is not mainstream America in color or name.
3. You may not watch FOX or Beck or Limbaugh but they are the idols of many of the extreme conservatives and just parrot their words.
4. Spiking the ball? Yep, we are doing that. Good reason as this is a major Obama victory. Republicans would be doing the same thing if any part was struck down. Oh, yes, they would! There are quite a few posters on the forum who still say it is unlawful and unconstitutional even though SCOTUS ruled differently.
5. Chief Justice Roberts was right in saying it was the duty of the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of the law and not to determine if it was a good law. There were so many "constitutional experts" from the Republicans who were positive the law would be struck down but they were wrong.
In conclusion, my post had nothing to do with you personally, Bucco. You are a decent guy with strong viewpoints and passionate about your politics.