http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/1109/clinton_we_are_winning_c3243bd1-33d6-42a7-ab70-5bae329fdc6e.html

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said Clinton described the ongoing tea party protests against the Democratic agenda as a sign their party was making progress.

Whitehouse quoted Clinton arguing: "The reason the tea-baggers are so inflamed is because we are winning."

They reason they vote for tyranny at midnight on Saturdays is because they’re losing.

They mock and marginalize us because they’re losing.

They may get their health care bill, but their arrogance and dismissive attitude has cost them immeasurable mistrust and anger. As far as I’m concerned, it’s irreparable.

In one year, my attitude about my government has gone from wary skepticism to outright disgust and hopelessness. Unless we see something like a President DeMint in 3 years, I don’t see that ever changing.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/lawmakers-detail-obamas-pitch/

“Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit” Democratic voters “and it will encourage the extremists.”

THAT JUST HAPPENED.

The President of the United States, the post-political savior and healer of souls, the smartest man who ever lived, called people who disagree with his oppressive, anti-freedom, bankruptcy-inducing health-care plan “extremists.” And he whipped out the “teabagger” thing to describe people who have legitimate anger and mistrust of the government’s willingness to represent them.

Most people don’t want this bill to pass. How can a majority of people be extremist?

People like me have been called extremists, Nazis, racists, shills for corporations, etc. for months, just for expecting the government to adhere to the Constitution. We are being forced against our will into tyranny by this administration and this Congress, but they’re calling US the extremists.

The truth is that WE JUST WANT YOU TO LEAVE US ALONE.

Because it’s "arcane," "confusing," "hard stuff to understand," and "incomprehensible."

Sen. Thomas Carper (D.-Del.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, told CNSNews.com that he does not “expect” to read the actual legislative language of the committee’s health care bill because it is “confusing” and that anyone who claims they are going to read it and understand it is fooling people.

“I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life,” Carper told CNSNews.com.

We’ll have to wait and see if he votes for it. But if legislative language is “incomprehensible” then we shouldn’t frigging use it. The only reason to use “arcane” and “confusing” language in an official manner is to hide, obfuscate, and lie about what’s actually going to happen.

Haha

After Congressman Joe Wilson accused President Barack Obama of lying during is national address last week, Congress has apparently been hard at work figuring out which words are OK to use. God these people are worthless.

As a guide for debate, it is permissible in debate to challenge the President on matters of policy. The difference is one between political criticism and personally offensive criticism. For example, a Member may assert in debate that an incumbent President is not worthy of re-election, but in doing so should not allude to personal misconduct. By extension, a Member may assert in debate that the House should conduct an inquiry, or that a President should not remain in office.

Under section 370 of the House Rules and Manual it has been held that a Member could:

• refer to the government as “something hated, something oppressive.”
• refer to the President as “using legislative or judicial pork.”
• refer to a Presidential message as a “disgrace to the country.”
• refer to unnamed officials as “our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs.”

Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:

• call the President a “liar.”
• call the President a “hypocrite.”
• describe the President’s veto of a bill as “cowardly.”
• charge that the President has been “intellectually dishonest.”
• refer to the President as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
• refer to alleged “sexual misconduct on the President’s part.”

A member of Congress, therefore, can not call a president a liar, a hypocrite, or dishonest. They also would not have been allowed to discuss President Clinton’s “sexual misconduct.” How this is relevant today is curious. Do they know something about who Obama’s been rubbing up against that we don’t?

Fines for failing to get health insurance

Under this proposal, if you do nothing else than simply be, you will face a fine. Income taxes are based on your act of earning money for work. Property taxes are a result of your state of owning something. Sales taxes are based on the behavior of purchasing something. Now, if you are simply nothing more than a living American, you may be fined if you don’t buy health insurance.

They’re comparing this to compulsory auto insurance laws, but you only are subject to that if you exercise the privilege of driving a car. This is different in that by exercising the right to life, you will be subject to special taxation.

Awesome.