Posts by StormKing
|
1)
Message boards :
Cafe SETI :
Beer Drinkers thread part 5
(Message 1186694)
Posted 20 Jan 2012 by  StormKing
Post: Southern Tier 2X IPA. Great american double IPA, imo. Yes, I am back |
|
2)
Message boards :
Politics :
Political Thread [23]
(Message 948063)
Posted 18 Nov 2009 by StormKing
Post: Newspulper Headlines: Be Careful What You Wish For: "Pelosi Hopes to Finish Health Bill as 'Christmas Present'" --TheHill.com ++ "Woman Shocked to See Swastikas on Wrapping Paper" --WESH-TV Web site (Orlando, FL) Nancy Pelosi Had a Similar Excuse: "Suspected US Serial Killer Blamed Stench on Sausage Factory" --Agence France-Presse Is There Anything He Can't Do?: "In First Visit to China, Obama Walks a Tightrope" --Associated Press We Blame Global Warming: "Russian Cruise Ship Carrying 100 Tourists Stuck in Antarctic Ice" --FoxNews.com Questions Nobody Is Asking: "Are Republicans Too Giddy?" --CNN.com Everything Seemingly Is Spinning Out of Control: "Asteroid Passes Just 8,700 Miles From Earth -- With Only 15 Hours Warning" --Daily Mail (London) Bottom Stories of the Day: "Kerry Warns on Vietnam Parallels" --Boston Globe (Thanks to The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto)  
|
|
3)
Message boards :
Politics :
Fun with the same tired old Status Quo!!
(Message 947928)
Posted 17 Nov 2009 by StormKing
Post: The substitution: "Obamacare"-- So is the plan itself. The plan in congress will not make healthcare better or cheaper. It just amounts to wealth distribution. |
|
4)
Message boards :
Politics :
Fun with the same tired old Status Quo!!
(Message 947914)
Posted 17 Nov 2009 by StormKing
Post: However I find it hard to believe that one can go through life spitting out everyone elses opinions and still not have one of their own. Isn't that what you are trying to do by arguing a point that I am not trying to make? (you have done this several times before) I never mentioned universal heath care yet you used your argument to cover up my point about the bill in congress. And you never responded to what I actually posted. If you do not want to comment on my posts then don't. I am beginning to think you want to censor me because you disagree. |
|
5)
Message boards :
Politics :
Fun with the same tired old Status Quo!!
(Message 947668)
Posted 16 Nov 2009 by StormKing
Post:  "Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi's constitutional contempt, perhaps ignorance, is representative of the majority of members of both the House and the Senate. Their comfort in that ignorance and constitutional contempt, and how readily they articulate it, should be worrisome for every single American. It's not a matter of whether you are for or against Congress' health care proposals. It's not a matter of whether you're liberal or conservative, black or white, male or female, Democrat or Republican or member of any other group. It's a matter of whether we are going to remain a relatively free people or permit the insidious encroachment on our liberties to continue. ... In each new session of Congress since 1995, John Shadegg, R-Ariz.,) has introduced the Enumerated Powers Act, a measure 'To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes.' The highest number of co-sponsors it has ever had in the House of Representatives is 54 and it has never had co-sponsors in the Senate until this year, when 22 senators signed up. The fact that less than 15 percent of the Congress supports such a measure demonstrates the kind of contempt our elected representatives have for the rules of the game -- our Constitution. If you asked the questions: Which way is our nation heading, tiny steps at a time? Are we headed toward more liberty, or are we headed toward greater government control over our lives? I think the answer is unambiguously the latter -- more government control over our lives." --economist Walter E. Williams |
|
6)
Message boards :
Politics :
Fun with the same tired old Status Quo!!
(Message 947667)
Posted 16 Nov 2009 by StormKing
Post: simply saying you are correct doesnt make it so. I say the color yellow is unconstitutional. The only people that really can dispute constitutionality of things are constitutional experts, typically ACLU lawyers. Wow, you never read any of my posts... I did not say anything about universal healtcare. We are talking about obamacare and the FACT that it requires people to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. You seriously think the prograns you mentioned justify obamacare (the bill currently in congress)? You are saying that since congress has set up so many programs, they can do whatever they want. Again, this is scary! |
|
7)
Message boards :
Politics :
Fun with the same tired old Status Quo!!
(Message 947662)
Posted 16 Nov 2009 by StormKing
Post: Enact a $1500 tax on everyone making above a certain income level AND make ALL health insurance premiums (not just those paid by employers) fully deductible. Sounds good to me! |
|
8)
Message boards :
Politics :
Fun with the same tired old Status Quo!!
(Message 947652)
Posted 16 Nov 2009 by StormKing
Post: simply saying you are correct doesnt make it so. I say the color yellow is unconstitutional. The only people that really can dispute constitutionality of things are constitutional experts, typically ACLU lawyers. Wow... I give up. Unless you can point out which part of the consitution gives congress the power to require people to carry health insurance. No, it is not in the preamble... That was the worst idea yet. Following your logic congress has the power to do anything. Is this what you want? I see no point in continuing this. |
|
9)
Message boards :
Politics :
Fun with the same tired old Status Quo!!
(Message 947640)
Posted 16 Nov 2009 by StormKing
Post: Again?!? declaring something unconstitutional doesnt make it so. FOr example Again? Simply saying I am wrong does not make it so! You seem it is ok for congress to do whatever it wants under the guise of "gerneral welfare"? Why don't we just write them a blank check and hand over all of our freedoms as well? You trust the government way too much. There are LIMITS in the constitution for a reason! |
|
10)
Message boards :
Politics :
Fun with the same tired old Status Quo!!
(Message 947630)
Posted 16 Nov 2009 by StormKing
Post: More on the unconstitutionality of mandated health insurance: Mandatory Insurance Is Unconstitutional Why an individual mandate could be struck down by the courts. By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY Federal legislation requiring that every American have health insurance is part of all the major health-care reform plans now being considered in Washington. Such a mandate, however, would expand the federal government’s authority over individual Americans to an unprecedented degree. It is also profoundly unconstitutional.  An individual mandate has been a hardy perennial of health-care reform proposals since HillaryCare in the early 1990s. President Barack Obama defended its merits before Congress last week, claiming that uninsured people still use medical services and impose the costs on everyone else. But the reality is far different. Certainly some uninsured use emergency rooms in lieu of primary care physicians, but the majority are young people who forgo insurance precisely because they do not expect to need much medical care. When they do, these uninsured pay full freight, often at premium rates, thereby actually subsidizing insured Americans. The mandate's real justifications are far more cynical and political. Making healthy young adults pay billions of dollars in premiums into the national health-care market is the only way to fund universal coverage without raising substantial new taxes. In effect, this mandate would be one more giant, cross-generational subsidy—imposed on generations who are already stuck with the bill for the federal government's prior spending sprees. Chad Crowe .Politically, of course, the mandate is essential to winning insurance industry support for the legislation and acceptance of heavy federal regulations. Millions of new customers will be driven into insurance-company arms. Moreover, without the mandate, the entire thrust of the new regulatory scheme—requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and to accept standardized premiums—would produce dysfunctional consequences. It would make little sense for anyone, young or old, to buy insurance before he actually got sick. Such a socialization of costs also happens to be an essential step toward the single payer, national health system, still stridently supported by large parts of the president's base. The elephant in the room is the Constitution. As every civics class once taught, the federal government is a government of limited, enumerated powers, with the states retaining broad regulatory authority. As James Madison explained in the Federalist Papers: "[I]n the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects." Congress, in other words, cannot regulate simply because it sees a problem to be fixed. Federal law must be grounded in one of the specific grants of authority found in the Constitution. These are mostly found in Article I, Section 8, which among other things gives Congress the power to tax, borrow and spend money, raise and support armies, declare war, establish post offices and regulate commerce. It is the authority to regulate foreign and interstate commerce that—in one way or another—supports most of the elaborate federal regulatory system. If the federal government has any right to reform, revise or remake the American health-care system, it must be found in this all-important provision. This is especially true of any mandate that every American obtain health-care insurance or face a penalty. The Supreme Court construes the commerce power broadly. In the most recent Commerce Clause case, Gonzales v. Raich (2005) , the court ruled that Congress can even regulate the cultivation of marijuana for personal use so long as there is a rational basis to believe that such "activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce." But there are important limits. In United States v. Lopez (1995), for example, the Court invalidated the Gun Free School Zones Act because that law made it a crime simply to possess a gun near a school. It did not "regulate any economic activity and did not contain any requirement that the possession of a gun have any connection to past interstate activity or a predictable impact on future commercial activity." Of course, a health-care mandate would not regulate any "activity," such as employment or growing pot in the bathroom, at all. Simply being an American would trigger it. Health-care backers understand this and—like Lewis Carroll's Red Queen insisting that some hills are valleys—have framed the mandate as a "tax" rather than a regulation. Under Sen. Max Baucus's (D., Mont.) most recent plan, people who do not maintain health insurance for themselves and their families would be forced to pay an "excise tax" of up to $1,500 per year—roughly comparable to the cost of insurance coverage under the new plan. But Congress cannot so simply avoid the constitutional limits on its power. Taxation can favor one industry or course of action over another, but a "tax" that falls exclusively on anyone who is uninsured is a penalty beyond Congress's authority. If the rule were otherwise, Congress could evade all constitutional limits by "taxing" anyone who doesn't follow an order of any kind—whether to obtain health-care insurance, or to join a health club, or exercise regularly, or even eat your vegetables. This type of congressional trickery is bad for our democracy and has implications far beyond the health-care debate. The Constitution's Framers divided power between the federal government and states—just as they did among the three federal branches of government—for a reason. They viewed these structural limitations on governmental power as the most reliable means of protecting individual liberty—more important even than the Bill of Rights. Yet if that imperative is insufficient to prompt reconsideration of the mandate (and the approach to reform it supports), then the inevitable judicial challenges should. Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to invalidate "regulatory" taxes. However, a tax that is so clearly a penalty for failing to comply with requirements otherwise beyond Congress's constitutional power will present the question whether there are any limits on Congress's power to regulate individual Americans. The Supreme Court has never accepted such a proposition, and it is unlikely to accept it now, even in an area as important as health care. |
|
11)
Message boards :
Politics :
Fun with the same tired old Status Quo!!
(Message 947626)
Posted 16 Nov 2009 by StormKing
Post: as stated before ITS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. just becasue you say it doesnt make it so. just keep calling the sky red and we'll know how well you comprehend whats being done It is constitutional to require me to purchase something I do not want? lol you must be thinking of China... |
|
12)
Message boards :
Politics :
CLIMATE CHANGE, GREEN HOUSE,OCEAN FALLING PH etc
(Message 946988)
Posted 13 Nov 2009 by StormKing
Post: Is it ethical for a politition to funnel public money into companies that he or she invests in? Aren't they taking advantage of the fact that they have a complete majority in congress? Perhaps they simply want to get rich? /While the media vilifies those on Wall Street for getting rich at the expense of the rest of us, Gore and his buddies on Capitol Hill are getting kudos for doing worse. In a recent and appallingly obsequious article in The New York Times entitled "Gore's Dual Role: Advocate and Investor," the Times notes that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are also investing heavily in green ventures. Imagine the public outcry if these were Republicans. Other public figures, like Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who have vocally supported government financing of energy-saving technologies, have investments in alternative energy ventures. Some scientists and policy advocates also promote energy policies that personally enrich them. |
|
13)
Message boards :
Politics :
Fun with the same tired old Status Quo!!
(Message 946984)
Posted 13 Nov 2009 by StormKing
Post:  Where is the constitutional authority for a federal mandate that individuals must buy health insurance? Sen. Ben Nelson, a Democrat in red-state Nebraska, pleaded the Fifth: "Well, you know, uh, uh, I don't know that I'm a constitutional scholar, so, I, I'm not going to be able to answer that question." Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) likewise dodged the question, saying, "I'm not aware of [any constitutional authority], let me put it that way. But what we're trying to do is to provide for people who have needs and that's where the accessibility comes in, and one of the goals that we're trying to present here is to make it accessible." Right. "Provide" for them by mandating they do something under penalty of massive fines and/or imprisonment -- that's leftist "compassion" for you. Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) answered, "The United States Congress passed laws regarding Medicare and Medicaid that became de facto mandatory programs. States all the time require people to have driver's licenses. I think that this is a bit of a spurious argument that's being made by some folks." Uh, states require licenses only for the privilege of driving. Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), a member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee -- one of two committees that wrote and approved health care legislation -- pointed to precedent as justification: "Let me see. I would have to check the specific sections, so I'll have to get back to you on the specific section, but it is not unusual that the Congress has required individuals to do things, like sign up for the draft, uh, uh, and do many other things too, which I don't think are explicitly contained [in the Constitution]. It gives Congress a right to raise an army, but it doesn't say you can take people and draft them, uh, but since that was something necessary for the functioning of the government over the past several years, the practice on the books, it's been recognized, the authority to do that." So because Congress has acted unconstitutionally before, they can do it again now? Our guess is he understands health care about as well as he comprehends the Constitution. |
|
14)
Message boards :
Politics :
Political Thread [23]
(Message 946557)
Posted 11 Nov 2009 by StormKing
Post: Newspulper Headlines: We Blame George W. Bush: "Chinese Syphilis Outbreak Blamed on Economic Boom" --Associated Press We Blame Global Warming: "Chinese Scientists in Hot Water Over Icy Weather" --Taipei Times Breaking News From 1992: "Obama's Honeymoon Is Over" --U.S. News & World Report Everything Seemingly Is Spinning Out of Control: "Olbermann, Hannity Get Along at World Series" --TVNewser.com, Nov. 5 News You Can Use: "Expert: Open Window, Not Phone, if Vehicle Is Under Water" --Canadian Press Bottom Story of the Day: "Leaf Pickup Continues for City Streets" --Worcester (MA) Telegram & Gazette (Thanks to The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto) |
|
15)
Message boards :
Politics :
The State of the Economy
(Message 945370)
Posted 6 Nov 2009 by StormKing
Post: heres the peoblem with information. If you don't have it you dont understand it. A slow and steady recovery is what we need. Be patient. |
|
16)
Message boards :
Politics :
Newmods.............
(Message 945289)
Posted 5 Nov 2009 by StormKing
Post: knowing the history of most of this "storm" and people who have posted here, i am kind of suspicous, however if the consensus is to drop the arguement, that's all i ever asked. How about them yankees? |
|
17)
Message boards :
Politics :
The State of the Economy
(Message 945277)
Posted 5 Nov 2009 by StormKing
Post: Jobless Claims in U.S. Decrease More Than Forecast (Update2) Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A By Bob Willis Nov. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Fewer Americans than forecast filed claims for unemployment benefits last week, a sign job losses are slowing as the economy begins to recover. Initial jobless claims dropped by 20,000 to 512,000 in the week ended Oct. 31, the fewest since January, from 532,000 the prior week. The number of people receiving jobless benefits fell to the lowest level since March, while those who had exhausted their allotment and were receiving extended payments climbed, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. |
|
18)
Message boards :
Politics :
The State of the Economy
(Message 945276)
Posted 5 Nov 2009 by StormKing
Post: unlikely, From all indications this is a jobless recovery. people aren't getting jobs back and nobody is expanding. So if you are skilled labor, currently unemployed, and looking, you are competing with 6 other people for each job you apply for. This is not a good ratio. It is unlikely people have hope that the economy will recover? Seriously? |
|
19)
Message boards :
Politics :
The State of the Economy
(Message 945134)
Posted 4 Nov 2009 by StormKing
Post: so the unemployed should just get out there and get a job... and quit being lazy? if you say so... if you really believe that someone here thinks that you have no clue. I was referring to your comment that the unemployed will not find comfort in a recovering economy. They might have more hope then you think. |
|
20)
Message boards :
Politics :
Alt.conspiracy
(Message 945099)
Posted 4 Nov 2009 by StormKing
Post: In a rare glimpse of honesty, perhaps just a conspiracy... Taxes, taxes and more taxes: "We [the United States] tax everything that moves and doesn't move, and that's not what we see in Pakistan." --Hillary Clinton, advocating tax hikes in Pakistan. |
Next 20
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.