Nancy Pelosi said that Republicans’ plan to repeal Obamacare and not replace it with anything was “and act of cowardice”.
Yes, much like when cowardly doctors replace your cancer with nothing at all.
Nancy Pelosi said that Republicans’ plan to repeal Obamacare and not replace it with anything was “and act of cowardice”.
Yes, much like when cowardly doctors replace your cancer with nothing at all.
“No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: “But what would you replace it with?” When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?”
— Thomas Sowell
She would love to have a Republican plan to blame everything on for the next election. She knows the Republican plan would look just like the current plan in most regards. So, she gets to have her socialism and complain about it.
“You Don’t Replace Something That Shouldn’t Have Been Placed” — well said.
Nature abhors a vacuum though a vacuum is often preferable to that with which nature fills it.
That’s a rough quote from someone – can’t remember who.
“But what would you replace it with?” <– not a question libs ask when proposing erasing the Second Amendment and the Constitution.
…
Georgetown Students Say U.S. Constitution Taken ‘Too Seriously’
The Washington Times | Sept. 17, 2016
… “People definitely take [the Constitution] too seriously, it’s not 250 years ago.” …“When it was written, we were considering things that absolutely don’t apply today.”
…
New Socialist Magazine Jacobin: ‘Burn the Constitution’
Cybercast News Service | March 23, 2016
“Jacobin, a new socialist magazine, has published an essay advocating destroying the U.S. Constitution. The magazine, which was launched in 2011 and is published four times a year, is the creation of Bhaskar Sunkara. Sunkara, 26, is the son of immigrants from Trinidad and Tobago. He lives in Brooklyn.”
…
Judge Richard A. Posner, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981 and serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, has published an op-ed at Slate declaring that the U.S. Constitution is a waste of time.
Brietbart | 06/27/16 | Joel B. Pollak
Posner writes:
“And on another note about academia and practical law, I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution. . .
“Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today. David Strauss is right: The Supreme Court treats the Constitution like it is authorizing the court to create a common law of constitutional law, based on current concerns, not what those 18th-century guys were worrying about.”