The Best Reason Now To Be An Expat In Argentina...

[steveinbsas]

I am not surprrised that the same individuals who believe in Obamacae also believe in man caused climate change.

I don't mind the topic going in that direction. Whether you believe in man caused climate change or not, the President does not have the Constitutional power to implement Cap and Trade by executive order anymore than he has the Constitution authority to exempt some groups from the ACA ore delay the implementation of any of it's provisions. He has repeatedly said that it's the law of the land.

If it is, then he has no authority to change or selectively enforce it.

The government failed the people of the USA by "allowing" 9/11 to happen. Some believe it was deliberate, but I don't agree.

The ACA is much worse. It is deliberate.


It is going to kill a lot more people than those who died on flight 93.

Probably far more than the 45,000 per year.who were dying without insurance before implementation of the legislation.

 

[scotttswan]

I am not surprrised that the same individuals who believe in Obamacae also believe in man caused climate change.

yes all scientific climate groups believe in Obamacae.

Its part of the deal, you believe in man caused climate change you have to believe in Obamacae.

 

[ElQueso]

I understand every word and every sentence you have written above - but you'll have to explain what you mean.

Ben Stein makes an average politician look as honest as the day is long.

As for "intelligent Design", please explain how it fits into a scientific curriculum - that will be a first ever.

Edit: I am about as irreligious as is possible, don't believe in the Easter Bunny either.

"As for "intelligent Design", please explain how it fits into a scientific curriculum - that will be a first ever."
The answer lies in the hands of the revisionist morons in Texas that rewrite text books to exclude evolution and scientific method.

You guys missed my tongue-in-cheek tone

In no way do I agree that "Intelligent Design" has a place in school as a science course, and given that it is religious in nature, neither has it a place in any US school as a subject in and of itself (unless you are taking a comparative religion course or something, more likely at university) because of the Constitution (thank God! [tongue-in-cheek]).

What I was joking about was Mr. Stein makes a comment about what Obama's done in the country and someone disregards what he has to say about that because they don't like what he has to say about his other beliefs.

Meantime, everyone who bitches about the "Intelligent Designers" trying to push the limits of "Constitutionality" and support Obama and his obvious stretching of the meaning and intent of the Constitution take great umbrage when someone suggests that Obama is bad for trying to push his own agenda past constitutional constraints - because they believe in the same thing he does. There is more support of belief in God in the Constitution than there is support for belief in redistribution of wealth, but that doesn't seem to bother "the other side" a bit when espousing THEIR beliefs.

And as things go and have gone, apparently the great majority of the citizens (including politicians) profess to believe in the fatherly bearded gentleman in the sky and his alter ego of the subterranean lands but don't see that as anything that anyone should question OR criticize, related to anything else they may have to say on any other subject.

My whole point is that many believe in some things that others think are idiotic, perhaps, but it doesn't mean that everything that comes out of someone's mouth is tainted just because they believe (and push for) something else that many may think is idiotic.

As far as religion goes, I was raised a Presbyterian but gave up any belief in any kind of supreme being that gives a rat's ass about any of us when I was ten years old (I actually remember the moment of my revelation). Any spiritual bent I have is more Gnostic - I am god, you are god, we are all god. God is within.

Imagine how it must be for the supposed minority of us in the States who are quite irreligious, having to listen to politicians of all breeds spout their belief in God as a necessity to be elected...

And as for those "Morons" in Texas...I had three kids who graduated the school system in Texas. They were taught evolution, and were not taught creationism. Texas, just like every other State in the US (and country in the world) has backwards idiots. Those who "know" about Texas through media reports such as that don't realize that they are a very small minority in relation to the rest of Texas. It also doesn't mean that everything that spills from their mouths is idiocy because they want their kids taught creationism as well, no more than a goodly percentage of the rest of the population who think stupid things sometimes, but hopefully not in everything. Thinking that way and acting on it in political media, however, is a sure way to ensure there is no communication.

 

[camino no tomado]

Meantime, everyone who bitches about the "Intelligent Designers" trying to push the limits of "Constitutionality" and support Obama and his obvious stretching of the meaning and intent of the Constitution take great umbrage when someone suggests that Obama is bad for trying to push his own agenda past constitutional constraints - because they believe in the same thing he does.

Ok, this is a far more coherent argument. Sorry for not catching the intended sarcasm.

However, not being a Constitutional fetishist, my objection to ID has nothing to do with its incompatibility with the First Amendment and everything to do with the fact that it's a fraud. I take a similar evidence-based approach to the healthcare debate. Therefore, like the overwhelming majority of residents of nations with excellent single-payer systems, I can only shake my head at those who oppose reform in the US. Paying much more to achieve considerably less--for the sole purpose of maintaining ideological purity--seems sheer folly.

 

[ElQueso]

Ok, this is a far more coherent argument. Sorry for not catching the intended sarcasm.

However, not being a Constitutional fetishist, my objection to ID has nothing to do with its incompatibility with the First Amendment and everything to do with the fact that it's a fraud. I take a similar evidence-based approach to the healthcare debate. Therefore, like the overwhelming majority of residents of nations with excellent single-payer systems, I can only shake my head at those who oppose reform in the US. Paying much more to achieve considerably less--for the sole purpose of maintaining ideological purity--seems sheer folly.

Two things here.

First, being labeled a "Constitutional fetishist", to me, is like being labeled "non-believer in the laws that our Congress hands down" to others. Considering the fact that the Constitution is the single most important document in the US as related to constraint on government, creation of laws, and how the Republic runs, that's a bit of a problem for anyone who believes in that document and its uses. And notice, BTW, that most of my arguments against Obama and ACA and other things Obama has done are related to that very point.

I'm not a "Constitutional fetishist" any more than I am a scofflaw. I think a lot of people who look to the Constitution to defend individual rights are in the same boat.

Now, if we had no Constitution and someone brought up writings that people had written some 230+ years ago as an argument against doing something today, I'd have a problem supporting arguing on behalf of such a concept because it would have no basis in law. Every law or Executive order, or even regulation is BASED ON POWERS GRANTED IN THE CONSTITUTION. If it was not granted in the Constitution, the government doesn't have the power to enact it - the law that is in contra to the Constitution is an invalid law. Legally, the Supreme Court has final say in that, and given that the Supreme Court is at the top of one of three branches of the government which are supposed to act as checks against each other, I'd say the Constitution is a very important document.

It's all about one group of people not being able to force their desires on another group who doesn't want them. It should take a LOT of people, a "super" majority (more on that in a moment), to make such large, sweeping decisions.

Second, I don't believe that what the overwhelming majority of nations do in the world should necessarily drive what the US does. Last I checked, we are an independent nation. Last I checked, we were doing better with health care then than we are right this moment.

Whether you, personally, believe that we should be doing what other countries are doing is absolutely irrelevant when it comes to how laws are made in the US. I support 100% your right to believe that we should be doing as other countries are doing. You should support my right to believe 100% in what I believe. However, belief does make a law of the land.

There is a way, legally, to do exactly what Obama wants to do. Unfortunately, everyone thinks the Constitution is an outdated piece of paper, even though there is a way to update it to bring it up to the times. The only problem with that is that a "super" majority of the States is required to make a change and everyone on both sides know that there isn't that amount of support in the States as a whole to pass such an amendment.

What that says to me is - not enough people want what Obama is trying to shove down our throats and it is wrong to do so. The change is too big to enact as a law that doesn't even look at the Constitution, and does everything it can to get around it.

I'm sorry that a super majority of people in the States doesn't believe as you do, and I don't want your opinions as to how I should live and spend my money to be forced on me - the very reason for the Constitution to begin with. No fetish there.

AND BTW - I'm the last person in the US who thinks there should be no reform of the medical industry in the US. But we should work it out together, not one group forcing the others to do what they want. That causes a lot of problems and divisions, as we're seeing.

 

[jp]

They ignored his anti-white writings in his books.

Please explain.

 

[steveinbsas]

There is a way, legally, to do exactly what Obama wants to do. Unfortunately, everyone thinks the Constitution is an outdated piece of paper, even though there is a way to update it to bring it up to the times. The only problem with that is that a "super" majority of the States is required to make a change and everyone on both sides know that there isn't that amount of support in the States as a whole to pass such an amendment.

Thee are actually two ways to amend the Constitution.

Please read Mark Levin's book, "The Liberty Amendments."

Before it's too late.

You can lean more about it here:

http://www.marklevinshow.com/common/page.php?pt=Reserve+Your+Copy+of+The+Liberty+Amendments&id=4183&is_corp=0

His radio program is the only one I listen to on a daily basis...

 

[steveinbsas]

Please explain.

Please quote me in context and I will.

Did I actually write the sentence "They ignored his anti-white writings in his books."

Or was this in a link I provided or something I actually quoted?

I'm sure you understand the difference..and the difference that makes.

Others may not.

 

[scotttswan]

Thee are actually two ways to amend the Constitution.

Please read Mark Levin's book, "The Liberty Amendments."

Before it's too late.

You can lean more about it here:

http://www.marklevin...=4183&is_corp=0

His radio program is the only one I listen to on a daily basis...

Quickly Quickly before its too late!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7RIgs3eygo

 

[scotttswan]

Thee are actually two ways to amend the Constitution.

Please read Mark Levin's book, "The Liberty Amendments."

Before it's too late.

You can lean more about it here:

http://www.marklevin...=4183&is_corp=0

His radio program is the only one I listen to on a daily basis...

I decided to look up who Mark Levin is....

Levin began his broadcast career as a guest on conservative talk radio programs. For many years he was a frequent contributor of legal opinions to The Rush Limbaugh Show, where Limbaugh referred to him on-air as "F. Lee Levin," a tongue-in-cheek reference to the famous defense attorney F. Lee Bailey. He was also a contributor to The Sean Hannity Show

ahh... a crazy right wing nutcase who's friends with Sean "waterboarding is not torture" Hannity and Rush Limbaugh who is just a terrible terrible person.