Even More Obamacare Follies

#2,703
#2,703
Vol8188 said:
Absolutely. What burden of proof is required to label a US citizen as a "enemy combatant" and then kill them?
Click to expand...

I don't CARE if they are American citizens or not if they are taking up arms against this country or our soldiers. Don't.... friggin... care. You liberals are so hell bent to protect someone's "rights" that you infringe on one of the most cherished rights the founding fathers laid out. The right to "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Life being the most important, unless of course it is the rights of the defenseless or the military. In your eyes, someone making an IED to kill Americans who happens to have been born in Nebraska has more rights than the soldier that pops a cap in his face. Then again, I guess you are protecting the rights of that American terrorist by ensuring that he has life (we've beat that one to death).... and the freedom (liberty) to continue making IEDs... and I am sure he is happy when he sees it go off and kill American soldiers (pursuit of happiness).

Unbelievable. No wonder this country is going to hell.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,705
#2,705
SpaceCoastVol said:
I don't CARE if they are American citizens or not if they are taking up arms against this country or our soldiers. Don't.... friggin... care. You liberals are so hell bent to protect someone's "rights" that you infringe on one of the most cherished rights the founding fathers laid out. The right to "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Life being the most important, unless of course it is the rights of the defenseless or the military. In your eyes, someone making an IED to kill Americans who happens to have been born in Nebraska has more rights than the solder that pops a cap in his face. Unbelievable. No wonder this country is going to hell. Then again, I guess you are protecting the rights of that American terrorist by ensuring that he has life (we've beat that one to death).... and the freedom (liberty) to continue making IEDs... and I am sure he is happy when he sees it go off and kill American soldiers (pursuit of happiness).
Click to expand...

The exception to what you posted is if those Americans who have taken up arms against the military are fighting in a revolution against an oppressive US government of a possible future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,706
#2,706
Vol8188 said:
Absolutely. What burden of proof is required to label a US citizen as a "enemy combatant" and then kill them?
Click to expand...

Let me ask you another question. IF there had been an "American" in the bin laden household, and we had just napalmed it instead of putting Americans at risk in the assault, would you have a problem with that? Or if ST-6 had just gone in and killed everybody in the house without asking for their passports... KNOWING that there was an American there, would you have a problem with that? (It is hypothetical.. there weren't any Americans in that house AFAIK). I'm guessing that you would.
 
#2,707
#2,707
MDS67 said:
The exception to what you posted is if those Americans who have taken up arms against the military are fighting in a revolution against an oppressive US government of a possible future.
Click to expand...

All bets are off in that case. It would be interesting to see which side the military takes there though.
 
#2,709
#2,709
SpaceCoastVol said:
All bets are off in that case. It would be interesting to see which side the military takes there though.
Click to expand...



A lot of New World Order believers believe that UN forces would be used because of the assumption that US forces wouldn't fire on US civilians. I think that's very possible if the other countries that the US are allied with see a massively destabilised US in the throws of a revolution.
 
#2,711
#2,711
SpaceCoastVol said:
Let me ask you another question. IF there had been an "American" in the bin laden household, and we had just napalmed it instead of putting Americans at risk in the assault, would you have a problem with that? Or if ST-6 had just gone in and killed everybody in the house without asking for their passports... KNOWING that there was an American there, would you have a problem with that? (It is hypothetical.. there weren't any Americans in that house AFAIK). I'm guessing that you would.
Click to expand...

Was bin laden in Yemen?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,713
#2,713
MDS67 said:
A lot of New World Order believers believe that UN forces would be used because of the assumption that US forces wouldn't fire on US civilians. I think that's very possible if the other countries that the US are allied with see a massively destabilised US in the throws of a revolution.
Click to expand...

Let's see... Our military against the UN. US.... UN.... Man... that's a tough one. :eek:lol::eek:lol::eek:lol:

OK... my Coke-Cola just met my monitor close up and personal.
 
#2,715
#2,715
MDS67 said:
I agree with you but quite a few folks believe that(folks like Alex Jones).
Click to expand...

Yeah I know. I highly doubt it will ever come to that though. The American public doesn't have the stones (or organization) to try a revolution no matter how corrupt and inept the government is because they know that we DO have the world's best military. It really doesn't matter that common sense would tell you that they would never fire on American citizens in the first place. Kind of like the cold war I guess. Besides, as long as the government keeps taking away from people and giving to those that do nothing, there is little incentive for them to join the fracas. (Fracas... good word, no?)
 
#2,716
#2,716
It's time we start over with healthcare insurance. First off insurance should only be used like car insurance. Not for minor troubles or regular maintenance but only for major accidents and total damages.

Get rid of Pharmacy insurance altogether. It's time the drug manufacturers have to competitively price their meds in order to sell them. Drug prices would fall off a cliff if insurance were eliminated. Heck a good % of meds are already $4 a month.

We should get major medical, hospitalization and catastrophic insurance and that's it. Pay out of pocket for everything else. Make doctors and pharmacies compete with prices. Lower medical costs and paper bill all claims to insurance so that hospitals must also cost compete and we will know if our insurance is screwing us too.

Boom fixed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,718
#2,718
Vols_74 said:
It's time we start over with healthcare insurance. First off insurance should only be used like car insurance. Not for minor troubles or regular maintenance but only for major accidents and total damages.

Get rid of Pharmacy insurance altogether. It's time the drug manufacturers have to competitively price their meds in order to sell them. Drug prices would fall off a cliff if insurance were eliminated. Heck a good % of meds are already $4 a month.

We should get major medical, hospitalization and catastrophic insurance and that's it. Pay out of pocket for everything else. Make doctors and pharmacies compete with prices. Lower medical costs and paper bill all claims to insurance so that hospitals must also cost compete and we will know if our insurance is screwing us too.

Boom fixed.
Click to expand...
one problem ---- greed will never go away
 
#2,725
#2,725
utvolpj said:
Ridiculous. Should have spent more time writing it or posted it as promised before voting. This is the consequence of waiting until 2am to stay your term paper
Click to expand...


That's funny, except that we aren't talking about one person's grade in Econ 202, we are talking about millions of people losing their care, skyrocketing premium costs for those remaining, and millions once again rapidly becoming uninsured. All because of the stubborn refusal of GOP governors to set up a link between their website and the federal exchange (even though they de facto participate in the very same offerings).

I wish that Krugman had not been so partisan about his complaint about the subject judges. It is true that the judges who have ruled that there is even a problem are all staunch Republicans. It is true that the complaint, and the rulings, are partisan attacks.

That tends to drown out his main point, which is indisputably correct, which is that you can only arrive at this absurd construction of the law by taking things out of context and by ignoring the rest of the provisions in the bill. One of the key principles in statutory construction is reading laws "in para materia" with other provisions. The idea is that you read sections together, so that they make sense, rather than read them separately so as to reach an absurd result.

It would be absurd to read the section at issue in isolation, away from the rest of the bill. And to do so you would have to ignore the fact that the Congressional discussions and estimates of costs and effect, all assumed the subsidies were available on both sets of exchanges.

It would the be sheer political partisanship that would lead to the absurd result espoused by the plaintiffs in the case. Just utterly ridiculous.

And everybody knows it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top