Recess Rally: Marcy we said NO

Event: Recess Rally Marcy we said NO
"Let you r voice be heard"
What: Rally
Host: Marcy Kaptur MUST be fired!
Start Time: Saturday, August 22 at 11:15am
End Time: Saturday, August 22 at 2:00pm
Where: International Park

We will meet at international Park @11:15 and then march over to Ms. Kaptur's office and have several speakers and let her know how we feel about the Health Care Bill.


No votes yet

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Are booing, hissing and making catcalls allowed? If so-you can count me in! And, will the Hon. Arlen Sphincter(D., Penna.) be there too? BTW, here is a cadence that would make a good chant, easy to remember, and melodious as well:
"Hey, hey, Marcy K.,
how many jobs were lost today!"


If we can't make assses out of our selves in front on Marcy, we'll hold a rally in the park and make assses out of our selves there.

** yes I had to use an extra "s" to get past the Chris filters **

Be careful!

I am making a life size doll of Marcy. It will be interesting to see what happens to it at the rally.

That's pretty sick.

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

* l *

Marcy Kaptur MUST be fired!

Marcy, we said YES to health care!!

Pink Slip

Protestor Rules from the website of the organizer of the event copied/pasted below.
This shows just how crazy this mob is! Wow sounds dangerous and rude! (sarcasm font)

Rules for all you RADICALS:
•If confronted by someone, do NOT REACT. Keep your head about you and report the person to someone near you
•This will be a PEACEFUL and respectful protest based on knowledge and fact, not emotion and crisis!
•Walk on sidewalks only, and stay in public areas.

Key Points When Speaking to the Media
•We are exercising our 1stamendment rights
•We feel that Ms. Kaptur is no longer representing us
•She refuses to have an open dialogue with us, so we held this rally so she could hear our voices
•What are we protesting? Government mandated healthcare reform, cap and trade, out of control government spending
•Camera shy? Don’t worry, just ask that they speak to someone else.

"We feel that Ms. Kaptur is no longer representing us"

That's funny, because it's my guess that very few if any of the tea-baggers actually voted for her in the first place. Sorry, but elections have consequences.

Pink Slip

Tea-baggers? Good to see that MSNBC has taught you all the right lingo to use when attacking those that you disagree with. Name-calling is a tactic of the weak minded and uninformed, but I digress...

So now you have to vote for someone in order to be represented by them? Gee, I thought the oath of office that a Congressperson takes is to protect the Constitution, not their partisans, lobbyists and special interest groups.

From Wiki:
At the start of each new Congress, the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate are sworn into office. This oath-taking dates to 1789, the first Congress; however, the current oath was fashioned in the 1860s, by Civil War-era members of Congress.

The Constitution specifies no details for the oath of office for Congress:

Constitution, Article 6 - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The first Congress developed this requirement into a simple, 14-word oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."

The Civil War led President Lincoln to develop an expanded oath for all federal civilian employees (April 1861). That July, when Congress reconvened, "members echoed the president's action by enacting legislation requiring employees to take the expanded oath in support of the Union. This oath is the earliest direct predecessor of the modern oath." (cite)

The current oath was enacted in 1884:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

The public swearing-in ceremony consists of Representatives raising their right hands and repeating the oath of office. This ceremony is led by the Speaker of the House, and no religious texts are used. Some members of Congress later hold separate private ceremonies for photo ops.

In many peoples'(you would call us Teabaggers) opinions, President Obama has been breaking his Oath of Office since Inauguration day:

US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

My source references for the above:

I didn't think I was name-calling. Isn't this group in alliance with Eric Odom of the tax day tea party fame? Tea-baggers?

"So now you have to vote for someone in order to be represented by them?"

Never said that. As Ms Kaptur is the US Rep for Ohio's 9th district, she DOES represent folks that live there.

"Gee, I thought the oath of office that a Congressperson takes is to protect the Constitution, not their partisans, lobbyists and special interest groups."

Agreed---so then why did you claim that she "is no longer representing us"? You're either completely contradicting yourself, or what you meant was that she no longer represents your views (in which case my original claim might make more sense to you).

Pink Slip

You don't have to say something in order to imply it. Lawyer.

I have no idea who Eric Odom is and I think you know full well what the current meaning of "tea-bagger" is and how it's used by pundits.

And you don't have to be a lawyer in order to argue effectively.

Btw, MSNBC is corporate media junk

Pink Slip

I believe that not every conversation needs to become an argument or redirected into semantics. I realize I haven't been posting out here for a long time, but I do remember your well-played tactic of redirecting instead of staying on topic.

Please list the reasons you want a Government-run/taxpayer funded health care system.

Please list the why you think the government has the responsibility to even consider legislating it without a vote or national referendum.

We spend far more than any country for a system that resticts access for 50 million people, and can only deliver the 37th best healthcare system in the world. Premiums are growing out of control due to the multitudes of uninsured receiving "free healthcare" in the ER, no to mention the perverse supply-demand problem with for-profit healthcare that continues to provide billions of dollars to private insurance CEO's---whose goal it is to deny healthcare. Free-market principles do not work in healthcare. Also, US-based business are at a distinct disadvantage in the global economy as they compete with countries that provide healthcare to their citizens

"Please list the why you think the government has the responsibility to even consider legislating it without a vote or national referendum."

This is an odd request. We DID vote last November. We vote for US Representatives, Senators, the President, etc...

National referendum???? Where is the allowance for this in the US Constitution?? For someone who claims particular allegiance to our Constitution, you are blantantly suggesting we ignore it and have some kind of national referendum??? You've completely lost any credibility--please do not speak of our Constitution again, until you get a better grasp of it.

Direct democracy---what a horrible idea--something the founders shuddered at...

Pink Slip

I still don't see how or why anyone would think that having the US Government running a healthcare system would solve any of the problems listed above.

I don't like the fact either that the fat cat CEOs of health insurance companies get way over paid. You and I and every other American citizen has just as much freedom in this country to pursue a high paid position for ourselves if we wanted to and worked hard enough. Hell, some people make multi-millions and all they do is smile for a camera, act in movies or even put out a shitty music CD. We're not protesting at their houses asking them why they don't give away their money to help those in need. It's a personal choice. Unfortunately, not enough of us take care of our families, friends, and neighbors like we should. Some of us do, but unfortunately we can't do it all. The selfish nature of America has become the cancer that's destroying us.

Do I hate it that there are some people out there that can't get the insurance they want or need? Hell yes. Do I think it's up to the government to hold a gun to our heads and make us pay for it? Hell no. Do I think the government is capable of changing the world into a better place? HELL NO. All the government does is metastasize on us.
Some Cons of a Universal Health Care System

1. There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?
2. "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc.
3. Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.
4. Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.
5. Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now.
6. Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.
7. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.
8. Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.
9. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.
10. Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.
11. Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.
12. Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms.
13. Patient confidentiality is likely to be compromised since centralized health information will likely be maintained by the government.
14. Health care equipment, drugs, and services may end up being rationed by the government. In other words, politics, lifestyle of patients, and philosophical differences of those in power, could determine who gets what.
15. Patients may be subjected to extremely long waits for treatment.
16. Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.

"Let us not seek the Republican answer nor the Democratic answer but the right answer." --John F. Kennedy

Nothing like "government-run" or "free" healthcare is being proposed. However, a public-option (which would be paid for) will lower the cost of healthcare spending, while opening open access to millions. Medicare's adminstrative costs are 3 times lower than private health insurance.

And to be clear, I have nothing against high paid CEO's in general. But when healthcare insurance CEO's make their billions by DENYING healthcare, there's something wrong with that.

--Nice cut and paste job--half of the list is built upon straw man arguments, and the other half is complete conjecture with no facts to back it up..

Pink Slip

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.