Reply With Quote
They would have to overturn Garcia vs San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority.
I don't see it happening.
You can opt not to drive.
They would have to overturn Garcia vs San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority.
I don't see it happening.
Ah the ing irony of the soulless morons. They clamor and cry over government irresponsibility and then cheer on as their states gear up to waste vast sums of taxpayer money on what they know is a losing battle. These ing idiots passing themselves off as conservatives are as dumb as any group of people in humanity's history. What a bunch of hypocrite ing losers republicans are.
I wish. I'd gut the average republican a hundred times over, given the legal chance. You think these s would learn after getting their asses handled once already.
True...you'd think those ing Pennsylvanians would have learned their lesson. Then again....Massachusetts obviously needs a reminder, they've obviously forgotten. And don't you think beheading them would be better? Or perhaps flying some planes into their buildings?
Working a death threat and words of physicial violence out of of someone used to be an accolmplishment. It was pretty much the holy grail of trolling achievement, yet you have almost singlehandedly rendered it a worthless achievement. In any case, keep doiing what you're doing. People will eventually get sick of you and run you from this board because what you are doing crosses the line, just not enough have noticed it yet. And they will...I always tend to catch this sort of thing first for some odd reason. What you are doing crosses the line.
Yes you need an outlet for the righteous rage you have for being born into a life of poverty and having not...but this really isn't the place to talk about threats of violence in every other post you make.
I suggest you go here and unload your oppressed anger. It's a more appropriate location and the targets will actually have views similar to the ones you bigot and generalize to non-Democrat whites.
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/
Most importantly, you'll be with people that operate on a similar emotional and intellectual level to yourself, sort of the other side of your coin(although you are much more prone to expressions of violence, they're pretty much concerned with voting Obama out in 2012).
Word to the wise, they are predominantly Ron Paul fans and overwhelmingly anti-war and IMHO, majority anti-israel( Just like Adam Gadan)
I am pretty certain that the most fanatical among them actually hate the jews more than blacks, kinda like the Nazis did. A lot of them wanted to see Obama get elected(not for good reasons), and some of them are even in favor of the health care bill. Have at it. And remember, be yourself
Last edited by whottt; 03-23-2010 at 02:30 AM.
OUtcomes like this are why a public option should probably have been included in the bill.
Assuming one supported a public option in the first place, yes, but legal contingency can be a too, like you suggested.
"OUtcomes like this are why a public option should probably have been included in the bill."
It's a Dem trap.
If the Repugs shoot down mandated insurance from for-profit corps, and the Dems come back with medicare-for-all public option, which already has growing support in Congress.
Many of the people who dislike the current bill do so because it doesn't have a public option, iow, they think the bill didn't go far enough.
I think Scalia has been quoted as saying these kinds of suits are frivolous and will not be upheld. Not health care in particular, but states-rights kinds of issues.
The opposition of the opposition...
So, who does the TX Attorney General Greg Abbott represent? Certainly not the millions of Texans who will benefit from health-care coverage...
1934
Well, that's the great efflorescence of state power after TR.
That's when the bureaucratization corollary to the technocratic management of everyday life really got into full swing in the USA.
Nice job..
Wasn't the GOP in favor of privatizing SS? Wouldn't that have been forcing us to buy a private service?
No. The plan, at least as I remember it, was to give people control of their own SS accounts and to let them have the option investing their money in the stock market. An option, but not required.
Wow, what an intelligent, articulate woman! After all the coverage lately of the Palins and the Coulters and the Bachmans and Pelosi, I thoroughly enjoyed listening to a woman who was well informed and quick with her position. Good find. Why can't this woman run for some national office?
The problem I had with this suggestion, CG, at the time, was that if the "opt outers' lost all their money to a Bernie Madoff-type (and no one can say that it won't happen again) that the taxpayers are still on the hook for those folks, even though 'those folks' never paid in.
I believe that what you describe, CG, is what many of us have done over the years while making our required SS pay-ins; that is, we invested some of our discretionary funds for retirement in the private markets. We had to choose to defer some gratification of some potential consumption in order to do so, but that was our choice and we did it. Therefore, today, we are not dependent on SS for our retirement income, but our responsibility as citizens is still to pay in on it.
Nothing about the SS taxes precludes you or anyone else from establishing private retirement funds. I understand that you want to direct all of your potential retirement funds yourself, and by so doing, exclude yourself from SS taxes. What I'm saying is that your responsibility as a citizen (to pay into the fund) neither stops you from doing something else nor exempts you from paying in. Simply saying "I want out and I promise I won't ask for help when I'm older" isn't the kind of promise that a society can opt for.
As evidenced by the recent gubernatorial and senatorial special elections.
You have an excellent point
Growing support in Congress? Saying the public option has growing support in Congress is about like saying that boutons is going to get laid this year. In short, it's a farce.
you're right the minority NEVER wins elections in off cycle years. the majority party NEVER loses seats in off cycle elections... excellent point! Were you born yesterday?As evidenced by the recent gubernatorial and senatorial special elections.
You have an excellent point
Are you sure about that?
You probably wouldn't.
I am as sure as the day is long... there are exceptions to the rule (see Bush) like winning a lottery..
Are you sure about that?
Agreed. And for the record I do not support privatizing social security. The system I want is one where we give each individual a personal social security account that is funded by that individual's contributions, with those contributions invested in US treasury notes (i.e. safe).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
