eym_sirius

Finally - Someone from the anti-healthcare side with something to say!! Please elaborate on the difference. Explain what is meant by the rather broad term, "GENERAL WELFARE" that excludes it from "government supporting people". The government is made up of people, you can't deny that. So why is it that you're opposed to people helping people? And that you think that promoting the general welfare means anything but people helping people..... Who pays for all of the programs that make life better? Police protection, fire departments, schools - Are you against schools, too? That's governme

It's not a privilege. It's a chore to try to get you to engage in a discussion that includes --- facts. Since you didn't know that the Constitution says that the PURPOSE of the government is to "Promote the General Welfare" and never mentions capitalism, I'll point that out again for you. Since PROMOTING THE GENERAL WELFARE means funding it, that means taking from the specific and giving to the "GENERAL". How else can the general welfare be supported, except through taxation? How else can "Provide For The Common Defense" be funded, except through taxation? These are things that we need! W

The hell???? "promote the general welfare" is not part of the Constitution? I'm talking about the United States Constitution. I don't know what constitution you're talking about. Now, are you so ignorant of the Constitution that you need for me to literally point out the phrase, "promote the general welfare"???? For a "news junky" you don't seem to be very well informed!!

What???? Your solution to the growing health care crisis is to do NOTHING??? That's not a surprise. That's what the Republican leadership is proposing, too. They say, "we have better ideas". They don't have better ideas. They don't have any ideas. They should just be honest like you are and say so!

How about the phrase that is immediately before "promote the general welfare"? Are our taxes wrongfully spent on that, too? See, you can't have it both ways! Either the Constitution provides for social welfare AND all of the other provisions or we can just take this thing in any direction we want to. Capitalism isn't found in the Preamble. Welfare is.

The Republicans have the power in the House. Let them bring up the "Fair Tax". What's stopping them? Big Business?

Have you read what I say about "judicial activism"? It's a bogus term. That's the conclusion that you came to, as well. You're a smart fellow!!

Truly poor people have access to social programs paid for by taxes.Who do you think pays for indigent care at Grady Hospital in Atlanta? They don't have coverage now! How do you propose that truly poor people have access to health care? They can't pay for it. They're POOR!! It's a Constitutional requirement, you know. In the Preamble to the Constitution, the government's responsibility is outlined. There's a part of our government that is SOCIALISM, clear and simple. How else can the "general welfare" be promoted, except though social programs? Eventually, the population numb

What you're saying is that you're going to continue to stay ignorant on the subject unless I spoonfeed you the short version of the history of accusations of judicial activism? Don't move! Wait right there until I return with a concise explanation. It'll be such a short time that you can hold your breath until I produce that for you so you don't have to look it up. I'll be RIGHT BACK...................

That's what I meant by "opt in and opt out" If you're in, then you pay and get insured care. If you opt out, you don't pay, but you can't get insurance coverage. That doesn't mean that you die. That just means that you have to pay for your own healthcare. I think that's the way that it ought to be anyway, but people SHOULD have a choice. If they truly believe in PURE CAPITALISM then they would jump at this opportunity! The doctor will just charge them whatever he can get, based on the circumstances -- but that's the free market, right? The conservatives certainly want NO PART of the i

How hard have you tried, now? Have you -- Googled the term? Just Google and read! How difficult is that. Here! I Goggled "activist judges" and this was one of the first articles that popped up. Read this one, then read some more. We can discuss it when you've gained a little more knowledge. http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/186690_lithwick18.html

The LPPT PLAN! I say let's go with it! If Right-wing types don't want to join in, then they can just opt out! But once they're out, they're out! They can pay the ACTUAL cost of their own health care. I'm fine with that! Asking me to pay when they're sick is socialism anyway. They don't want any part of that!! So let's go with the LPPT plan Opt in for insurance, Opt out for no insurance and you pay your own way.

It's a bogus term, "activist judge". A judge rules on constitutionality. That's what he does! To call it "activism" because a right wing pundik doesn't agree with the ruling? And he knows that there will be a million and fifty neanderthals make the case for judicial activism on their local discussion boards - acting like they know what they are talking about.....

How did you come to the conclusion that these are the only two possibilities? My guess is that you actually believed anyone who used the term "activist judges"???? It's the JOB of the judge to make rulings on Consitutionality. That's what they do!!! My point is that now that a judge is ruling on Constitutionality on a controversial issue, it is no different from a judge making an adverse ruling against Bush Laws, only to have the ultra-conservatives call the judge an "activist judge".

It's exactly what Republicans accused Democrats of doing to supress opposition to Bush Laws on Constitutional grounds. It's exactly the same thing. For you to not understand "SAME", you'll have a heck of a hard time when I make a point where the situation is "SIMILAR"!!!

It will be interesting to hear those who were wailing about "activist judges" - to see what they have to say regarding "activism from the bench". To be consistent, as opposed to hypocritical, they'd have to rip apart the judge for trying to make law from the bench. I'm betting that they flip-flop about activist judges and I predict that they will praise the "attempt to restore the balance of power"

Johnny J - I don't have "Dark Blue" as an option. I have the latest version of IE, latest version of "Windows" (it's a new computer). Green works, so I'm fine with it.

And "wrinkled"

The "skin" here is the way that you view the PCOM pages. The skins have color designations for you to choose from. The Green skin offers the option Green Left and Green Right. Right and Left refer to the advertising bar - do you want it on the right or the left? That's all. It just ocurred to me after seeing some references to "changing skins" that some people might not know what that is! If you want to experiment with the different skins, you can do so at no penalty. It's like making weird faces - It won't really get stuck that way. So scroll down to the very bottom of the page a

There are two kind of servers, it seems. There the one who looks on serving as a kind of a calling - this is what they were meant to do. They regard service as a craft and constantly seek to improve their skills. Then there's the server who looks at it as a job. This person can't wait until her shift is over and has no interest at all in a standard of professionalism. She doesn't really care about the reputation of the brand because she's not going to work there after March because that's when Spring Break takes place. Some are professionals in the hospitality business - others are jus

I brought up the thing about the hostess/host/greeter because several years ago I used to hear single women complain about the way that they were greeted. You have to figure that the first order of business would be a friendly greeting, right? One person told me this: She had been going to the same place to dine fairly regularly when the hostess greeted her like this: "By yourself again this evening?" It's a terribly insensitive thing to say, I think. Why not just yell that the woman who can't get a date has arrived??? That's like the server who suggests the "Weight-Watcher's Special

I look at it this way. Nobody in this country or in this world owes me a thing. I'm not due insurance coverage because that just means that someone else might have to pay my way. I realize that I have two choices. I can work for myself or I can work for someone else. I've done it both ways, but never looked at working for others as "forced labor" or a "dictatorship". I've been an employee and "the boss". Once, there was an employee who said - "who do you think that you are, to tell me what to do all of the time?:" This seems to be TP's attitude. It has to be one way or the other, though.

I can't imagine how this country would have achieved greatness if it weren't for the hierarchy of the workforce. Not always, but sometimes the boss, the CEO, developed a single location, worked that store until it was so successful that he had to hire more employees and expand. A good business model has put food on the table and shoes on the feet of many-a hardworking American. It provides opportunities for people to move up in the organization from mail clerk to Vice-President. I think that any other model would be unworkable. Every Man A CEO sounds nice, but it would be a disast

Oh, yeah, Thoughts -- about the topic. It's a real situation there! Any talk of "regional instability" can only be done in relative terms because the status quo of politics is inherently unstable.

A Boy Scouts Jamboree (whatever that is) was cancelled -- Here? I don't get the connection to a security risk. Boy Scouts? I think that someone is overreacting!