Excuse me, but you aren't going to somehow tell me that this healthcare bill
has met with acceptance are you? Yes, this judge's ruling is worthless, but
the debate it has engendered - yet again - is not. Frankly, it is time for a
fe of you to stand up and be counted!

Geoff Flight
Managing Director

Sustainable Resources Industry Training Pty Ltd

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Ed Leafe
Sent: Tuesday, 14 December 2010 8:37 AM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: [OT] Federal Judge finds Obamacare UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

On Dec 13, 2010, at 5:00 PM, geoff wrote:

> It is amazing watching your Americans rant on about your healthcare
system.


        It is more amazing to watch people who are so full of hatred that
they misinterpret a local ruling about a single part of a wide-ranging bill
as a universal rejection. The same provision has received favorable rulings
in the other two court challenges to it so far, so what's different about
this ruling:

http://gawker.com/5713041/judge-who-ruled-health-care-reform-unconstitutiona
l-owns-piece-of-gop-consulting-firm

( -or- http://j.mp/hsnXaB )

        "Henry E. Hudson, the federal judge in Virginia who just ruled
health care reform unconstitutional, owns between $15,000 and $50,000 in a
GOP political consulting firm that worked againsthealth care reform. You
don't say!"

        This isn't a legal ruling; it's a political ruling.



-- Ed Leafe




[excessive quoting removed by server]

_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to