Welcome to PILOT SPIN!
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Conservacrats would rather people die in the streets for the crime of being poor.HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
The problem is the Constitution is written in the broadest terms imaginable. The Founders almost certainly did this on purpose, they wrote a document to last the ages. In many cases it simply can't be read as written. The Founders didn't know about airplanes, the internet, or vaccines.So we should just make it say whatever we want through court rulings instead of going through the process that was placed into the Constitution to change it?
That's the problem. no matter what, you HAVE to read things in that aren't there, because there are lots of things now that weren't there in 1776.No, you don't.
Says you. I know quite a few people who's health care was improved dramatically. I suspect GOP Senators would have had an easier time back in their districts if no one benefitted from it.Arizona (116%), Oklahoma (69%) and Tennessee (63%). The number in parenthesis are the increases in those states. Tell me again how those people's health care was improved by those increases?
By the way, I am really tired of MY tax dollars getting sucked up into a military that builds more and more sophisticated weapons to blow up camels and tents and make me no safer and do almost no one any good.Article I, Section 8, Clauses 12 and 13.
I am tired of a War on Drugs in which the drugs are the only victors.There's a point that you can actually make an argument with.
I am tired of paying for law enforcement that has turned America into an armed camp and regards my Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms as a trite inconvenience.Take it up with your state then because they're the ones who control the law enforcement and accept the federal funding for some of the militarized equipment. Also, you don't get to complain about a more militarized law enforcement because it messes with your Constitutional rights and then tell me I must purchase health care as if forcing me to pay a penalty if I don't purchase terrible insurance is somehow not messing with my Constitutional rights or my ability to be an independent and responsible adult.
I am tired of initiatives based on someone else's invisible man in the sky. I pay huge amounts of my taxes for this nonsense that doesn't benefit me in any way at all and I'm tired of it.Cite the federal taxes you pay that go towards these. Otherwise, sounds like a state issue.
"The Constitution is not a living organism," he said. "It's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say."
Hence the ACA. Set up a penalty so healthy people who don't have health insurance have to pay in anyway.Why do you seem to think it's acceptable for a government to tell its citizens what they will and will not purchase? I'm still waiting to see the authority for it because the general welfare clause fails.
Call it a tax, because truly that's what it is. We like to give tax breaks to promote desired behavior (owning a house, for example) so we tax an undesirable behavior. Lots of those, by the way, like cigarette and liquor taxes. I have to admit, the ACA is more sweeping. This is a simple thing.Article 1, Section 8 actually specifies that the Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes. It doesn't mention health care.
If healthy people don't put in the whole thing doesn't work.Why should a healthy person pay for a sick person? That makes no sense other than a sick person is going to have a higher health care cost and may need some help paying for it.
We're back to being shut out if you have a "preexisting condition", which the insurance companies can declare you breathing.Insurance is like any other business: it provides a service in exchange for payment. It exists to make money. If an insurance company decides to charge a higher premium for a person with a pre-existing condition (because that person is at a higher risk of having to need the insurance) then why shouldn't they be allowed to do that?
The ACA, as imperfect as it is, is a step in the right direction. If your politicians could just get together and cooperate, I bet they could fix its shortcomings and turn it into something that would really work for the American people. It isn't going anywhere.The ACA is a terrible law and it's failing. Maybe the Democrats should've actually put some thought into this and sought bipartisan support instead of ramming it through. Or maybe they shouldn't have done it at all, but then that is completely against the progressive mindset. The government must be involved in every aspect of a person's life and control them.
As far as what does the Constitution allow and what doesn't it, that question is now moot. The ACA got the blessing of the Supreme Court, its a done deal. Yeah, perhaps some court in the future will see differently, but that won't come any time soon.The SCOTUS also once ruled against Dredd Scott and that internment camps were legal. The point being that the SCOTUS doesn't always get it right.
Courts respect precedent. You guys like to go on and on about what's Constitutional and what isn't. Think about this: nine of the best legal scholars in America often can't agree what is and isn't Constitutional. Do you really think its that cut and dried? Do you really think your sophistries are the end of the game?They can't agree on what's Constitutional because (currently, anyway) at least four of them would rather look at what they want the Constitution to say instead of what it actually says.
Are you saying there aren't regulations and standards for pipeline operations? I have no direct knowledge but I can't believe that there is an industry more regulated than an interstate pipeline.No. I think we all agree that we currently have plenty of regulations, perhaps too many.
Fixed above. I haven't given my hierarchy of priorities, so you don't really know where this one stands. Doesn't seem much different than complaints that Obama bowed to people, though.I saw no evidence that Merkel desired the handshake. The reporter asked for it, and Merkel asked Trump if he wanted to do it. It wasn't like she said "Let's do it". She may have been relieved
If you want to stick up for a guy who snubs respected international leaders because he doesn't like a photographer noting that's it's time for a customary handshake, so be it.
Because if something is damning enough to be worth all that trouble, it would have to be really bad.
Would they send her to a men's prison or women's prison?
The AG should indict Madcow, her producers, and the network.Would they send her to a men's prison or women's prison?
2 Likes