Check your own archives.

And change your dew-rag.

Think about why you once became an atheist.

Have you tried checking your archive?
Click here! http://gazettextra.com/users/gazettefan/...

I didn't realize how much you crave my attention. Poor soul! You'll have to find some way to supplement your yearning.

Definitely backing up on you. Where're the word piles?

Yep, it was a BULLSEYE, alright!

When you use the word "bulls eye" you're misspelling what you're actually wallowing in.

Your Achilles heel is shutting you up. Your word piles are backing up on you.

I must have hit another BULLSEYE not long ago.

billnewbie, note that it doesn't mention Christ. Also note that your bible offers nothing in the way of anticipating and implementing large and economically complex democratic societies.

No mention of Christ means that the mention of "Creator" was only a tactical ploy to soothe the hostile minds of all those crazy believers back then. The same thing is going on now. Inalienable rights is actually a reference to human nature. Human nature is something your ilk has a big problem with.

Mention of god now by politicians is also evidence of a collective remnant fear of when believers used to torture and murder "infidels."

You and your ilk have given us nothing in the way of fully living and understanding the human experience. All you've done is show that some people can only be "good" if you live in fear of a horrible imaginary creature, and to soothe a pathological sense of entitlement. Such entitlement is so out of proportion to how your god causes and allows thousands of babies and children to die each day from malnutrition and dirty water.

Not to mention how "god" allows adoption practices to feed the appetite of people like Sandusky, a fellow christian.

Yep, just pretend the 2005 real ID card law the federal government passed and 25 states refused to implement using nullification doesn't exist. http://www.realnightmare.org/news/105/

Why is those that claim to be history or government experts always forget current history?

What is being done today, by states, is hardly new or cataclysmic. It is just how our government works. Allowing those people to rebel against laws most people think are bad. But expecting people to be honest about it is asking too much.

I was reading something not long ago that seems appropriate to this discussion. Here is highly a pertinent sentence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." The folks who wrote that were well aware of the risks they were taking. Yet they thought that an over-reaching government had to be stood up to. And they were right.

Yes, there may well be a high risk in attempting nullification of that economic disaster of a law that is Obamacare. But as any risk taker can tell you, high rewards don'tjust fall out of trees, they usually require high risk.

Obamacare will make "The Great Society" look as if it were a success in comparison. We all know how well that worked out for our country, since it still reels from the avalanche of unexpected consequences that well intentioned but ill-conceived aberration wrought. And now we are just supposed to implement another well-intentioned but ill-conceived aberration of a law, ignoring not ancient history, but the lessons learned just a few short decades ago. Is it really a high risk endeavor to resist ignoring history yet again, doing yet another "Great Society-like" welfare program thinking that this time the results will be better? Prudence demands resistance! At least until the upcoming election settles the matter as is appropriate.

Why is it that good intentions are all that matter for some folks? As long as doing good is the motivation, objecting to throwing money by the skid load into the nearest incinerator shouldn't even cross the mind of good people, according to them.

You are really bringing up the 1800's? What is the same now that was then? ....Nothing.

"defying the law"
How about the US DOJ and the potus, who refuse to enforce the immigration laws?

Fedup is a big thinker.
That is precious.

Fedup- Now that is funny! Oh, you told me. Because I accept the law of the land does nothing to diminish my freedom of thought.
Stick to your party lines, you so called "free thinker."

Fedup-paranoid much?

Constitution?
That's that thing in the museum, right?

Any time the federal,state, or local government collects money from me, it is a tax.
Call it a penalty or a tax, it makes no difference to me, the government is still doing the same thing.

This is all moot. Walker will be in shackles long before 2014 and it will be left to our new Governor to implement.

The same could be said of Act 10. Very unpopular, contested in court, found legal, and is now the law of the state. I did not support it, but it is the law and I will follow it.
So what happens in Nov. if Romney is not elected?

GaryP, Was this monstrosity presented to us as a tax on the People? No. In fact, it was emphatically, repeatedly shouted from the Halls of Congress and the Oval Office that it was NOT (sorry for the caps) a tax. And, yet, anyone with half a brain cell could see that it was--regardless of the lies that were told to the contrary. We The People have as much right to rise up against false representation as we do lack of representation. Fraud is fraud is fraud.

"Let me get this straight . . . ... We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't, Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that didn't read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke!!!!! 'What the hell could possibly go wrong?"

How do you figure that you have no representation?

John, I might agree with you and your editor friend, were it not for the fact that ObamaCare was passed under false pretenses from beginning to end--which was affirmed by the Supreme Court last week with Mr. Robert's brilliant decision of calling the Act exactly what it is: a tax on We The People. The precedent has been set here historically, that when one is taxed without representation, one may rebel against the oppressive taxing body. Remember that little scuffle we had with King George III? If I remember my history, (and you'll just have to trust that I do) that started over taxation without representation. Nullification sounds exactly like the correct first step to me.

John, you seem to be connecting with the high school crowd.

I must congratulate you here, Eyster! I can’t agree with any of your thinking – as usual – but you’ve raised the bar on your writing level substantially. It’s reasonably concise and to the point, with very little rambling or aimless wandering through your favourite rabbit holes. I could actually understand your point! At a high school level, I’d give you a C+ vice your usual F-. Careless, sloppy writing is the handmaiden of careless, sloppy thinking. That’s something you should have been preaching for decades, not learning for the first time as you’re sailing through your Golden Pond years.

If you keep this up, I may be able to actually read all the way through your blogs, and critique them properly.

Really?! - and what's your take on Contempt of Congress charges against Holder & the Justice Dept. saying/doing nothing about it or the fact that Obama admin. refuses to enforce border laws! Could you please write a more hypocritical blog tomorrow - I'm really looking forward to it!

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/f... most parts of the ACA are not required for quite a long time and might not ever take effect why start 2 years before it is even required

"Editor Barth makes cogent argument that the planning process to implement provisions of the health care act should go forward, with a key federal deadline looming just days after the November election."

"It is not reasonable after the ruling to move the goalpost and bet not only on Romney winning, but also on Republicans capturing the Senate — especially considering the likelihood of filibuster."

Eyster,
You had NO problem with the Secretary of State, Doug La Follette, waiting until the very last day to publish Walker's budget reform bill, but you seem to have a problem with Walker not following the health care mandate right away, even though he's not required to do so until November. He's not moving the goalpost.
Like you noted in your article "...what can be done by you, can later be done to you."

Huh? What in the world is he trying to say? What a bunch of gobbledygoop. Eyestercaps need to "nullify" his poor writing skills so that we can understand it.

It's interesting to me how this all of a sudden, became a tax. It was never called a tax during the legislative process, no one would have voted for it. Yet, when it hits the supreme court, now it becomes a tax? Looks suspiciously like legislating from the bench to me.