March 26, 2010

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

I don't have the vocabulary to describe how reprehensible this is:

Mark Duren told News 2 the incident happened around 4:30p.m., while he was driving on Blair Boulevard, not far from Belmont University.

He said Harry Weisiger gave him the bird and rammed into his vehicle, after noticing an Obama-Biden sticker on his car bumper.

We all get angry at politicians (if you didn't, you wouldn't be reading political blogs), but attacking a stranger on the street over something as innocuous as a campaign bumper sticker is not just criminal, it crosses the line into insanity.

The attacker, a retired real estate developer named Harry Weisiger, is charged with felony reckless endangerment. I think the district attorney would get bipartisan support if the charges were upgraded to two counts of attempted murder.

Update:Weisiger's wife died of brain cancer just over a month ago.

It certainly doesn't do anything to absolve or mitigate his assault, but does it provide a hint of a motive?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at March 26, 2010 02:47 PM

This is a really sad and horrible thing. What happened is not the answer to Obama/Biden stickers. Pointing at them and laughing heartily is.

Posted by: TimothyJ at March 26, 2010 03:14 PM

"does it provide a hint of a motive?"

At first, second and any subsequent glance: no.

Posted by: dirk at March 26, 2010 03:58 PM

Not trying to defend the guy, because I don't agree with what he did. But how do we really know that is why this incident happened?? Right now the only information is what the driver with the bumper sticker says. It could of been a regular case of road rage, and this guy is trying to milk the whole dem playing the victim card. Remember, liberals lie a lot!!!

Posted by: Jon at March 26, 2010 04:03 PM

Lets see, the man who purports to be our Presidents combined with his crones and corrupts the entire political process to illegally sieze one sixth of our industry, in the process he spends us into debt in a manner we can never repay, raises taxes to an ungodly degree on people who are already taxed to death and stressed by the economic downturn he has helped to create, has demeaned our country, groveled in the face of third world dictators, pissed of our allies, and brought us to the brink of civil war.

Our concerns, some imperious ass of a congressman is supposedly called the n word. A man who has been dienfranchised and pushed to the brink by our great government lashes out at a supporter of socialism. We need to look at what is important. The fundamental, unpopular, illconcieved change/take over of our govenment and lives. Or the actions of the people who have had enough.

We need action. We need a direction to involve people in the retaking of our government and re-establishment of our liberty.

Posted by: David at March 26, 2010 04:55 PM

You people are disgusting. "hint of motive", liberals lie a lot, corrupts the political process by having a vote according to the rules.


Truly vile, evil and sick.

Posted by: CJ at March 26, 2010 05:26 PM

Sorry, based on the limited information given this sounds like a bogus Toyata Prius sudden acceleration claim rather than a President Vladimir Arugula McHitlerAcorn road rage event. Based on the media hype, liberals are going to be imagining anything bad that happens to them is because of right wing rage over their political beliefs.

The other driver needs to be condemned and prosecuted for his reckless driving to begin with. To blame it on political road rage is going to take a little more information. Paging David Niewert!

Posted by: daleyrocks at March 26, 2010 06:12 PM

"He said Harry Weisiger gave him the bird and rammed into his vehicle, after noticing an Obama-Biden sticker on his car bumper."

How exactly does the victim know what the perp was thinking or motivated by? Of course, the narrative is set. No new information will sink in now, if it becomes available.

I notice comments at the local news website are running about the same... how did the victim know what was motiving the guy and, more importantly, what kind of professional news organization runs this story on the basis of that kind of speculation? At the very least they should have police statements to back up the assertion since they would have interviewed the assailant.

Posted by: w3bgrrl at March 26, 2010 07:02 PM

Oh so NOW they talk to him:

This is media malpractice. Bottom line, the speculations of the victim as to motive would be inadmissible in court.

Posted by: w3bgrrl at March 26, 2010 07:09 PM

Wow. The rant by the other David above is truly unhinged. I keep trying to get one of these RWNJs to name one specific 'liberty' or 'freedom' that has been taken from them, and so far, none can. Why? Well, partly because of sheer ignorance. But mostly because not one freedom or liberty has been taken, infringed, or even threatened. NOT ONE. Please, one of you, step up and name one.

A couple of other clarifications:

Nothing has been taken over by the government. GM was bailed out before they went bankrupt and threw hundreds of thousands of workers out on the streets. (Precedent: Chrsyler in the 80s). Health Care has not been taken over. Point out where in the bill health care has been taken over. It hasn't been.

Maybe if you folks would actually get informed on issues this wouldn't be such a big deal. And watching Glenn Beck makes you LESS informed, not more.

Posted by: David at March 26, 2010 07:19 PM

Evil Liberal Fascist David,

Can I call you ELF-D? I see you like acronyms and name-calling, so I will move ahead on the assumption that I may.

When you speak in absolutes it is simple for someone to destroy your arugment. "Nothing" has been taken over by the government, except for 60% of the ownership of GM. When an evil corporation, is mismanaged by greedy, evil rich people who deceived the evil and greedy stock holders through evil and greedy accounting tricks, it deserves to go under no matter how big it is. The assets should be sold to the highest bidder and the workers should seek employment elsewhere.

That is how a free market economy works. However, under this quasi-mercantilism economy, the government used our... well, China's money (which your grandchildren and great grandchildren will have to pay back) to purchase a portion of GM and they now control it. Who knows? Maybe we will default on our loan from China and China will own GM. They hold the mortgage on it, anyway.

Chrysler had US-backed loan guarantees of 1.5 billion from private sources. The US simply stepped in to a) reassure investors they'd get their money back; b) force Chrysler to restructure and offset the loans and interest with 2 billion in cost cutting measures. In GM's case, the US government bought equity in the company for $30 billion and an additional 9 billion from Canada. 72% of GM is owned by government. 60% US, 12% Canada.

Now I know I'm just an uneducated hick and you're from some Ivy League school, but that's the best refutation this simple little housewife can give to your claim that "nothing" has been taken over.

As to health care, ELF-D, well, I would suggest to you that if you would like to experiment for yourself whether the government has taken over health care that you do a two-step test: a) do not purchase health insurance; b) do not pay the fine for failing to purchase health insurance.

Also, don't you dare contradict Jesse Jackson, Jr. about whether the federal government is controlling health care. What are you, a racist?

Posted by: w3bgrrl at March 26, 2010 07:53 PM

Sorry, W3bgrrl, but Liberal and Fascist are mutually exclusive. If you knew anything, you'd know at least that, so no, you can't fall me that. I'm neither evil nor fascist. Liberal, yes. Proudly.

Also it's very likely we (the taxpayers) will actually MAKE money out of the supposed 'takeover' of GM. Chrysler was mismanaged by evil, etc. as you point out. We backed their bailout. Same deal. We forced GM to restructure and reorganize. And please, feel free to go explain to the workers at GM and the various businesses dependent on the auto industry how they should just be unemployed and suck it up. Let me know how that works out for you.

YOu failed logic in school, right? Somehow, you equate having insurance with taking over healthcare. Those two things are not the same thing. Your state REQUIRES you to purchases car insurance if you own a car, right? So then your state has taken over the car insurance industry, by your logic. FAIL.

And you also failed at the ONE challenge I posed: Name a single freedom or liberty you have lost under Obama. Name one. JUST ONE. If you've lost so any, it should be really easy.

Posted by: David at March 26, 2010 08:53 PM

Now I know I'm just an uneducated hick and you're from some Ivy League school, but that's the best refutation this simple little housewife can give to your claim that "nothing" has been taken over.

You shouldn't wear your inferiority complex on your sleeve.

If you would have rather seen a complete economic collapse and another Great Depression, I guess you are entitled to your opinion, but you should at least realize that is what you are advocating. Sometimes there aren't any good alternatives.

Posted by: DB at March 26, 2010 08:53 PM

exactly my question. I can kind of, sort of, a little see this conclusion if the guy who was rammed was watching the guy behind him scan his bumper, move his lips to read "Oh-bah-ma," get a look of rage and then ram him, but...can't see that realistically happening.
Reading the linked story, sounds more like what someone who was highly stressed might do when cut off, especially if someone didn't signal.

Picture this:
I'll call them "idiot" and "road rage".

Idiot gets out into traffic, going slow because he's just stopped to grab his daughter, and cuts off road rage guy without signaling. Road-rage guy flips him off and points at his blinker, which isn't signaling. Idiot decides to be a prick and sets at a stop sign for a good time, before finally pulling out. On a straight-a-way, road rage guy speeds up to try to get around the idiot who can't signal...and the idiot hits his breaks, causing a collision. In the middle of the road, the idiot puts his vehicle into park, and both vehicles come to a stop "near" the sidewalk. Rather than admitting he'd been an ass, the idiot then claims it's an attack because of his bumper sticker.
Sounds as likely as this guy deciding to stalk someone for a bumper sticker, eh?

you do realize ad hominem is a logical fallacy, right? So attacking someone with a claim they failed logic is ironic, at best.
Also, if "liberal" is used in the American political sense, you'll have to prove that it's mutually exclusive of "fascist," or it's the logical fallacy "equivocation."

Posted by: Foxfier at March 26, 2010 09:35 PM

DB, since you don't pick up on sarcasm, I can't take your status as a prophet seriously. If GM's assets were sold and demand for their products remained, another entity could have filled the void created. GM and Chrysler both criminally mislead investors and now we are on the hook for their misdeeds. Life is pain, brother. Especially when people make poor decisions. Sometimes innocent people get hurt because of others' decisions. It's the liberal who thinks the government exists to prevent pain instead of punish the people who cause it.

ELF-D, Liberal and fascist are not mutually exclusive in today's terms. In fact, under this administration they are cohabitating in a friendly way and are considering making the union permanent through marriage. "Liberal" was co-opted in the era of FDR to mean the exact opposite of what it meant in the era of Jefferson. No longer did it embody the idea that your rights end where mine begin. Instead it became synonymous with state solutions to social ills. This idea is expressed in the knee-jerk, false dilemma of "if you don't support my government-funded-and-administered welfare program, you want people to die in the street." The liberal leaves no room for the alternative notion that it is the people, and not the government, who are charged with caring for the poor.

Modern day fascism as expressed by today's left embodies many of the characteristics of Mussolini's brand of fascism. They believe in authoritarian paternalism: everyone must buy health insurance - this is no longer a personal decision; they reject individualism: any woman or racial minority who rejects democrat philosophy is regarded to be a traitor to her gender or his race; they wish to tightly control the messaging - Anita Dunn expressed this when explaining that during the campaign, Obama's staff was deftly able to manipulate the media by obfuscating or simply not answering questions; Ed Schultz expressed this recently when he said the return of the Orwellian "Fairness" Doctrine was required to shut up people like Rush Limbaugh; the Fascist wants to shut his opponent up, either through legislation and FCC regulation, or by screaming, “racist!” or by demonizing and alienating him. “There’s something else going on here, that’s churning up people for other activities down the road… I’m afraid that if we don’t tamp this down now… that controversial issue could very well generate something that could lead to some catastrophic events.” That liberal-fascist remark was made by Rep. Clyburn who also demonized protesters by falsely claiming they called him ugly names. They couldn’t defend their support of a bill that was hugely unpopular so they just demonized the opposition. Fascist. Appearance of unity and no opposition is important to the fascist.

ELF-D, you did not address that under the 80's Chrysler deal, the US government did not purchase an equity stake in stock, under GM it did. There is a world of difference between the two deals and I don't just mean the price tag. You lose on that point. Point to the right-wing nut job redneck you pretend to care about, but who you really hold in contempt.

ELF-D, you argued a strawman. I did not equate having insurance with taking over healthcare. I equate the entire health care bill, from individual mandates, to federal mandates on medical loss ratios, to dumping 30 million people into Medicare, to mandating states enroll the uninsured without the funding to do so, to establishing a bureaucratic panel of unelected appointees to decide the minimum amount of care that Americans can expect as their “right” (by the way, that is the one that will eventually piss you off, not me. I don’t consider it my right to demand a doctor treat me for free)as controlling health care.

It is disingenuous to equate state-required motor vehicle collision insurance with federally-mandated health care. That’s right! the US government does not require you to carry motor vehicle insurance. Your state does. Minimum standards are set by the various states. Some have collision as a minimum, some require more. That is a state’s rights issue. Are you arguing that I own and operate something that gives the state or federal government the right to compel me to purchase health care insurance? I don’t want to make the mistake you made of arguing a point you didn’t make.

I lost my right to self-insure my medical expenses. That’s one. You’re refuted.

Posted by: w3bgrrl at March 26, 2010 10:13 PM

" would suggest to you that if you would like to experiment for yourself whether the government has taken over health care that you do a two-step test: a) do not purchase health insurance; b) do not pay the fine for failing to purchase health insurance."

Is, in fact, asserting that requiring insurance is a takeover of healthcare.

And there is no requirement. The 'fine' you reference is actually a tax credit for purchasing insurance. Feel free to not purchase insurance, and lose the deduction. Just to follow some wingnut 'logic', nowhere in the constitution do you have a right to self-insure.

I'm not even going to argue your "point" about "modern day fascism." Redefining it to mean what you want it to mean, and then pointing to that definition to prove your point is laughable, at best.

Posted by: David at March 26, 2010 11:29 PM

I'm not even going to argue your "point" about "modern day fascism."

That would be fascism as it is expressed in the modern day. Thus far, it doesn't have an easily identifiable short-hand in the manner of Mussolini's.

Redefining it to mean what you want it to mean, and then pointing to that definition to prove your point is laughable, at best.

Again with the irony. This right after you redefine the government charging you a fine as a "tax credit"?
They charge you the amount if you don't buy insurance; a tax credit would let you claim the amount you spent.

Posted by: Foxfier at March 26, 2010 11:39 PM

Wow, quite the adept excuse-makers here!

Posted by: The Observationist at March 26, 2010 11:44 PM

Excuse-making requires that we say "sure, he did X, but...."

I, for one, question the reality of the reported version, especially as to motivation.

Posted by: Foxfier at March 27, 2010 12:13 AM

"And there is no requirement."


(a) REQUIREMENT To Maintain Minimum Essential Coverage- An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month.

"The 'fine' you reference is actually a tax credit for purchasing insurance."

(1) IN GENERAL- If an applicable individual fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during any calendar year beginning after 2013, then, except as provided in subsection (d), there is hereby imposed a PENALTY with respect to the individual in the amount determined under subsection (c).

(2) INCLUSION WITH RETURN- Any PENALTY imposed by this section with respect to any month shall be included with a taxpayer’s return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which includes such month.

ELF-D, I would greatly appreciate it if you did not lecture me on redefining terms in the same post where you attempt to define REQUIREMENT as not a requirement and PENALTY as a tax credit.


Posted by: w3bgrrl at March 27, 2010 12:21 AM

My school said I had to have health insurance to attend college. My school had not taken over the health insurance industry.

My state says I have to wear pants if I want to walk outside without getting a fine, or jail time. The state has not taken over the pants industry.

Posted by: Jim at March 27, 2010 12:35 AM

The school is not the federal government. There are many schools. Not all require health insurance. If it was a policy at a school you wished to attend, but you could not abide by the policy, you would go to another school. You have freedom in that situation, and no right to attend the school you wish to attend.

Your state does not require you to wear pants if you walk outside. Your state requires you to cover up certain parts of your body. Your state derives this authority on the basis of decency, not commerce. Your federal government is attempting to claim that by not participating in an economic activity you are affecting interstate commerce, not that you are being indecent.

Posted by: w3 at March 27, 2010 01:11 AM

But all the state schools have the same requirement. What gives the state the right to make me buy insurance to attend a state school that is funded by tax dollars? Aren't they taking my freedom, and aren't they thus taking over the health care industry?

Besides, people can buy insurance from any company they choose, or decide to pay a fine. They have the freedom in that situation. Just like I have the freedom to pay more to go to a non-state school or just go without a college education.

So if the Feds said it was indecent and rude to not have insurance you'd be cool with the mandate? What is magical about decency that makes it ok for the state to take away your freedom, and who gets to decide what is decent and what isn't? Seems pretty flimsy to me.

Posted by: Jim at March 27, 2010 01:22 AM

Well, I can see that CY's attempt to cast the wingnuts as reponsible Americans failed dismally here. Don't worry, you'll get on script. Soon enough, your overlords at Fox News will tell you that springtime is for the Republican charm offensive, and you'll toe the line and become "nice." This will be fun.

Posted by: The Observationist at March 27, 2010 01:40 AM

Oh so NOW they talk to him:

This is media malpractice. Bottom line, the speculations of the victim as to motive would be inadmissible in court.
Posted by: w3bgrrl at March 26, 2010 07:09 PM


Whom are you trying to fool?

From your very link the witness says the guy intentionally rammed him... twice!

The second time pushing the victim car on the sidewalk.

Maybe your ideology is affecting your hearing.

Posted by: David at March 27, 2010 01:44 AM

Am I really getting into a states' rights discussion with someone on a thread about an allegedly drunk, aggressive driver, who has just been slandered on the local news as having targeted an Obama supporter on purpose, solely on the basis of the mind-reading abilities of the guy he hit? Sadly, yes.

Jim, I'm cool with the feds taking the individual mandate to court on any basis, but the basis in the law is the interstate commerce clause.

Furthermore, Jim, people will not be able to choose any insurance company or plan they want. It will have to be a certified plan from a certified company. Consumer choice and responsibility to read and understand the product they are purchasing is gone.

So if the Feds said it was indecent and rude to not have insurance you'd be cool with the mandate? What is magical about decency that makes it ok for the state to take away your freedom, and who gets to decide what is decent and what isn't? Seems pretty flimsy to me.

All that above is strawman and has nothing to do with health insurance. No, if the Feds said it was indecent and rude not to have insurance it would also eventually fail in the courts. See Communications Decency Act of 1996. If you or anyone else wants to claim it's rude for me not to have insurance, I'll claim it's my first amendment right to be rude, and you'll lose.

Posted by: w3bgrrl at March 27, 2010 02:05 AM

ELF-D, you again engage in strawman attacks. The man is being accused by the media, leftist fascists on blogs, and the victim, of intentionally ramming his car into another car because of an Obama sticker, solely on the basis of the mind-reading ability of the victim.

Drunk driving, bad.
Aggressive driving, bad.
Ramming a car into another car once, twice or more, either intentionally or because you had so much to drink you were oblivious, bad.

Pretending you can read someone's mind and you just know it's because you left your Obama sticker on your bumper, bad.

Posted by: w3bgrrl at March 27, 2010 02:11 AM

But w3grrl, insurance companies already have to be certified to sell insurance, so what's the difference? It seems to me you are conflating federal regulation with federal control. Plus you are free to pay a fine instead of buying insurance, you have a choice.

I understand you think states have rights that trump Federal law when it comes to commerce (at least I think that's what you're saying), but 1) that's not the way the SC has ruled on the commerce clause in the last century, and 2) from a personal freedom standpoint -- freedom vs fascism -- what difference does make to the individual if it's a state or the feds who are making the regulations? Why would state fascism be somehow easier to swallow than Federal fascism?

Posted by: Jim at March 27, 2010 02:22 AM

w3grrl, You complain about ad hominem attacks, yet persist in calling me a name based on such an attack, and which I said I do not wish to be called.

So, given your lack of logical abilities, and your continued use of ad hominem attacks and unslults to make your "point" I'll leave you to your fantasy land. I have not attacked you. When I verbally attack you, trust me, you'll know it. But like others on the right, you're incapable of a civil discussion without childish name-calling and ridiculous goal-post moving.

Enjoy yourself. Your party is out of power, and will remain that way until they complete their descent into utter irrelevance.

Posted by: David at March 27, 2010 02:29 AM

David, I did not mention ad hominem once. That was another commenter. He or she does not speak for me. Secondly, you came onto this thread using the acronym "RWNJ," which, I admit, I did not ask you to clarify what it meant. I simply assumed you meant "right wing nut job."

I have not only called you an evil leftist fascist, but I've also presented facts you have refused to refute. But, if after calling people on this blog, "right wing nut jobs," you are going to retreat in tears after being called an evil leftist fascist and refuse to acknowledge that a requirement is a requirement and a penalty is not a tax credit, you go ahead.

I can't force you to stay, and more importantly, even if Republicans were in total control of the house, the senate and the white house, I wouldn't ask them to make you stay for me. That, essentially, is the difference between what I'm willing to take from you by force of government and what you're willing to take from me.

I also cannot force you to acknowledge how you type "I have not insulted you," before and after you've said I obviously failed logic. If you are not self-aware, I cannot force you to be through legislation. More importantly, even if I could, I wouldn't.

Posted by: w3bgrrl at March 27, 2010 02:42 AM

ok w3grrl,

You have not presented much in the way of facts. But I will grant you that the bill callis it a penalty for not getting insurance. Granted, that is a penalty. But no one forces you to get insurance. Feel free not to. Just pay the penalty. I can guarantee you that, when the argument gets to the courts, it will be argued as a tax credit to allow you to buy insurance. But whatever. Don't buy insurance. Pay the fee. Just don't get sick. Or have a CRAPLOAD of money ready when you DO get sick.

If saying you failed logic is an 'insult' to you, you are far too thin-skinned to be doing this. Given the logical falacies you presented, it was more an observation or a statement of fact than an insult. But calling someone you don't know "evil" is an insult. But par for the republican course.

Again, you have yet to produce a right or freedom you have lost under Obama. Your example above hasn't been implemented yet, so you haven't lost anything.

It's clear that if Republicans were in control of the house, senate and whitehouse, they would do exactly what they did the last time: a) not do shit for the good of the country and b) destroy the country as quickly as possible by violating the constitution and waging war for no reason whatever.

I"m not in tears. Well, unless you count the tears of laughter as I watch you spin, trying to make your version of things back up the ridiculous things you say.

So, either come up with a right or liberty you have lost under Obama, or admit you're making shit up. Your choice.

Posted by: David at March 27, 2010 03:01 AM

I heard ELF-D!

I'm Elf (no, really...)

And let me explain "Elfing".

Elf-D : To be shown FACT by Elf (That would be me) in order to make peace one way or another with everyone.

* Guy in SUV Rams Other SUV.
* {details about SUV2 Bumper}
* {speculation about SUV1 owner's agenda}
* BOTH sides/networks/folk on the ground are going to get bent about this but what I want to know is ...

[*] Which of you is most concerned that a little girl was in an auto accident, how is she? Does she have a bump on her elbow? Is she shaken up? Is this media mad-capping going to make it ANY FRIGGING BETTER FOR THE LITTLE GIRL?

Important things people.

You have been Elfed.

That is all.

Posted by: Elf at March 27, 2010 03:29 AM

Heh. Liberal and fascist are mutually exclusive? Guess David never heard of National Socialism.

Posted by: Kevin at March 27, 2010 07:46 AM


A. You said you were leaving the conversation, but you're still talking to me.

B. I did not say I was insulted. I actually misquoted you, but what you said was that you had not attacked me, when clearly every post to me you have made attempts to attack my intelligence. I find your method of communication to be rather passive aggressive. What that means to me is that you do attack, but you claim you are not attacking. I do not care if you continue attacking my intelligence or if you choose to be more civil. That is entirely up to you. I don't care if you claim you are not speaking to me anymore and then continue to do it. All I'm doing is pointing out when you contradict yourself and demand treatment that you are not willing to extend to others. I do it partly because I'm entertained by it, and partly because it cannot be pointed out too often that the liberal part of the liberal fascist gets bent out of shape when he is given the same treatment he extends to others.

C. You first come to the thread calling names, you then tell me that I have attacked you by calling you a name and that you are leaving the conversation because I won't quit calling you names. I have not demanded anything from you in regards to how you communicate with me nor have I claimed to be not speaking to you anymore because you are a meany, yet you have? Question: who is the thin-skinned one here?

D. Simply because you refuse to call a requirement a requirement and a penalty a penalty and refuse to acknowledge the imprisonment portion of refusing to pay the penalty does not mean I have not answered your question. You asked for a single right lost under Obama, and I answered: everyone has the lost the right to choose whether to insure. We've also lost the right to only insure catastrophic events, by the way. Not only are we now required to buy insurance, but we've lost the right to decide at what level we would like to insure ourselves. Again, I've said all this before, you simply are ignoring it and then claiming I have not used facts and logic. Doesn't mean it's true.

David, the amount of projection you have used since addressing me is utterly astounding. You began this conversation by believing the claims of a guy who cannot possibly know what the aggressive driver was thinking. You claimed that a requirement was not a requirement and a penalty was a tax credit. I quoted straight from the legislation, but now you demand I admit something which is demonstrably untrue.

Someone is indeed full of crap here, but it's not me.

Posted by: w3bgrrl at March 27, 2010 08:22 AM

Under the government's health care requirements, I have lost the right to be self-insured.

I do not want to purchase health insurance. I do not want to pay a fine/penalty. The government is requiring me to do one or the other.

If you read the Constitution, it is a document of enumerated rights. The federal government has the right and authority to do only those things that are specifically outlined in the Constitution. The commerce clause regulates commerce. If I choose to not purchase a product or service, I am not engaging in commerce. Therefore, there is no authority under the Constitution for the government to deny me the right to self-insure.

Posted by: Just Sayin' at March 27, 2010 08:28 AM

David, Jim, and the rest of the blind will probably also believe their Dear Leaders when those same Leaders tell them that there will be cake after the showers...

Posted by: emdfl at March 27, 2010 10:10 AM

To Just Sayin': You need to do a bit more research on the Constitution. Check out Section 8 of Article 1 which says, in part:

".....and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

That's a pretty broad term on which the SCOTUS has ruled in many cases over the years that Congress does have the right to pass laws that are not specifically outlined in the Constitution.

Of course, under our system it is the SCOTUS that decides if legislation is or isn't Constitutional. Truthfully, our individual opinions have no legal weight whatsoever.

Posted by: Dude at March 27, 2010 10:42 AM

Liberal David and others,
There is no debate. There are no longer any issues. The fact is that Obama and group have taken our country in a direction that the majority of Americans do not like, or rather hate. I don't really care if you "won" the election, the election was not on the subject of the take over of our country.

We need action, Not debate. The sides are clearly drawn and from my view the liberals on this thread are either lying, obtuse, ill informed, lacking in basic logic or have an agenda of socialistic control. You are therfore not my fellow citizen, you are a blight.

We need to beat the drum. Thanks CY for the efforts to do so.

Posted by: David at March 27, 2010 10:48 AM

Picked this up from another site, looks like it applies to some of the commenters:

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

The republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."

-- Author Unknown

Posted by: Conservative (ultra) David at March 27, 2010 10:58 AM

Just Sayin,

The Militia Act of 1792 required all adult men to buy specific military equipment. No man could exercise his right to not buy:

"a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder"

If he did not buy those thing he'd face a fine of up to a years pay. Failing to pay the fines could result in imprisonment.

The Founders thought the Constitution gave Congress had the right to make you buy something. Even if you didn't want it. But what did they know about Freedom and the Constitution, silly liberals.

Posted by: Jim at March 27, 2010 11:07 AM

The Criminal Marxist Media continues the America-destroying narrative: violent insane white Christian Republican hater racist attacks innocent loving virginal enlightened Obama follower. Who the hell knows what happened? Furthermore, who the hell cares? The story is useful only as it fits the Obama narrative. Obama and Cronies want division, crisis, and the fundamental change of America to communism. The flaming of stories such as this shows how wide the divide between us is, and the story itself may hint at how close to revolution some Americans are.

If the old guy was driving in Atlanta traffic, it wouldn't take much to push him over the brink. My observation, as a professional road warrior, is that vehicles with Obama stickers are generally ill-kept clunkers, and the drivers have poor driving skills. The Obama drivers often are slow-rolling road blocks in the left lane of the expressway, oblivious, indifferent, or antagonistic toward the line of cars behind. From personal experience, places you will find the most cars with Obama stickers are the visitor's lot of the jail, the welfare office, and the public health dept. Defunding the entitlement programs is essential to restoring The Republic. People must be allowed to fail. So must this monstrous government.

Posted by: twolaneflash at March 27, 2010 11:49 AM

twolaneflash, I'm pretty sure that the reports say the ramming driver was drunk...? This doesn't prove that politics set him off, but I'd imagine it would make it more likely. In any case, he has nothing to be proud of. There's simply no place for either drunk driving or political violence in this country. If we're going to excuse this behavior (especially when a 10 yr old kid was involved) just because the perp's "on our side" then I really fear for us.

Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at March 27, 2010 01:02 PM

It is good to look at the motives of the driver. But, remember, this and other stories are plants to get you to look away from the real issue. The issue is our changing government. Hopefully action will increase. As I have said, the time for debate on these issues is over. I keep thinking of the people on the hijacked plane, they likely sat around discussing the problem, but when faced with the inevitable the leader stepped forward with "lets role". That is where we are now. The only discussion is how.

And Jim, before you get the vapors and feel that I am saying the government created the accident, that is not what I am saying. The news media is intentionally focusing on a daily event to distract.

Some of the liberals have indicated that they don't sense a loss of freedom. Here is my view. If the Feds came to your house, beat you up, threw you in jail and kept you there without a trial, would I sense a loss of freedom. No. But, in fact, my relationship with my government would have changed. That is what is occurring now. You might not notice a change in your everyday life and might not have a problem in your lifetime. But the government and its relationship to us has significantly altered. The alteration is not sanctioned by our contract with the government. The alteration has fundamental characteristics that are not what we desire.

And Jim, note that the government told the militia what to do. That is a body of soldiers for which Congress and the President have control. You are either trying to intentionally mislead, which seems wrong with the conservative audience, or you are not very bright. Either way, why are you trying to be so divisive?

Posted by: David at March 27, 2010 03:59 PM

My dear teabaggers, I believe the "fine" for not buying health insurance is actually couched as the loss of a tax credit. But even if it's not, I haven't noticed a lot of you people whining about the requirement in 48 of the 50 states to buy automobile insurance.

Nor have I heard anyone mention that mandatory purchase of health insurance was originally a Republican idea, and is part of the health plan that your party's 2012 nominee instituted in Massachusetts.

Posted by: The Observationist at March 27, 2010 09:11 PM

Sorry Jim...

The Militia Act of 1792 required each citizen to "...provide himself with a good musket or firelock..." (emphasis added). He was not required to buy his weapons and accoutrements, he was to obtain them on his own (possibly from relatives, friends, etc.) if he did not already own them outright.

Also, the act provided that each militia member "...shall receive the same pay and allowances, as the troops of the United States...".

Citizens over the age of 45 were exempt from the provisions of the act.

I believe comparing the Militia Act and health care is mixing apples and oranges.

As I am not enrolled in a "health militia", I am not under orders to purchase health insurance. Until now.

Posted by: Just Sayin' at March 27, 2010 11:40 PM


Driving a motor vehicle in all states is a privilege, not a right. You must pass a driving test in order to receive a license. If you don't want to purchase insurance, take the bus.

John McCain was governor of Massachusetts?!?

Posted by: Just Sayin' at March 27, 2010 11:46 PM

Just Sayin,

Seriously? Provide versus Buy? No one says you have to buy your own health insurance either, you could have your relatives or friends buy it for you.

Citizens over 65 would be exempt from having to buy health insurance as they'll qualify for Medicare.

FWIW McCain ran in 2008, not 2012, just say'n. :)

Yes the Milita Act and HCR are not identical things. They do, however share the fact that both required citizens to buy stuff. The fact that the MA then required even more of the citizens doesn't help make HCR less constitutional.

Posted by: Jim at March 27, 2010 11:58 PM

and... you don't have to buy health insurance, you could have it provided for you by your employer, etc...

The point remains, the US government has required it's citizens to buy things before, and at least one of those times the government was made up of the Founders themselves.

Posted by: Jim at March 28, 2010 12:02 AM

I did a few minutes research on the incident on google. There is a set of charges they are leaving out. Driving under the influence and leaving the scene of an accident. This is a DUI turned into a political circus.

You’ll have to scroll down. It’s a bit below the top of the page.

Posted by: James S. at March 28, 2010 05:55 AM
But no one forces you to get insurance. Feel free not to. Just pay the penalty.

No one forces you not to kill people. Just pay the penalty.


Posted by: Pablo at March 28, 2010 06:29 AM
My dear teabaggers, I believe the "fine" for not buying health insurance is actually couched as the loss of a tax credit.

You believe wrong.

I haven't noticed a lot of you people whining about the requirement in 48 of the 50 states to buy automobile insurance.

You're not required to buy insurance as a requirement of residence. You can choose not to drive an automobile. You can also post a bond showing your ability to self-insure. Furthermore, you're required to have liability coverage to protect others whose property you might damage. You are not required, anywhere, to insure against damage to your own property. Lastly, that something can be done by a state does not mean that it can be done by the Federal government. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Does that ring a bell?

Posted by: Pablo at March 28, 2010 06:38 AM


They do, however share the fact that both required citizens to buy stuff.

This requirement was under the provision of the Constitution to provide for the common defense.

It was required of a specific sub-group of citizens: males age 18-45. Women and children were exempt. The militia members were compensated for their service. Also, they did not have to "provide" a new firearm every year at their expense...a one-time "provision" was sufficient. And given the time frame and conditions, most males of militia age likely had such a firearm in their possession without having to purchase one. For example, if I were called to militia service, I could "provide" the necessary equipment under today's conditions from my personal possessions without making any additional purchase.

The government is requiring all citizens to purchase a commercial product that some might not want to purchase and has provisions to penalize you if you do not make that purchase. And this is a recurring purchase that many might not be able to afford, especially as health insurance premiums skyrocket. It is a decision that heretofore has been a personal one, not decided by others and enforced at the point of a gun.

And on the McCain/2012 bad. However it is by no means certain Romney will be the 2012 nominee for the Republicans. His association with the Massachusetts health boondoggle certainly taints him. So let's do Massachusetts writ large. That's the solution!

Posted by: Just Sayin' at March 28, 2010 08:04 AM

On the "On Topic" -

- Drunk driving inflated into political violence. Played hard it can result into an escalated counter-strike against members of the perceived opposition. Common tactic used by authoritarian parties to violently seize control of nations. Can be used by both partied in a political contest. Carries a heavy cloak of deniability. Can take years, if ever, before the survivors realize that they were the ones who initiated the violence.

On the "Off Topic" -

- The biggest political problem facing this country is that the majority (voters and politicians to the highest level) fail to grok that the Fed and the States have different functions - Constitutionally, philosophically, and functionally.

- The second biggest politically problem is that the a significant number know this but do not care....

Let me switch that up -

- The biggest problem is that a majority of politicians know this, but do not care because they know that a majority of voters don't know.

Posted by: Druid at March 28, 2010 11:22 AM
Posted by The Observationist at March 28, 2010 12:58 PM

Thus providing a graphic illustration of the phrase "braying ass". It will be fun to thing about this fool's words as his narcissist hero is thrown down along with nutbag collection of perverts, racists and socialists/fascists Obama chooses as friends and associates.

Posted by: iconoclast at March 28, 2010 02:03 PM