MrRodgers
Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: HunterCA
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:
ORIGINAL: HunterCA
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Well they forget bless their innocent hearts, this IS America...the Sodom and Gomorrah AND Rome of fun, entertainment, crime, politics and power. Anyone with enough money...er free speech [sic] can buy them ALL, get clean away with it and I am laughing all of the way to the bank, the drug mart, the whorehouse, the bookie.
In America, one can 'buy' absolutely anything one wants...certainly including politicians and the laws he or she will fucking vote for...or against.
It's as if some big secret has been unleashed by the Supremes with 'Citizen.' One can by a disease to make $50 billion/yr...'treating.' One can buy prohibitions against their competition and even buy murder.
Even Geo. Will said 'Citizens' only proved what we knew ALL along...money talks.
People, get over it...the great ecclesiastical enema would require at least 3 hoses.
A couple of quick comment.
Tell me a better system...I know, i know, communism just hasn't been done right yet but it will be soon by golly.
Citizens was a case regarding the McCain-Fingold law that everyone hated when it was passed. Yet it only became an issue with the left when the right wanted to use it for political ads against Hillary. Up til then, it was fine with you guys.
As with the Obamacare decission, which you lefties loved, Chief Justice voted that the law was not illigal and it wasn't the courts responsibilty to toss it. You don't like it, change it is what was said with Obamacare. I'll certainly go with you on changing McCain-Fingold. Until then, quit the crocodile tears.
Compared to what we have today...state capitalism bordering on financial (economic) fascism and what further 'Citizens' will produce...almost a non-sequitur at worst, irrelevant at best.
I mean the American creed WAS, ALL men are created equal, yet the supremes allowed something quite different and used to call people...property, so what the hell, why not call property...speech ?
What could be better for the capitalist ? (free speech hunter/gatherers)
Oh and I am hardly a lefty just to have serious problems with today's right and I never 'loved' he ACA as I've written, it is simply (just as the repubs proposed in 1992) a windfall for the insurance and medical industries.
The ACA in fact reinforces my point. It is not about health care...it's about money and profits.
First point...I agree and can't understand why lefties want a bigger more powerful central government. Break up the banks to big to fail and make the government smaller and less powerful.
Second point, the entire statement is, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." You'll notice it doesn't say anything about equal outcomes, only the equal right to pursue. The world, from the first accendsncy of man, has always had slaves, humans as property. It was the white guys in the west that first said, "wow, maybe this isn't right." That actually was heavily influenced by religion. A lot of the world still has slaves. Maybe you should get over something that ended over one hundred years ago. Speech is protected from the government. It's not the governments job to protect individuals from the speech of individuals.
Third point. What better for a capitalist...maybe not thinking of it by its Marxist name. Maybe thinking a free market where individuals can make their own choices outside the power of the government power and control. Maybe allowing self determination about where we get our information.
Fourth point, provide me a link where republicans tried to implement something like the ACA. While you're looking for it, remember that not one Republican representative or senator voted for it this time and maybe you can realign your hate away from a precision war era. You know, join the 21st century.
Last point... ....really, you mean Obama, Pelosi and Read lied? OMG. Why don't you hate them for a while? I mean, if ya gotta hate, which apparently you do, why don't you direct it to some post antebellum era.
My recall of the American creed also did not guarantee outcomes, only equality before the eyes of the law, govt. and the courts.
While there was some differences in the repub plan, the main mandate was there:
HERE
Subtitle F: Universal Coverage – Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005. Provides an exception for any individual who is opposed for religious reasons to health plan coverage, including those who rely on healing using spiritual means through prayer alone.
The history of such a mandate goes back even further.
HERE
Heritage Foundation's 1989 report is considered to be the conceptual origin of the health insurance mandate.The concept of the individual health insurance mandate is considered to have originated in 1989 at the conservative Heritage Foundation. In 1993, Republicans twice introduced health care bills that contained an individual health insurance mandate. Advocates for those bills included prominent Republicans who today oppose the mandate including Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO). In 2007, Democrats and Republicans introduced a bi-partisan bill containing the mandate.
< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 6/7/2015 7:09:31 PM >
|
RE: Big Money in Elections - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread