An Oregon legislator is now sponsoring legislation that would, if passed, effectively nullify ObamaCare within the borders of the state of Oregon. From Heartland magazine: Here is the link: Oregon Bill Would Make Obamacare Enforcement Criminal Offence | Heartlander Magazine As Rep. Boquist has himself admitted, this legislation probably stands very little chance of passing. Still, it may help to bring attention to the matter. And one would hope--quite fervently, in fact--that something similar might be brought into existence, and indeed pass the state legislatures in other states...
Oh wow! This would be like a state passing a law that said Federal agencies enforcing drug laws would be a crime in the state of Oregon.
Federal Law trumps State Law, if they pass this no court will uphold it you are punishing a state employee for enforcing a Constitutionally sound Federal Law, the Supreme Court for the most part upheld it. I would think this would be tossed out on any legal challenge if its made law.
I think you may be missing the point here. Although it appears unlikely that this particular bill will pass the Oregon state legislature, I am hoping that other states will do what Washington state may not follow through with, and pass laws nullifying federal laws that state legislators consider unconstitutional; and that, irrespective of whatever the federal courts may have pontificated about this or that. And then stick to their guns, strongly and defiantly, without the slightest regard for attempts at federal intimidation... - - - Updated - - - Yes, something like the legalization of marijuana in (neighboring) Washington state, as well as Colorado, just last November...
It might sound to the uninformed that the Pacific Northwest has quite the Libertarian streak, but actually there is a deep political divide between the urban and rural areas. The legalization of marijuana was no doubt sponsored by a representative from one of the more urban districts. The left-right divide also manifests itself as a division between the western and eastern parts of the region. In the western part the local governments openly tolerate (at least to some degree) anarchists and revolutionary communists. In the eastern part it's racial separatists and right-wing militias. The ironic thing is that the political boundaries of the region are cut across horizontally, whereas the actual political conflict tends to be east-west, along a vertical line.
What political conflict? First off on MJ, like 80% of the state supports the law, so don't know what you are talking about. The western part of the states are the majority, and pay for the roads in the East, and get called socialists for doing so. That neo-con Republicanism is never going to sell in the NW. On the other hand Ron Paul won the Washington primary despite claims to the contrary!
Really? Do you mean, the primary that Washington state never held in 2012? Apparently, Washington state--which held a caucus instead in 2012--will return to the primary system in 2016: Oh, here is the link: http://www.kingcounty.gov/elections/archive/2012/201208/2012CaucusInformation.aspx And, even as regarding the Washington state caucus, Romney outpolled Paul by 13 percentage points, 38 percent to 25 percent: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/03/politics/washington-caucuses The fact that the Paul campaign was nonetheless able to muster a large number of delegates there speaks to the depth of Paul's support--i.e. its intensity--not its breadth...
Anyone that was there when they selected the delegates knows this is non-sense. Ron Paul dominated the caucus. There were hundreds of Paul supporters volunteering to stay to be delegates. In Snohomish couny the 3rd largest county in the state, at the delegate selection where I was, Paul got 100% of the delegates. You guys can win the popular vote all you want, but if no one that voted for you cares enough to actually stay and participate in the political process, then what does that really mean other then the sheeple are well trained?
It means that the intensity was among the Paul supporters--a fact that I have previously noted--but that these zealots are in the minority. A larger number of American citizens--to whom you refer, pejoratively, as mere "sheeple"--do not share Ron Paul's fundamental vision for America...
With that little piece wisdom (well, such as it is), we have all we need to know about you, viz.: Like so many other Ron Paul acolytes, you look down your nose at most Americans; you believe that a small minority of zealots should be able to dictate to the rest of the citizenry just how things are going to be. One could easily see a parallel, here, with the authoritarian zealots in Iran...
Are you saying Paul supporters tend to know who Ben Bernanke and what a derivative is? I would tend to agree. I also find them likely to have read a book, or watched a doicumentary that shows military experts talking about the idea of blow back. It is one of the main pieces of our drone policy that is coming into question today.
I am saying that Ron Paul supporters tend to think of themselves as much better informed (and even more innately intelligent) than the general public; and I consider this both inaccurate and downright arrogant on their part... "low back" is not a very good resaon for eschewing a military policy that one considers morally upright...
Thats a cute trick you are playing where you insult anyone that supports Paul, while climbing up on the cross! Did you just equate the murder of children as collateral damage, to a military policy you deem morally upright?
I believe it is fair to assert that you consider yourself "much better informed (and even more innately intelligent) than the general public," based upon what you have said in previous posts in this thread; and I have come across a similar tendency among many other Ron Paul supporters whom I have encountered. The tragic (but inevitable) killing of innocents in times of war can hardly be described as "murder." At least, not by anyone who views matters analytically, rather than trying to tug at one's heartstrings. Moreover, you have just moved the goalposts: Originally, your objection to our recent military policies was the likelihood that they might create "blow back"; which is a purely practical consideration. But your (most recent) objection to these policies--that they are (supposedly) designed to act in service to "murder"--is a moral argument...
Right, the only problem is that you have equated acting like you are more informed to being a Ron Paul fan, and I am pretty sure they are not mutually exclusive. All killings are inevitable in war, so therefor why try to mitigate any civilian deaths. You fail at logic and life. Actually I was responding to your claim that our current military policy is "morally upright".
In pure (abstract) theory, the two would not be mutually exclusive; but in actual practice, I believe it is quite erroneous to assert that Ron Paul acolytes are either better informed or more intelligent than others... I don't think that is precisely what I said. (In fact, it is--at best--a caroonish representation of my actual words.) Since the US does not target civilians in wartime (with the exception of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945), I believe it is accurate to note that America does try to "mitigate...civilian deaths," to the greatest extent possible, without altering our military strategy or tactics. Such an outburst makes you appear downright trollish... I believe it is. Nonetheless, this is little more than a digression, since the real subject at hand is the arrogance and my-way-or-the-highway approach of so many Ron Paul supporters...
I find that most people that don't support Ron Paul have cartoon trolls living in their butt. This is a fact because it has been my experience. Logic fail.
Lets get back to the topic here is the basic issue using Florida as an example, and Florida is struggling to expand Medicaid. In Florida using their numbers and adding in the economic returns of those Federal dollars we put in over ten years per year averaged $300 million to expand Medicaid using HMO's under the agreed upon plan with HHS and we get back $31 billion in economic activity using conservative numbers. Its business and simple business. If any of you could put in $300 a year and get a return of $31,000 each year wouldn't you? States that opt out are gaining a thing they must make up lost money to hospitals, the taxes are all going to be collected and the money will go to other states! Its stupid to say no. Stupid.
This is a typical comment from a Ron Paul elitist. (These people seem to want to establish some sort of oligarchy, free of any contamination by non-libertarian zealots...)
Although the states are currently being promised 100 percent funding for any expansion of Medicaid, for the first three years (and a gradually diminished amount after that), there is reason to be suspicious of this promise, in my opinion. After all, the federal government is quite strapped for money--it simply cannot keep running trillion-dollar annual deficits, ad infinitum--so this could very easily prove to be an empty promise. Oh, here is a link to a good article on the subject from The Heritage Foundation: http://www.heritage.org/research/re...d-expansion-is-bad-for-taxpayers-and-patients
Wow, this is like telling a MIT physicist he is retarded. Did you really just accuse someone other then Republicans and Democrats of trying to establish a oligarchy?
Anyone who decries "the sheeple," and declares that it does not really matter how the majority voted (as you did in post #8 in this thread), may (reasonably enough) be described as someone who favors an oligarchy over a democratic republic...
The more states in especially major ones the least likely and you know that its a matter of states power in Congress in the House and Senate at some point voting to cut the funding would be unlikely and with their elected offices possibly on the line. But lets say states opt out okay will that stop the taxes from being collected, cuts to hospitals, the current normal issues of the uninsured and add to that the fact states opting out will be less attractive to small businesses. The last is not something one can ignore lets say ACME WIDGETS a 50 employee company wants to locate would they go where health care is not something they need to worry about or to a state where they have to worry about providing it? States opting in have a serious carrot to draw in the small businesses. - - - Updated - - - The more states in especially major ones the least likely and you know that its a matter of states power in Congress in the House and Senate at some point voting to cut the funding would be unlikely and with their elected offices possibly on the line. But lets say states opt out okay will that stop the taxes from being collected, cuts to hospitals, the current normal issues of the uninsured and add to that the fact states opting out will be less attractive to small businesses. The last is not something one can ignore lets say ACME WIDGETS a 50 employee company wants to locate would they go where health care is not something they need to worry about or to a state where they have to worry about providing it? States opting in have a serious carrot to draw in the small businesses.
You are admitting, then, that ObamaCare means higher taxes? For the truly impoverished, there is always Medicaid. For those who are not impoverished, but would simply prefer to spend their money in other (more enjoyable) ways, I have very little sympathy... For a person of the left to worry about business interests seems...well, a bit less than wholly sincere...
