Skip to comments.Rep. Michele Bachmann 'GMA' Interview (still won't criticize Romneycare)
Posted on 06/14/2011 5:43:32 PM PDT by teg_76
Tea Party favorite announces she's officially in the race for president at CNN's GOP debate.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
I have seen a few Romneybots but they aren’t being overt.
If they stay home or vote rat, maybe they will burn American flags at their next TEA Party rally instead of wrapping themselves in them.
Hmmm. Maybe she IS running for VP. After all, Romney would be one of our oldest presidents to ever be elected if he wins. Which I don’t think he would.
Well I won’t ascribe to Bachmann any intention that can’t be proven. But there certainly is a disparity in how Palin and Romney are treated by the Bachmann camp lately.
I’m a Cain man unless Palin jumps in...
The economy is in shambles, unemployment is sky high, high gas prices, multiple wars, terrorism, TSA and the Liberals number 1 concern is gay marriage.
Yes Liberalism is a mental disorder.
I agree on the overreaching point. But the PEOPLE of a particular state have the choice whether to tolerate a perceived overeach. Plenty in Massachusetts apparently are willing to endure RomneyCare.
Riiiiiiiiight. In your last post you suggested that people move if they don't like having a socialist government. That's acquiescence to a loss of freedom. And it doesn't fly with REAL conservatives. Neither does selling your house, finding another job and moving.
You are bending over backwards to defend Romney and socialism. Why.
This does no good for Romney should he make it to a general election and this issue will most assuredly come up. The media’s just waiting for all of them. That’s why I’m for Palin entering. Bachmann has not been put through what Palin has and they are all running with a disadvantage with the target waiting for them as the public learns about them. And Bachmann has lost me with the Rollins debacle and this type of BS refusing to warn of what challenge Romney will get if he is the one against 0bama.
I am defending federalism and the ninth and tenth amendments.
No you’re not. You’re making excuses for government to be allowed to become socialist. You’re saying if people don’t like it they should move. That’s outrageous.
patience is in order. It is too soon to fire the big guns.
Not at all. I am just saying that states can do things that the federal government can not do. And Mass did it. Is it good, not likely, but it is a lot easier to change a state law than a federal one.
You seem fixated on the “moving” aspect, like it is some sort of horrible sin to mention this as a truth of federalism. Yet it is a strength of the federalist design. Of course, one can work to CHANGE a state’s system too. That is another course.
Moving, though, is another way of voting. With your feet. Businesses and people are doing it by the millions. They’re leaving California and New York for states with better laws. (see: Texas and Florida)
Why do you hate the Tenth Amendment? Should it be repealed?
What you seem to not understand is that there are different laws in the various states because the people of the different states WANT there to be different laws.
The people of each state are represented by a Republican form of government, as required by the Constitution (see: Article IV, Section 4).
Unless one is prepared to argue Massachusetts (or California or New York) does NOT have a “Republican” form of government (an extraordinary view indeed, as it has not been seriously espoused by any reasonable commentator on either side of the political spectrum), then the distaste one has for a law really can’t be based on the notion that the PEOPLE of the state are powerless to change said law.
If someone is in a state entrenched in policies that unfairly take or re-distribute wealth, you can work to change it, endure it, or leave. America is a great place in that regard.
And you seem prone to excusing socialism.
You haven’t addressed the constitutional issue at the heart of the disagreement. All you’ve done is accuse me of, essentially, being socialist.
You are wrong.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington
George Washington signed onto the Constitution, which embodied the federalist notions I’ve been defending.
You caricature my argument by saying I defend tyranny. I embrace instead the idea that unpopular laws can be fixed by the people of the state or the people of the state who disagree can leave. I’ve even given examples, contemporary ones even, of those states. You’ve engaged in ad hominems.
We’re done. If you want to try and make yourself feel better by getting in one last name-calling post, go ahead. Your ego will be massaged, since I won’t respond, and you can think you’ve really zinged me good. :)
Afterward, I suggest you do a good study of dual and cooperative federalism before you try to negate the Tenth Amendment by railing against those of us who defend the same.
Eventually you should read the Federalist Papers, the contemporary commentary of the Constitution, which says the powers to states are far more numerous than the federal government. The Federalist Papers did not embrace tyranny either—they merely taught that the Constitution gives great leeway to the states that it PROHIBITS the national government from exercising.
I find it sad you are unable or unwilling to grasp that concept.
1. appealing to emotions: appealing to people's emotions and prejudices instead of their ability to think
Oh yeah. Refusing to accept that government has a right to force people to get healthcare and quoting Washington is an "ad hominem" all right. LOL
We are most certainly done.