Or musicians: 
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 03/17/2010 3:13:15 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Nancy Pelosi have suggested a government takeover of health care is necessary because millions of Americans are at risk of death or disability because they are uninsured.
This was the crisis that had to be addressed by this administration and this Congress now.
Lives were at stake.
The health and welfare of children were being neglected because of their inability to get treatment.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Incidentally, I received my Census form from the Census Bureau yesterday. In two seconds, I deemed it filled out and returned!
A few weeks ago, Democrats argued that the ObamaCare bill could be called "bipartisan" even without a single Republican vote, so long as it included one Republican idea, such as being against waste, fraud and abuse -- which would nullify 100% of ObamaCare.
So when that didn't work, the Democrats' next winning idea was the Senate nuclear option, involving reconciliation of a law that didn't exist, but which would still mean Members of Pelosi's Supreme Soviet having to vote for the Senate bill first, with all its wildly popular provisions like the Cornhusker Kickback. For some reason, politicians don't trust politicians (but you can trust them with your health care).
Since that didn't work either, the little darlings think they've come up with a final solution -- pushing the Senate bill through the House by not voting for it, via the Slaughter Solution, an attempt to avoid a procedural technicality called an "up or down vote."
By replacing actual voting with a process call "deeming", Democrats think they could claim they only voted for the "reconciliation fixes" but that for some mysterious reason this caused the terrible Senate bill to pass -- which they didn't want! (The strategy supposes that every American is as stupid as Pelosi.)
With the Slaughter Solution of "Deem and Pass," the Deemocrats think they can avoid an up-or-down vote on "health care reform" -- you know, the issue the deemers insist they can't wait to run on in the fall. (I'm deeming of a Republican sweep in November.)
Republicans were swift to denounce the idea: "Some constitutional provisions are open to interpretation. One constitutional requirement that is not ambiguous, however, is the requirement that every bill pass both houses of Congress before it can be presented to the President and become law!" Oh wait -- that was Public Citizen challenging the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act, joined by Pelosi, Louise Slaughter, Charlie Rangle and other Democrats.
The whole Slaughter Solution racket is preposterous enough that it's got the media worried that courts might strike down ObamaCare as unconstitutional: House plan to pass health care raises constitutional question, by David Lightman, McClatchy Newspapers; Health-reform deserves a reasonable process, Washington Post editorial; 'Slaughter Solution' could face legal challenge, by Fred Barbash, Politico. Even CNN's Jack Cafferty called it "beyond sleazy." Liberals respect the Constitution enough to keep a copy printed on hundreds of squares of paper on a toilet roll.
Eminent Constitutional scholar Louise Slaughter insists hysterically that her sleazy tactics are constitutional, saying that "people who are telling you it's unconstitutional should know better, and you should be very outraged that people who don't know better will say things like that!"
Apparently, one of the "people who don't know better" is Michael McConnell, Stanford law professor and former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, who recently wrote this in the Wall Street Journal:
"The Slaughter solution cannot be squared with Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution . . . It may be clever, but it is not constitutional. To become law--hence eligible for amendment via reconciliation--the Senate health-care bill must actually be signed into law. The Constitution speaks directly to how that is done. According to Article I, Section 7, in order for a 'Bill' to 'become a Law,' it 'shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate' and be 'presented to the President of the United States' for signature or veto. Unless a bill actually has 'passed' both Houses, it cannot be presented to the president and cannot become a law."The Slaughter solution attempts to allow the House to pass the Senate bill, plus a bill amending it, with a single vote. The senators would then vote only on the amendatory bill. But this means that no single bill will have passed both houses in the same form. As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the 'exact text' must be approved by one house; the other house must approve 'precisely the same text.'"
Hmmmm, who to believe? Distinguished former judge and law professor vs. hysterical Rules Committee harpy . . . decisions, decisions.
Anyway, that's...
My Two Cents...
"JohnHuang2"
Excellent! Should be fine with the Deemocrats. April 15th is coming up. I deem my tax return completed and all taxes paid.
Farah makes an excellent point, given that 90% of modern poetry, art and literature is crap.
______________________________________
Ninety percent of all poetry, art and literature is crap, always has been. Only the classics endure. For every Monet there were ten Murrys. For every Mozart there were ten schlubs. No different today.
Or musicians:
just shows the world these folks live in.
No one should have to actually PRODUCE something USEFUL in order to support themselves.
Eph 4:28
28He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.