Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 9171819
Results 181 to 190 of 190
Thanks Tree134Thanks

Thread: Names Mike

  1. #181
    Veteran Member Pragmatist's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    46,015
    Thanks
    13359

    Quote Originally Posted by californiadecks View Post
    There are some basics I think all of us can agree to. I think term limits are one.

    I also think the delegates should be split up by each states districts. So the people in Marin county don't get to make the decision for us in Orange County for example. But that is probably pushing it.

    So if it's just to get term limits that will go along way to help take the policy away from lobbyist. If a congressional leaders only concern is self preservation, the lobbyist will continue to dump money in re-election campaigns. If there is no re-election campaign no lobbyists. Or not near as powerful anyway.

    _________
    I am for and against them. I think it is wrong to force what could be a spectacular leader out of his position but I'm also against those who have been in so long that they simply become a shoe in. Maybe say in your third reelection you must win by over 10% or you lose. On your 4th you must win by 20% or you lose.

  2. #182
    Veteran Member Pragmatist's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    46,015
    Thanks
    13359

    Quote Originally Posted by californiadecks View Post
    You are absolutely enslaved by your politicians. We need to take back our country from them. You are owned by the banks, big businesses that dump money into your politicians pockets. If the politicians owe there survival to big business, who are they really beholden too? This is why they will say what you want to hear, to get your vote, (cough Paul Ryan)but what they actually do is a completely different thing.

    If you don't think big pharma and healthcare giants aren't the reason we didn't get an appeal of the bill, I've got an island to sell you in the South China Sea.

    _________
    You spoke earlier about the will of the people. The people favored Obamacare about 3 times as much as the piece of shit plan that the repubs were offering. over 50% said they favored Obamacare while only 17% favored the piece of shit they were offering. If the will of the people is important what gives them the right to so much as vote on a plan that over 80% of the population does not want? If taking back Washington means shoving legislation that over 80% of the people don't want down their throats then I'm against it.

  3. #183
    Veteran Member Pragmatist's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    46,015
    Thanks
    13359

    Quote Originally Posted by californiadecks View Post
    That healthcare bill is not the free market at work. In fact it's quite the opposite. Its my opinion all healthcare concerns should be dealt with by the state's. If Michigan wants to have socialized medicine, have at it.

    _________
    What if the will of the people is to have socialized healthcare? Is that where you draw the line and say screw the will of the people?

  4. #184
    Veteran Member Pragmatist's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    46,015
    Thanks
    13359

    Quote Originally Posted by Puzzling Evidence View Post
    Normally I would agree, but this discussion is pretty tame and californiadecks seems like he knows his stuff. Bravo to him and us. Maybe this is a new trend?
    I'm not sure. When he talks about the will of the people being important and taking back Washington while sounding like he was FOR the recent repeal of the ACA when only 17% of the people were for it, I'm a little at odds with his logic.

  5. #185
    Veteran Member Pragmatist's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    46,015
    Thanks
    13359

    Quote Originally Posted by californiadecks View Post
    You're right as long as your state or local government enact it. It's not the place for the feds. There's no reason I should have to pay for someone's "stuff" in other states. Unless it is specified in the Constitution.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    It is specified in the constitution that the SC will rule on what is constitutional so if you don't agree with that then you can't be a constitutionalist?

  6. #186
    Veteran Member Pragmatist's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    46,015
    Thanks
    13359

    Quote Originally Posted by californiadecks View Post
    The feds need to get out of the supplying people's needs, so they can afford their wants, business. It's not their place.

    If the feds only took money to fulfill their constitutional duties, the states would be in better shape. The money could be riened in by the people of each state.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    What happens when if the fed govt gets out of supplying any needs and the states don't have the money to do it either? bloated bellies and starving children is acceptable in the richest nation on earth?

  7. #187
    Veteran Member Pragmatist's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    46,015
    Thanks
    13359

    Quote Originally Posted by californiadecks View Post
    A lot of things in the Constitution have went kaput that doesn't make it legal, imo. And I never said it's not in the national interest, I said the states need to take care of anything the Constitution doesn't explicitly give the feds the authority to do so. Healthcare isn't one of them. Neither is feeding people. Helping individuals isn't something the feds should ever do. Unless it's protecting their civil liberties.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    That is unless you are a constitutionalist and agree with the founders that the SC will make such determinations.

  8. #188
    Veteran Member Pragmatist's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    46,015
    Thanks
    13359

    Quote Originally Posted by californiadecks View Post
    Nowhere in here does it say anything about giving individuals stuff!

    Enumerated powers


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arti...d_States_const



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
    I don't think allowing bloated bellies and starving children is providing for the general welfare of those starving much less the rest of the United States so whatever is decided to do about it is unquestionably constitutional. You may not agree and that's fine but it's not constitutional.

  9. #189
    New Member
    Joined
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    237
    Thanks
    227

    From
    East TN
    Hey Mike, or CA as I'm used to calling you, where'd you go?

    The last page and a half of your cool intro thread has several interesting questions that I would very much like to hear you respond to.

    Little different conversing with a group of dedicated political junkies than it is a bunch of tradesmen talking politics on the side isn't it?

    Still, with all the "commie" liberals around here to set straight, I figured you would jump right in.





    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #190
    New Member Benji's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    93
    Thanks
    32

    From
    Chicago
    Maybe he forgot to save the site.
    Thanks from MeBelle

Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 9171819

Similar Threads

  1. Name Names
    By kmiller1610 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: 27th February 2017, 07:19 AM
  2. Replies: 47
    Last Post: 19th September 2016, 12:20 PM
  3. Should Gillibrand name names?
    By Macduff in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 11th September 2014, 04:07 AM
  4. Names!
    By Mr. Neo-Con in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 18th October 2012, 01:56 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed