Never Before

The New York Times ^ | March 21, 2012, 9:00 pm | LINDA GREENHOUSE

[End Times Sentinel]

invisib1e hand, you nailed that one! I deffer to you!

[Deagle]

No need to continue our questions about the law. It is simply Unconstitutional and should be repealed.

It really does not take a genius (or even a college graduate) to figure this out. Our problem is that with the assignment of such liberal justices to Supreme Court, that law has become meaningless.

That of course means that the Liberal justices either need to rethink the Constitution or resign from the court. I know, fat chance but that is the only thing that might, just might save America as we know it.

[BamaBlue]

You know what’s really funny...sad...but funny is that the federal government years ago mandated that a person could not be turned away for medical care. Now we have a “problem” that the uninsured are causing a “cost shifting” to those that do have insurance. As usual the government created a problem that they are now trying to fix via unconstitutional means.

And...the other incredible thing is all those uninsured were already “baked in” to the current premiums we all pay anyway. A solution that wasn’t necessary in the first place...unless you want to take over the society...something like student loans...the next problem that will implode.

[Mack the knife]

The first paragraph of this screed is breathtaking!!

---

Journalistic convention requires that when there are two identifiable sides to a story, each side gets its say, in neutral fashion, without the writer’s thumb on the scale. This rule presents a challenge when one side of a controversy obviously lacks merit. But mainstream journalism has learned to navigate those challenges, choosing evolution over “intelligent design,” for example, and treating climate change naysayers as cranks.

---

This illuminates the mindset of all Liberals, including the MSM. They give lip service to the fact that intellectual debate, including journalism, requires giving weight to both sides of an arguement ... so they brand the other side’s arguements as without merit, and “treat them as cranks”.

This explains:
Pilosi’s “Are You Serious!” response to questions of the unconstitutionality of the health care mandate;
The global warming debate;
The Obama birth certificate debate;
(there is not enough room to list them all).