SkyDekker 1,465 #126 March 30, 2012 QuoteIt's a socialism issue. Anything paid for by federal taxes and not used by all could be summed up as socialism Fact is, you brought up the homeless people abusing ambulance rides as a sympton of what is wrong with the current health care system. Then you state that what they are doing is already illegal, which effectively means it isn't an issue with the current health care system at all. Maybe it was more an appeal to emotion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #127 March 30, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteI'm not sure if the health care issue is constitutional, but what I would like to know is why this is being tried at the highest level while the Patriot Act never was. It was. Part of the Patriot Act was unfortunately upheld 6-3. it was the part that penalized providing "material support" to terrorists. I think it was in the summer of 2010. Interesting -- thanks. Will read further about it. I found it. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1498.pdf My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #128 March 30, 2012 Quote The list goes on and on, but now all of a sudden everyone is worried about Socialism, after all of these years. The US military. When you're spending more than the rest of the world put together but don't expect your allies to turn on you it's no longer primarily about defense. It's a Socialist make-work program directly employing 1.5M people and countless more indirectly. QuoteAnd everyone is a Capitalist, until gas hits $4 a gallon. A few libertarians are. Most people are corporatists that want their groups' interests looked after by the governments. Young people want government student loans and subsidized educations. Breeders want quality public schools with small class sizes for their children. Old people want a retirement income stream and subsidized health insurance. The prison guards' unions want more people incarcerated which implies more prisons and jobs for them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #129 March 30, 2012 QuoteMost people are corporatists that want their groups' interests looked after by the governments. Young people want government student loans and subsidized educations. Breeders want quality public schools with small class sizes for their children. Old people want a retirement income stream and subsidized health insurance. The prison guards' unions want more people incarcerated which implies more prisons and jobs for them. if that's all there is, then the solution is easy - take all the old retired teachers and put them in jail where they are forced to teach business classes to all the kids for free everyone wins sometimes the simplist solution is the most elegant ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #130 March 30, 2012 QuoteFact is, you brought up the homeless people abusing ambulance rides as a sympton of what is wrong with the current health care system. Correct. The system is set up whereupon other people pay the price for an individual's use. QuoteThen you state that what they are doing is already illegal, which effectively means it isn't an issue with the current health care system at all. Correct. The penalty for doing what they are doing is not enforced and is no disincentive because it is not enforced. We read about abuses of benefits all the time that are not being punished. A system set up to make it easy to get benefits will make it easy to get benefits. No matter how much or by whom. A person joking about carrying a bomb would get hosed. But people just out there siphoning public funds? Where's the incentive to do anything when the funds being used don't belong to anybody? QuoteMaybe it was more an appeal to emotion. yep. That, too. This happens all over. This is just Fresno that I wrote about. A system set up to provide a benefit with no questions asked is going to be wasteful. Period. Because there is a small percentage of people that will use the benefits at their luxury. Take away the disincentive to abuse a system and the system is designed to be abused. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grimmie 186 #131 March 30, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteWe will all eventually die and need to be buried somewhere or otherwise incur some related expense. Does the government have the right to force you to purchase a cemetary plot or prepay for cremation if that's your choice? They should, since goverment pays for indigent burial costs. Where? I'd like to know. AFAIK, there is a small social security death benefit ($500 if memory serves me correctly. That is not based on anybody being indigent. There are no other government programs where I live that pay for indigent burial costs. http://hamptonroads.com/2010/06/virginia-cuts-aid-indigent-burials Most states and counties have indigent burial programs, usually for $750. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TKruger 0 #132 March 30, 2012 Dammit voted wrong...choice was suppposed to be no. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ShcShc11 0 #133 March 30, 2012 Quote When you're spending more than the rest of the world put together but don't expect your allies to turn on you it's no longer primarily about defense. It's a Socialist make-work program directly employing 1.5M people and countless more indirectly. The amount of money put on the military in the U.S is most definitely wasteful. However, judging by the quite pitiful jobs Europeans NATO did on the Libyan campaign, maybe it is right for the U.S to take the lead on military issues. I believe it was around August 2011 where European NATO had serious talks about ammunition shortages. Hillary Clinton wanted to further reduce U.S involvement, but she eventually decided not to. If the European coalitions are having trouble with a fairly weak military country like Libya, then Europe should do more to build an adequate military. Hugs & Cheers! Shc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #134 April 2, 2012 Dean: Individual mandate 'not really necessary' http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/01/dean-individual-mandate-not-really-necessary/ Seems the administration isn't very concerned with the constitution. Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #135 April 2, 2012 Quote Dean: Individual mandate 'not really necessary' http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/01/dean-individual-mandate-not-really-necessary/ Seems the administration isn't very concerned with the constitution. The Constitution means what SCOTUS says it means, not what Airdvr says it means.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #136 April 2, 2012 Quote Quote Dean: Individual mandate 'not really necessary' http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/01/dean-individual-mandate-not-really-necessary/ Seems the administration isn't very concerned with the constitution. The Constitution means what SCOTUS says it means, not what Airdvr says it means. Close The original intent is what the SCOTUS is supposed to uphold Unfortunaltly you are close It (the Constitution) means what the SCOTUS WANTS it to meanJust look at Ginsburg"s stupid comments about it last month http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/06/ginsburg-to-egyptians-wouldnt-use-us-constitution-as-model/"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #137 April 2, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Dean: Individual mandate 'not really necessary' http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/01/dean-individual-mandate-not-really-necessary/ Seems the administration isn't very concerned with the constitution. The Constitution means what SCOTUS says it means, not what Airdvr says it means. Close The original intent is what the SCOTUS is supposed to uphold Unfortunaltly you are close It (the Constitution) means what the SCOTUS WANTS it to meanJust look at Ginsburg"s stupid comments about it last month http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/06/ginsburg-to-egyptians-wouldnt-use-us-constitution-as-model/ The Constitution means what SCOTUS says it means, not what rushmc says it means.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #138 April 2, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Dean: Individual mandate 'not really necessary' http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/01/dean-individual-mandate-not-really-necessary/ Seems the administration isn't very concerned with the constitution. The Constitution means what SCOTUS says it means, not what Airdvr says it means. Close The original intent is what the SCOTUS is supposed to uphold Unfortunaltly you are close It (the Constitution) means what the SCOTUS WANTS it to meanJust look at Ginsburg"s stupid comments about it last month http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/06/ginsburg-to-egyptians-wouldnt-use-us-constitution-as-model/ The Constitution means what SCOTUS says it means, not what rushmc says it means. The Consttitution means what its founders inteneded it to mean The SCOTUS is not supposed to do what you (and liberals) want, and that is change the meaning to meet ideological progressive world views But, as I said You are close But the word WANT, is closer than the word, says."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #139 April 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhy are you so supportive of a system that allows some people to freeload off the rest of us? Why are you supportive of a system that expands the pool of those to be freeloaded off of? Because it reduces the number of freeloaders. no it doesn't, with all the waivers and exceptions it just increases what I have to pay so the freeloaders get more. The only way it would help is if everyone paid the same and nobody was excluded from paying. but that would really piss of the liberals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #140 April 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo it is not a Health Care issue, it is a Justice issue. It's a socialism issue. +100 Welfare Farmers Indigent emergency medicine care School programs Indigent burial Unemployment benefits Government nursing homes The list goes on and on, but now all of a sudden everyone is worried about Socialism, after all of these years. And everyone is a Capitalist, until gas hits $4 a gallon. The gas would not be $4 agallon if we could produce more in the US. this is not a capitalism issue it is a government restriction issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 362 #141 April 2, 2012 QuoteThe gas would not be $4 agallon if we could produce more in the US. this is not a capitalism issue it is a government restriction issue. The price of oil (and so of gas) is set by the world market. Oil companies are under no obligation to make oil available to the US market at below-market prices, even if that oil originated from a US source. Once they extract it, they can sell to whomever offers the best price. Besides that, US oil production is at the highest level in 8 years, and the storage facilities are full to capacity, leading to a boom in construction of new storage tanks. In Cushing, OK storage capacity has increased from 26 million barrels in 2005 to 65 million barrels today, and 125 new tanks are under construction. If your statement that gas prices are determined by oil production is true, why are gas prices not at an 8-year low? The only way US production could significantly lower prices at the pump would be if: 1) US production could have such an impact on global demand as to drive global prices for oil down, or: 2) the government would legislate restrictions so US-produced oil could only be sold here. The first is essentially impossible, as US reserves are only 2% of the world total, and entities such as OPEC would simply defend the price by lowering their production to compensate for increased US production. As a result, US reserves would be depleted faster, and would be sold for less money, while the OPEC nations could make the same amount of money from selling less oil, and conserve their reserves to sell later at an even higher price. The second strategy would be rather anti-capitalist, to say the least. I'd be very surprised to learn you were in favor of government mandated price controls on the oil industry (or anything else). In reality, the current price spike is being driven by speculators capitalizing on fears that an Iran/Israel/US conflict would disrupt oil supplies coming through the Strait of Hormuz. The easiest route to lower prices would be to deflate tensions by curtailing the saber rattling and seriously pursuing a diplomatic solution. Of course, that wouldn't be in the interests of our current crop of Republican candidates-in-waiting, who are falling all over each other to show who can be the biggest militarist hawk (Ron Paul being the only exception). The tactic of blaming the government (i.e. Obama) for gas prices is a transparent Republican election ploy, entirely without factual merit but nevertheless appealing to those for whom stimulus/response is the limit of their capacity for critical thought. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #142 April 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteThe gas would not be $4 agallon if we could produce more in the US. this is not a capitalism issue it is a government restriction issue. The price of oil (and so of gas) is set by the world market. Oil companies are under no obligation to make oil available to the US market at below-market prices, even if that oil originated from a US source. Once they extract it, they can sell to whomever offers the best price. Besides that, US oil production is at the highest level in 8 years, and the storage facilities are full to capacity, leading to a boom in construction of new storage tanks. In Cushing, OK storage capacity has increased from 26 million barrels in 2005 to 65 million barrels today, and 125 new tanks are under construction. If your statement that gas prices are determined by oil production is true, why are gas prices not at an 8-year low? The only way US production could significantly lower prices at the pump would be if: 1) US production could have such an impact on global demand as to drive global prices for oil down, or: 2) the government would legislate restrictions so US-produced oil could only be sold here. The first is essentially impossible, as US reserves are only 2% of the world total, and entities such as OPEC would simply defend the price by lowering their production to compensate for increased US production. As a result, US reserves would be depleted faster, and would be sold for less money, while the OPEC nations could make the same amount of money from selling less oil, and conserve their reserves to sell later at an even higher price. The second strategy would be rather anti-capitalist, to say the least. I'd be very surprised to learn you were in favor of government mandated price controls on the oil industry (or anything else). In reality, the current price spike is being driven by speculators capitalizing on fears that an Iran/Israel/US conflict would disrupt oil supplies coming through the Strait of Hormuz. The easiest route to lower prices would be to deflate tensions by curtailing the saber rattling and seriously pursuing a diplomatic solution. Of course, that wouldn't be in the interests of our current crop of Republican candidates-in-waiting, who are falling all over each other to show who can be the biggest militarist hawk (Ron Paul being the only exception). The tactic of blaming the government (i.e. Obama) for gas prices is a transparent Republican election ploy, entirely without factual merit but nevertheless appealing to those for whom stimulus/response is the limit of their capacity for critical thought. Don to bad your information on our oil reserves is wronghttp://www.americanfreepress.net/html/u_s__has_massive_oil.html all we need is a little american enginuity to pull it out Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #143 April 2, 2012 QuoteThe Consttitution means what its founders inteneded it to mean Ah, so when there are questions or disputes, you would hold a seance and use the old wigi board? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #144 April 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteThe Consttitution means what its founders inteneded it to mean Ah, so when there are questions or disputes, you would hold a seance and use the old wigi board? Well, if one can read the intent can be defined very well But, for those from Canada, what you suggest could be done"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #145 April 2, 2012 QuoteThe tactic of blaming the government (i.e. Obama) for gas prices is a transparent Republican election ploy, entirely without factual merit but nevertheless appealing to those for whom stimulus/response is the limit of their capacity for critical thought. Don Was it still a 'transparent Republican plot' when the media mentioned rising gas prices during the Bush presidency over and over again?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #146 April 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteThe tactic of blaming the government (i.e. Obama) for gas prices is a transparent Republican election ploy, entirely without factual merit but nevertheless appealing to those for whom stimulus/response is the limit of their capacity for critical thought. Don Was it still a 'transparent Republican plot' when the media mentioned rising gas prices during the Bush presidency over and over again? Well, declaring WAR on a major oil producing state might have had something to do with that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #147 April 2, 2012 Quote The Constitution means what SCOTUS says it means, not what Airdvr says it means. That takes nothing from what Airdvr posited. Frankly, I have a hard time figuring out what President IS concerned with the Constitution. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #148 April 2, 2012 QuoteQuote The Constitution means what SCOTUS says it means, not what Airdvr says it means. That takes nothing from what Airdvr posited. Frankly, I have a hard time figuring out what President IS concerned with the Constitution. I'm sure that in June the SCOTUS will tell us what the commerce clause means. Just like today they told us that warrantless intrusive strip searches are OK. No violation of the following: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #149 April 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote The Constitution means what SCOTUS says it means, not what Airdvr says it means. That takes nothing from what Airdvr posited. Frankly, I have a hard time figuring out what President IS concerned with the Constitution. I'm sure that in June the SCOTUS will tell us what the commerce clause means. Just like today they told us that warrantless intrusive strip searches are OK. No violation of the following: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. You do know that this search was done just prior to him being placed in confinement So, the SC did not say they can strip search you when ever they want, they just said the cops can strip search you before you are put in jail (not that I like that either)"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #150 April 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote The Constitution means what SCOTUS says it means, not what Airdvr says it means. That takes nothing from what Airdvr posited. Frankly, I have a hard time figuring out what President IS concerned with the Constitution. I'm sure that in June the SCOTUS will tell us what the commerce clause means. Just like today they told us that warrantless intrusive strip searches are OK. No violation of the following: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. You do know that this search was done just prior to him being placed in confinement So, the SC did not say they can strip search you when ever they want, they just said the cops can strip search you before you are put in jail (not that I like that either) So what was the "probable cause", for a guy with an "unpaid" fine (that had actually been paid) that wasn't even a crime? You're big on original intent. Was body cavity searching part of "original intent"?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
