 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:46:30 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 30/03/2010 9:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> What Patrick said - Utah is one of 14 states that's suing the federal
>> government for passing the healthcare legislation.
>>
>> This is the same state government that recently passed a law that
>> essentially means that an expecting mother who is involved in an
>> accident that causes the death of her unborn child can be held
>> criminally responsible for the death of that unborn child. (This came
>> about because of a case where an expectant mother essentially caused a
>> miscarriage intentionally by causing an accident.)
>>
>>
> Bloody Ada!
Yeah, I know - both on the accusation (and if true, that should carry a
stiff penalty IMHO) and on the extrapolation.
>> It may be getting on towards time to get the hell out of this state.
>>
> Go for it!
Probably another year before we can - Ken's still finishing up school,
with luck will graduate in the spring (depends on his credit load).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/30/2010 3:01 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> "passed" legislation recently for state health care that is virtually
>> identical to the federal one, but are not sueing the fed over passing
>> the same thing.
>
> Nothing wrong with that.
>
> No more than saying a cop is allowed to handcuff me but my neighbor is not.
>
Uh.. No, this is more like, "The cop in my town can do it, but I don't
want them damn Highway Patrol people laying a hand on me." The point is,
the man protesting the government reform is the same one who instituted
the near identical thing in his own state. And he isn't the only one.
Can't remember which one, but they recently *elected* a Tea Party moron,
who promised to go after the current bill, while his own state has one
which is universal, which this one isn't even close to being.
But, that isn't some of the craziest out there. There is actually one
state which just passed a law that a) attempts to deny the federal
government from interfering with investigations of hate crimes in their
state, and b) excludes a specific set of definitions for that, in their
own law, so that they can continue to discriminate. The absolutely
hilarious thing is, they intended to erase the part of the law that
covered gay people, so that churches could "continue to tell the truth
about the gay agenda...". Ooooh! Only one problem. The morons wrote the
law wrong, and instead of repealing the new law that covered gay
bashing, they repealed the portion of their state law covering,
"Discrimination on the basis of race, color, or religion." Apparently..
they are real damn good at hating them gays, but not so good at keeping
track of ***numbers***, which are used to refer to the subclauses that
cover a specific definition of the crimes.
In other words, its **still** illegal to bash gays, but no longer
illegal there to bash and/or discriminate against Jews, Christians,
women, men, blacks, hispanics, indians, or ***anything else***. But, you
can't do it against gay people, since that part of the law is still in
effect. lol
We are dealing with serious morons here.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The point is,
> the man protesting the government reform is the same one who instituted
> the near identical thing in his own state.
You *do* understand that we have a federal constitution, right? Are you
aware of why you pay local property taxes but not federal property taxes?
But sure, I guess if you lump everyone in as "the government" it might make
sense to complain. That's just not how it works here.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling together,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/1/2010 8:46 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> The point is, the man protesting the government reform is the same one
>> who instituted the near identical thing in his own state.
>
> You *do* understand that we have a federal constitution, right? Are you
> aware of why you pay local property taxes but not federal property taxes?
>
> But sure, I guess if you lump everyone in as "the government" it might
> make sense to complain. That's just not how it works here.
>
For something like this, you need "consistency". If you don't, then what
you get is what we have already, everyone but the people in state X, or
Y, get screwed, and lots of people with money from the companies in
their pockets go around saying, "I don't see anything wrong here!" We
are not talking about anything crazy, just basically what people that
work for the fed already get themselves, and half the people scared of
it passing **already had** in the form of Medicade/Medicare. In fact, if
that was what we where getting, it would be better, only... the same
assholes that fought it passing also want to kill those too, and spend
their time lying about it.
Its not about bloody property taxes, its about one single, consistent,
nation wide, way of securing the health, as much as possible, of *every*
citizen, not just which ever states, cities, or non-corp owned plots of
land, just happen to pass something that tries to fix the problem. One
whole side of the political spectrum does nothing but lie about what it
is, lie about what they already have, lie about what they claim is going
to be lost, lie about the cost, etc., while **taking money** from the
companies that provide insurance. Its a matter of ethics. Its not
ethical to leave half the country with substandard care, and let
**insurance companies** tax people for 30%-40%-50% of costs that they
are inflating in the first place, then stand around, with high quality
government health care, saying, "Problem? I don't see a problem!" And
that is what one whole political party seems to be doing. I don't give a
damn if its done on a state level, or a federal, but the states, not to
mention the Republicans themselves, had a chance, and did nothing but
allow it to get this way, even when they have had all the power, and
time, in the world to see it coming, and do something to stop it.
As for the ones who now "represent" states that did do something...
Their hypocrisy is even worse, since they are saying, "We can't accept
having the fed provide a program to everyone, which we did as a state,
and which some states can't afford, given they are already doing things
like closing schools. But, instead of just complaining that it should be
a state by state thing, we are going to call it socialism, and lie about
our own state already passing it."
Its not about who does it. Its about the lies, the hypocrisy, and the
outright, in far too many cases, of complete lack of ethics, shown by
pandering to corporations, instead of representing the ***people***.
Many of these so "concerned" with the issue are doing all fracking
three, often in the same bloody sentence, because they don't have any
desire, or intent, to do a damn thing about a problem that almost
everyone, including them, when being honest, say **will be** the next
depression triggering financial crisis in this country.
They don't have plans, unless you imagine, "handing more control over to
the people already screwing us", (typical libertarian logic...) is a
"plan", and they don't think any plan that doesn't involve that is
sound, so they will lie about *everything* to defeat it, including their
own state's method of providing care. Imho, doing that sort of thing
should be grounds for firing, but apparently, in the US, its a lot damn
harder to vote "no confidence" and replace these people, and,
unfortunately, too many other morons fall for their bullshit to do it,
even if we could. To quote Olberman, to them, "You where elected to
serve the *people*." Not corporations.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> For something like this, you need "consistency".
Great. Pass an amendment. That's how it works. :-)
> Its not about bloody property taxes, its about one single, consistent,
> nation wide, way of securing the health, as much as possible, of *every*
> citizen, not just which ever states, cities, or non-corp owned plots of
> land, just happen to pass something that tries to fix the problem.
I understand that you *want* that. I want it too. But it's perfectly
reasonable for a state government to say "that's not your job, Uncle Sam."
> Its not about who does it.
Actually, yeah, it is. At least in *this* lawsuit.
Note that I'm not commenting on the appropriateness of health care reform
etc. I'm commenting on the fact that it's perfectly reasonable for states to
do something while complaining the feds should not be doing that.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling together,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/04/2010 4:32 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:46:30 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 30/03/2010 9:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>>> What Patrick said - Utah is one of 14 states that's suing the federal
>>> government for passing the healthcare legislation.
>>>
>>> This is the same state government that recently passed a law that
>>> essentially means that an expecting mother who is involved in an
>>> accident that causes the death of her unborn child can be held
>>> criminally responsible for the death of that unborn child. (This came
>>> about because of a case where an expectant mother essentially caused a
>>> miscarriage intentionally by causing an accident.)
>>>
>>>
>> Bloody Ada!
>
> Yeah, I know - both on the accusation (and if true, that should carry a
> stiff penalty IMHO) and on the extrapolation.
>
Not a lot to be said.
>>> It may be getting on towards time to get the hell out of this state.
>>>
>> Go for it!
>
> Probably another year before we can - Ken's still finishing up school,
> with luck will graduate in the spring (depends on his credit load).
>
Out of interest, do you qualify for a visa?
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 19:03:02 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> Out of interest, do you qualify for a visa?
In Scotland, it seems that we would - England is another matter, but
we've been looking into it for a couple years now.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/04/2010 8:45 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 19:03:02 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Out of interest, do you qualify for a visa?
>
> In Scotland, it seems that we would - England is another matter, but
> we've been looking into it for a couple years now.
>
> Jim
I didn’t realise that there were different criteria. I thought it was
all controlled by the UK Border Agency.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/1/2010 1:00 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> For something like this, you need "consistency".
>
> Great. Pass an amendment. That's how it works. :-)
>
>> Its not about bloody property taxes, its about one single, consistent,
>> nation wide, way of securing the health, as much as possible, of
>> *every* citizen, not just which ever states, cities, or non-corp owned
>> plots of land, just happen to pass something that tries to fix the
>> problem.
>
> I understand that you *want* that. I want it too. But it's perfectly
> reasonable for a state government to say "that's not your job, Uncle Sam."
>
>> Its not about who does it.
>
> Actually, yeah, it is. At least in *this* lawsuit.
>
> Note that I'm not commenting on the appropriateness of health care
> reform etc. I'm commenting on the fact that it's perfectly reasonable
> for states to do something while complaining the feds should not be
> doing that.
>
They are not even complaining that the "fed" is doing it. Their entire
complaint hinges on the claim that the fed can't "force" people to buy
it, by charging them more, if they don't. This is flat out wrong, based
on numerous case histories. The people apposed to the bill would love,
now that Dems have managed to do what they failed to, pass some other
version themselves, and they are not going to shoot themselves in the
foot by declaring federal health care *itself* as illegal. Do that and
you lose Medicare and Medicade too, since they are federal.
So, no, its "not" about how is doing this, unless you mean, "which party
are they in".
I'll repeat. The states are not complaining about the fed passing such a
bill, they are complaining about a specific detail in the bill that they
think is wrong, and, in a fit of unbelievable hypocrisy, the
representatives in those states that pushed for such a lawsuit, where
responsible for *getting* included in the first place. Its all about,
"We couldn't kill it, so now we will kill it another way." It hasn't a
damn thing to do with whether the fed passed such a thing, its about
Democrats doing it.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, that and the fact that man of the states are also suing over
things that are ***not even in the legislation***, just like the Tea
Partiers, whining about things it does, doesn't do, or says, which are
not in their either.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
