Sarah Palin pretended to contradict herself when she posted a "thank you" note to the Supreme Court of the United States in regards to their ruling to uphold Obama's healthcare reform law. Remember Momma Grizzly once falsely claimed that this phenomenal law would include "death panels for granny," and she's one of the ones who made the term "Obamacare" a derogative household term for the Individual Healthcare Mandate.
"Thank you, SCOTUS. This Obamacare ruling fires up the troops as America's eyes are opened. Thank God," she put on her Facebook page.
She wasn't really thanking the president as much as she appeared to be threatening him. Sarah Palin has a habit of using war-rhetoric, which is drenched in violence and borderline threats of "revolution." Afterall, her "crosshairs" propaganda may have been what led to Arizona democrat Gabby Giffords getting shot in the head by attempted assassin Jared Lee Loughner.
So is she saying the troops are going to revolt against Obama? What on Earth is she talking about? Maybe the plastic surgery she's been getting reduced the oxygen flow to her brain because making comments like that really makes her look like a wannabe terrorist leader! Hey, since she couldn't keep her job as Governor of Alaska without quitting like it was some fast food gig, why not be a talking head for the craziest of the crazies in the U.S.?
People like Palin and her ilk believe that this will lose POTUS Obama the election come November, but really, they're being a bit too premature in their pipe dreams. President Obama has overseen several influential issues during his first term. He brought you this excellent healthcare legislation, he helped in taking down Osama Bin Laden and he voiced his support for marriage equality and the rights of homosexual Americans. He is the people's president, and those who are in support of perpetuating the dog-eat-dog culture of the republican point-of-view are steadily being phased out, hopefully.
Crime analyst and profiler Chelsea Hoffman can be found on The Huffington Post, Chelsea Hoffman: Case to Case and many other outlets. Follow @TheRealChelseaH on Twitter or click here to contact Chelsea directly.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 93
It makes us even closer to going over the financial cliff like Spain, Greece, and Italy are doing right now.
As long as the promise is based on 'good intentions' reality does not matter. And surely don;t let reality enter into the consideration.
If we are to look to Canada for the personification of preeminance of medical care (Obamacare has nothing to do with health) then why shouldn't we look to Greece to see how it is paid for?
It must be pure hell to live each day of one's life within a rainstorm of negative thoughts and ominous fear and paranoia.
You know that most Americans live in big cities, right? So you would rather most Americans die a violent, horrible, painful death than to not get your way.
There is a word for that: psychopath.
I've yet to hear anyone I could remotely regard as "liberal" quote / give acknowledgment to / follow precepts of Saul Alinsky.
Well, it is my perogative, we were getting off subject.
As a great Democrat President is remouned to have said in such times, "I Feel Your Pain"
I read Brandt's comment to mean that in his opinion, Mitt Romney is playing the role of a wolf in sheep's clothing and thereby, he is disingenuously using his affiliation with the Mormon faith to gain financial support for his campaign.
Either you or I, misread the comment's meaning and I believe that in your haste to find fault, it was you, what do you think ?
1) Romney did not make it mandatory for the whole United States. It was only for his State that he governed.
Do you think maybe the fact that he was just a Governor of a state and not the President of the United States possibly had something to do with that scenario ???
2) He did not put in a "tax" bill
The Mass. State Health Insurance Act, (State Law c.58 enacted 2006) actually made it mandatory that all citizens having a specified income, must buy health insurance themselves and family members and anyone who failed to do so, would be taxed to recover the cost of health services. The law also levied a tax on any employer who did not offer health insurance to their employees !!!
You are free to confirm my answer to your comment by reading the law which I quoted, which maybe you should have done prior to making your incorrect statement.
114 year olds acting like 14 year olds.... good job GOP that's the essence of your following. :)
She cannot say anything worthwhile. Her vocabulary consists of snippy remarks.
Which is scarier, we have Obamacare or that the Democrats have established the governments power to control everything through taxes?
I must admit how the the 5 Justices decided this case has me more worried and 'fired up' than that we have Obamacare. For if there are no limits on the power to tax by the federal government then every law only has to be written to have a tax and it will no longer have Constitutional review.
Think of it, if you don't eat brocolli you can be taxed, if you don't jog you can be taxed, if you don;t vote you can be taxed, if you do enroll in a poverty program you can be taxed, if don't go to college you can be taxed, if you don;t get a 'boob job' you can be taxed, if you don't donate to a political party, don't join a union, don't say the pledge, if you don;t do what the majority in Congress wants you can be taxed. If that doesn't fire you up than nothing will except maybe not getting your vacation and governemnt checks, like the Greeks.
Who is John Galt? I am. You are too, Duane.
You are too generous to me. I wish I were an inventor and all I can do is ask questions.
I am afraid you are right and wrong the 'shrug'. You are right in that society is forcing the 'shrug' by doing everyhting it can to take away the reason to create, to elevate ones skills, to work to merit reward. You are wrong in that the inventors do it because they can, they enjoy the mental, the emotional, and the physical effort it takes to create. That is their purpose and they can no more stop that then to stop thinking, to stop breathing.
Society, those who focus on the flaws, who work to to the lowest common denomiator, those who want equal results don't recognize or are unwilling to accept that it is the 'Atlas' that has created their opportunity and without it they will not have any opportunity to pass on.
A simple example is the rise and fall of the Unions, they were formed out of the unwillingness of others to reward and encourage the creativity of those they employed, they survived because it became a stabilizing force while the employers learned to recognize and encourage and utilize the creativity of those they employed, and it has fallen as the unoins have gravitated to protecting the lowest common performance (those who lack the willingness or ability to be creative) and shackle those who want to create. You will watch this play in the government sector as funding forces government employer to turn to their staffs for more creativity.
You will watch this playout with Obamacare, the people in the States who see the value in creativity will reject Obamacare and turn internal to address the problem, those who don't will run to Obamacare. Watch the former flourish and the latter will decline.
Those who flourish will be the ones that foucs on health and personal accountability. The ones who embrace Obamacare will be focused on eqaul results and will focus on cost of medical care. The former will improve quality of life and latter will expand the numbers needing care.
He told the truth, he twisted the facts, he mislead by words or he lied in his summation of the facts, whichever you may choose to believe. Regardless of which one you choose, the American people are better off by his leadership in healthcare reform.
You don't have to believe in it, nor like it, nor agree with it, nor deal with it, nor get over it, you only need to understand that PPACA, IS NOW LAW and you are a part of it.
Should we reject all of the work someone does simply because we disagree with their personal choices?
Are you one of those who wants equal results for all with only extra effort made by a few?
"should we reject someone simply because their philosophy is based off a man who murdered and dismembered a 12-year old child?"
0_o
"how could ANYONE support this woman or her literature? "
Would you tell a doctor not to use a treatment until you know what the creators life choices were? Steve Jobs was not nice to the woman and child he had with her does that mean we should boycot all Apple products or things that have come from them?
You are right, it is the law an we shall comply with it.
Do you have any concern that the Court's said that the govewnrment can tax anything they want you to do but you choose not to do even those it may affect noone but your self?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Edward_Hickman
have fun with that
"here's who your idol worshiped, Duane:" You presue too much. I have no idols, the last one I had was when I was a child and they were a couple of baseball players. I do read what many write, I do not decide based on ehtnicity, on gender, on life style, or on philisophies. I read and think about what has been written, if it makes sense then I will modify to fit me, if I doesb't fit then I will think about how my approach would addres the issues raised. I don't blindly accept what anyone says and I only worhsip my God.
I would caution you against only hearing what you are listening for and not hearing what is actually said. I really think Ayn Rand made a lot of personal choice that would not fit me, but she wrote stories that caused a lot of people to think. Personally I would nver care to meet her, but even the public schools have seen value in her wtitings to include them in reading lists.
You may never open a book of hers but consider that many holding a similar philosophy to yours have.
Like I said -- good luck supporting an apologist for child murder.
Suddenly it makes sense what's wrong with the far right.
(BTW: When the chips were down, Ayn Rand took both the social security check and the medicare that she was so philosophically opposed to. Can you say "hypocrite"? I knew you could.)
Rand thought him a "Superman" acording to her notes for a novel she never finished centred on a character based on Hickman. From those notes she describes her character as follows:
Renahan, which she intended to be based on Hickman, "is born with a wonderful, free, light consciousness -- [resulting from] the absolute lack of social instinct or herd feeling. He does not understand, because he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people ... Other people do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should."
This is the definition for a sociopath, who cannot form attachment to other people and has no empathy whatsoever. This is what Rand idealized.
This expresses her philosophy of the "rugged individual" perfectly. She valued no one but herself and thought all people should be that way, free of what she called "social instinct or herd feeling". This illustrates exactly what many critics have said about her work, that it is a useless exercise in trying to provide a moral justification for selfishness.
"Like I said -- good luck supporting an apologist for child murder." That sadden's me, it it is reminsicent of the 60s & 70s and what the Vietnam veterans were called. The 'liberals' of that time didn't care about what people though or did they simply labeled then and could hear nothing else but their own words.
Is the author more important that the ideas discussed. Was the comment about Ayn Rand or about the theorm of Atlas Shrugs?
Is it worth talking about how we encourage or discourage those the provide the breakthrough ideas, or should we disregard that an focus on the personal life of the author? Should we simply dismiss President Clinton for his personal behavior in office?
I am surely sensitive to the personal choices and actions of people, but I am not here to judge them. I may condemn an action but that doesn't mean I will nor should I dismiss everything that person has done or contribute to the public discourse.
I can't hear you
As to Hickman, I don't care, it is his actions that he woulds be accountable for, it ain't the fault of Ayn Rand. It is like blaming a bad alternator for a flat tire.
I am sorry for I hear you, I think about what you say, and I try to articulate those thoughts hoping to be shown the errors in my thinking so I can think some more. I see an active mind and active body are good for the health of the whole person.
My concern is that so many are preoccuppied with placing blame and loose sight of fixing the problem. Obamacare was about placing blame on the cost of medical care (insurance companies, etc.) rather then getting people to take responsibility and take actions for their own health.
My doctor has started talknig about leaving the profession because of this and other government adminstrative requirements.
People don;t want to accept that the market place works inspite of the governement desires and because of their actions.
There is really just no way to justify that.
Like I said -- it's simply not justifiable.
The marketplace alone does not answer all human needs.
The thing Rand and her Randroids (good word, Chelsea) most have in common is their unjustified overestimation of their own intelligence.
But then I guess egomania and the philosophy of selfishness go hand in hand.
You make two presumptions that may not be that accurate; first because people talk about one element of a book or a proposition does not mean that they must subscribe to the whole of the book or propsition, second is that those who believe in the market place don't overestimate their own abilities rather they believe more in the intellect and abilities of all the people than the 'liberals do.
The ones that want more laws/regulation do so because they feel the masses aren;t as smart as then and they don;t trust the general population to make good choices. The example of only allowing 16 oz drinks in NYC, it is don;t because the Mayor (a well known liberal) does not even trust people to know how much they can drink or that they are not smart enough to figure out how to order a second if they aren't allowed free refills as much of the nation does.
The inventors aren't an intellectual elite, they are the ones that are persistent, are willing to trust in themselves, and have faith in the general public to see what they see. You may misunderstand that because a person has acquired wealth throug their creativity that they are some how smarter, in reality more times than not is based on what they have ascificed to learn, investing their time in themselves and others, and their willingness to take a risk.
Anyhoo, I got to pull the big switch, got work tomorrow, millions on welfare depend on me.
She was a sick, twisted hypocrite and her philosophy is an empty rationalizations of infantile emotions we teach children to control in grade school.
It is not about the author or her muse, it is about and idea the discussion.
I learned along time ago it is about listening and thinking about what is said, it is not about the source. Consider all that has happened that has changed throughot history if the source that sparked it had been the cause of it being discarded before it was ever considered for it was other people that made it happen.
Hypcracy is all around us it is demostrated by our political leaders everyday does that mean there is value in some of the things they do. The ruling on Obamacare (touching on the post is a small way) was not based on the Consitution but on a conjure rationale to keep it as law, the said the mandate was not valid, the President and Congress said it was not a tax, and yet the only justification for keeping was that it was a tax.
Your choice, the hypocricy of the arguemets (the President hailed the ruling even though it was totally opposite of what he said {I believe he meant it] and have Obamacare stand or be truthful to the arguements and have it fall.