Moderator: Community Team
Bernie Sanders wrote:Nothing to see here, just a car wreck...please move on.
ConfederateSS wrote:Bernie Sanders wrote:Nothing to see here, just a car wreck...please move on.
-------No,not your political career...
------TRUMP'S contract with America...1st 100 days...
---1 Help Vets with long lines etc.etc...
---2 Pick a new Justice of the S.C....
---3 Get rid of Obamacare...
---4 Make Mexico pay for the wall...
---5 Term limits on Congress members...
---6 Stop lobbyists from congress for 5 year bans...
---7 2 years for immigrants who sneak back across...
---8 5 years for criminal immigrants who sneak back across...
---9 Cancel money to the U.N.'S global warming crap...
---10 Help bring back the fossil fuel industry,unshackle them from EPA crap...
------Oh!Yeah! ...Take his gold diggers to court for slander... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...
That could impact one of his Republican supporters, ex-House Speaker John Boehner, who joined the K Street firm Squire Patton Boggs last month, less than a year after he left Congress. Boehner will serve as a āstrategic adviserā in a firm that employs several of his former aides along with former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott.
tzor wrote:Duck, please stop making me support CSS, just stop.
tzor wrote:Duck, please stop making me support CSS, just stop. But let's go over the points.
#1. The government under the crappy Articles of Confederation and their lack of support for the veterans was one of the reasons why the retired General Washington went into politics, chaired the Constitutional Convention and unanimously elected for President. This is a fundamental responsibility of the federal government according to the Constitution.
#2. WHAT VACANCY? The number of justices is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Yes stacking the court was frowned upon after F.D.R. tried to pull that, but there is nothing that requires a certain number of justices. There is no vacancy. Hey, if Trump is elected, the court will become an odd member body again, right?
#3. Obamacare is going to collapse before the end of the next president's next term. There are many states where there is only one company providing Obamacare coverage. I think there are some states where there are NO companies providing the coverage. Repeal is the only viable solution. Single payer leads us to Canada and then where will rich Canadians go to get their hospital care?
#4. Mexico needs to pay for the wall. How will they pay for it? Well, the cost to Mexico to combat the drug cartels and to combat the weapon smuggling into the country is massive and certainly enough to pay for the wall. Sure, a lot of that money is going into bribes for the officials, but that's their problem.
#5. You say it makes no sense? It's not supposed to be a job for life. The biggest problem with the Republican party are the people who have been in the same position for multiple decades. the biggest problem with the Democratic party is the same thing. Look at the so called "leadership" on both sides, they have the "I've waited for twenty years and now it's my turn."
#6. The former speaker of the house, is making a lot of hay and getting a lot of money still from the federal government and now as someone from K street. K Street buzzes over Boehner exit-Boehner's Office Has Spent $100K Since Retirement-Donald Trump's Last-Ditch Plan to 'Drain the Swamp'That could impact one of his Republican supporters, ex-House Speaker John Boehner, who joined the K Street firm Squire Patton Boggs last month, less than a year after he left Congress. Boehner will serve as a āstrategic adviserā in a firm that employs several of his former aides along with former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott.
#7. / #8. Why not? Enforce the laws, god damn it. You know if you pulled this shit in Mexico according to the Mexican Constitution they can put you on a one way flight without any due process of any sort. The irony that the asymmetric laws of immigration between Mexico and the United States and the complaints always on the most liberal of the two is massive.
#9. We can't spend money that we don't have. If China wants to spend its money on Global Warming, have fun. But borrowing money from China to spend on Global Warming? Go to hell.
Dukasaur wrote:#9. Sure, I understand it's like the Prisoners' Dilemma. If you cut back your emissions while other countries don't you'll pay an economic price, while if other countries cut back their emissions and you don't then you'll reap a windfall benefit. Everybody making the best move from their own point of view guarantees a bad result for everyone: If everyone looks out for their own stash of cash, then nobody cuts back their emissions, and in the end we all fry. International agreements are a way to break the deadly cycle of the Prisoners' Dilemma: if everyone makes an agreement to cut back at the same time, then nobody pays an unfair share of the cost. You'd do well to support them.
#10. Remember an "unshackled" fossil fuel industry is still a billion times cleaner than the fossil fuel industry of China.
Dukasaur wrote:It may be, but the Constitution can only say that a job should be done. It can't guarantee that the job will be done well. You've snipped out the things I said. I made it clear I agree that the veterans should be taken care of. But "shoulds" don't magically overcome obstacles. There's too many vets, especially too many vets with long-term disabilities, and the piggy bank is empty. Not in a million years would I advocate against giving veterans a better deal. I'm just being realistic what the exchequer can and can't do.
Dukasaur wrote:Really what the U.S. should do is start fewer wars. Then there will be fewer injured vets to take care of. The final cost of your unprovoked war against Iraq still hasn't been completely tallied, and still you neocons are clamoring for a new unprovoked war against Iran, which if anything will be far bloodier and more expensive.
Dukasaur wrote:I don't know if you've been drinking the kool-aid long enough that you actually believe this shit or if you just feel obligated to toe the party line. The number of justices isn't specified in the Constitution, but it's been relatively stable in modern times. If there was some argument in favour of permanently reducing the number I wouldn't dispute it, but there isn't. This is really just a filibuster. The Senate has an obligation to review Presidential appointments, it's just holding up this one in the hope of getting another rabid neocon on the court in January. And that, I'm sorry to say, is an abuse of their prerogatives.
Dukasaur wrote:Most Canadians are happy with our system. Even the rich ones. And yeah, in a few cases if people can afford it they'll go to the U.S. to get a procedure faster, but there's no evidence that they're any happier with the result. In any case, as a society we pay less than half of what you do for approximately the same level of care, so you'd do well to consider whether kowtowing to Big Pharma really is in your best interests, or whether you are actually screwing yourself.
The Commonwealth Fund, a U.S. think tank, released a report two years ago ranking Canada 10th out of 11 wealthy nations in terms of health care. Only the United States fared worse. The report, based largely on satisfaction surveys by patients and health-care providers, placed Canada last in timeliness of care. The United Kingdom was ranked No. 1
Few Canadians would be surprised by that finding. A visitor spending an afternoon in a coffee shop anywhere between Vancouver and St. John's would likely come across at least one person complaining about waiting months for an MRI on his knee or an appointment with an ears, nose and throat specialist.
Dukasaur wrote:No, actually, it is your problem. I don't think Mexico or anyone else cares about your desire to have a new public works project. As I said, you might have a case for asking them to pay half, as is customary in the common law for shared fence-lines. Even that, you won't get, but it's an arguable case. More than that isn't even remotely defensible.
Dukasaur wrote:I don't disagree that there's plenty of people in comfortable beds. But it's the voters' prerogative to throw them out, or not. I don't think statutory term limits should be substituted for due diligence by the voters.
Dukasaur wrote:Sure. Like I said, I don't disagree with the sentiment, I just know it won't happen. But since I don't disagree with it, don't ask me to argue it.
Dukasaur wrote:Look, economics wins in the end. You need cheap labour. That's why you don't prosecute illegals. People know where their bread is buttered. You can pass any law you want but as long as it doesn't make economic sense it won't work.
Dukasaur wrote:It may be. Is that your argument? You want to breathe filthy air because the Chinese do? That's like saying, "The idiot kid across the street is punching himself in the face again! I'm going to punch myself in the face right now! I have just as much right to suffer as he does!"
Bernie Sanders wrote:Europe and Canada has a Healthcare system that costs half the price than America.
Guess what SS? THEY LIVE LONGER, ARE IN BETTER HEALTH AND HAVE LESS INFANT MORTALITY.
Eventually, America will have a single payer system.
Symmetry wrote:I'd say that the US needs a better relationship with Mexico. That involves an immigration system that legalises "illegals" sensibly, rather than a blowhard who wants to build an enormous wall, then chickens out of talking about it when he visits the country.
Thatās too bad, because Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliens than the United States does, has much to teach us about how it handles the immigration issue. Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.
Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets āthe equilibrium of the national demographics,ā when foreigners are deemed detrimental to āeconomic or national interests,ā when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when āthey are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.ā (Article 37)
Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
Foreigners who sign government documents āwith a signature that is false or different from that which he normally usesā are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)
Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico ā such as working with out a permit ā can also be imprisoned.
A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
Bernie Sanders wrote:Thank GOD! That America is not filled with mental midgets like you.
riskllama wrote:Koolbak wins this thread.
tzor wrote:Bernie Sanders wrote:Thank GOD! That America is not filled with mental midgets like you.
i tend to say that exact thing every time I read your posts.
Bernie Sanders wrote:Gee tzor, the mental midget of conservatism...my thoughts exactly.
Mike1962 wrote:The south will rise again. And what...own people?
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: mookiemcgee