Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Herr Rot doesn't believe in Article 1, Section 7, either

7 comments:

Mr roT said...

WSJ also pointed out that some of this stuff is common practice. Point is the size of the bill. That part is unprecedented.

I think redstate is a little OTT here.

Tecumseh said...

Size matters. But also substance, and intent. It's one thing to use parliamentary legerdemain to finance dog-catching in Lafayette, LA. Another thing to socialize a huge chunk of the economy. Look up the collected speeches of Barry & Co, when he used to rail against the eeevil Goppers for trying to sneak in something or another 1/10,000th the size. You'd have thought W was the re-incarnation of Göbbels, Himmler, and Göring all at once. But now, you're pulling for this, and pooh-poohing the whole maneuver as no big deal. Of course.

Mr roT said...

Fine, but redstate does goes for the full hitler on Obama.

Tecumseh said...

Again, it's a question of facts. If they point out something very specific (like breaking so and so law) it's one thing. Bullshitting is another. I don't expect you to pick up the nuance.

Mr roT said...

Facts = 1/10000. Gotya.

Tecumseh said...

Here is a question some random viewer wants Bret Baier to ask Obama this evening:

"Mr. President, as a Constitutional Scholar, would you please point to the provision in the Constitution that allows the Federal government to mandate to a sovereign citizen the purchase of a specific product like Health Insurance."
George Calvert, Florida

But maybe Rot wants to answer this question? Perhaps he can find another Article in the Constitution, one that I'm not aware of, to support the nationalization of Health Care? Of course, when I point specific articles covering specific things, that just flies by him, like water off a duck...

Mr roT said...

Where is it in the Constitution that it says that we have to prop up Halliburton's immoral, illegal, and fattening war in Iraq?