|
|
|
|
|
| | Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66Page 42 of 46 (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46) | Has the Supreme Court overturned the health care bill yet based on the fact it's unConstitutional? I wonder why. It's probably because the Costitution gives Congress the right to pass laws.
Do you guys see your hypocrisy when you would gladly impose your will on a woman's right to choose? Bush wanted to pass an Amendment establishing marriage as being between a man and a woman. You guys should quit cherry picking what you want to whine about as being a government infringement on your personal rights because you guys are just as guilty. Only difference is hating gays should be sinful and banning abortion can destroy lives of people who aren't fit to be parents. Health care is for the betterment of a society, which other societies already recognize, and your impositions are just hateful and harmful. | |
|
| Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/2/2010 3:42:10 PM |
You guys should quit cherry picking what you want to whine about as being a government infringement on your personal rights because you guys are just as guilty.
Not so. First, you're assuming that just because the Court hasn't decided any challenge to this health care law yet, it must not violate anything in the Constitution. But the Court doesn't reach out and take cases--it only decides whether to hear cases that are filed with it. And that may not happen for years after a law's enacted. The health care law might pass muster, or not--who knows?
There's a perfectly good reason to oppose Roe v. Wade and the Court's other abortion decisions: They invent a constitutional "right" the Constitution doesn't guarantee. No one needs to apologize for believing that Supreme Court Justices have no authority to rewrite the Constitution to suit their personal preferences. The claim that respecting and insisting on the rule of law is a sign of bigotry or an urge to oppress anyone doesn't deserve any response, except that it's a cheap, irrational insult. Someone could just as easily say that people who ignore the Constitution to get what they want hate liberty and like to dictate to everyone else.
It's probably because the Costitution gives Congress the right to pass laws
Yes--but not just *any* laws. Congress has no authority to pass any law which violates the Constitution. Neither does any state legislature, except where the law's at odds with one of the few parts of the Constitution (e.g. the 7th Amendment) that don't apply to the states. A law that authorized slavery, for example, would violate the 13th Amendment right on the face of it.
Health care is for the betterment of a society, which other societies already recognize, and your impositions are just hateful and harmful.
Euthanasia was all the rage among the philosophical ancestors of todays leftists, before the Nazis gave it a bad name and it was gradually replaced by abortion. (It lives on in the death panels this law would establish to decide people's fate.) The purpose of euthanasia, too, was the betterment of society, and for decades, lots of influential people in this country and in Europe sang its praises. So, I guess, it must also be hateful and harmful to oppose euthanizing people. | |
|
| Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/3/2010 6:54:18 AM | Virginia Lawsuit Against Health Care Reform Moves Ahead
A federal judge in Virginia said Monday he will allow the state to proceed with its legal challenge to President Obama's health care reform initiative, which passed in March after a long and contentious process.
The Department of Health and Human Services had asked the court to dismiss Virginia's lawsuit, but Judge Henry Hudson denied the motion. His decision means the White House will be forced to mount a lengthy legal defense of the health care overhaul, Reuters reported.
State Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli argued that the law's requirement that Virginians have health insurance violates the "commerce clause" of the Constitution. The judge found that Cuccinelli's argument was strong enough to allow the case to proceed to the process of discovery.
Cucinelli argues on his website that "buying health insurance can be said to be an act in commerce. However, if someone doesn't buy insurance, they are by definition not engaging in commerce. This legislation greatly oversteps the Commerce Clause."
The Virginia suit is one of at least a dozen trying to overturn the law intended to overhaul the nation's $2.5 trillion health care system.
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius minimized the importance of the judge's decision, calling it just a "procedural step," according to the Associated Press.
The ruling "just means there will be a full hearing on the arguments. We remain confident that the case is solid and there is full constitutional backing for the passing of the Affordable Care Act," she said. | |
|
| |
| Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/3/2010 9:34:56 AM |
A federal judge in Virginia said Monday he will allow the state to proceed with its legal challenge to President Obama's health care reform initiative,
I'm with Mark Levin on this one. I don't trust the courts to uphold the Constitution--it's too uncertain to rely on. That prostitute of a federal judge in Arizona is a good example. The only sure way to stop these things is through political means--by getting the people responsible out of government and then starting to undo the damage they've done. | |
|
| |
| Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/3/2010 10:24:13 AM |
Another Republican judge that will be pillaried for not ruling in your favor
I don't think the fact Judge Bolton supported McCain means a thing here. And it was Mr. Clinton who appointed her. I've seen all sorts of rulings I didn't agree with--that's hardly a shock. But in this case, the judge no sooner had recited the law which applies than she blithely ignored it. She doesn't deserve to sit on the federal bench--not because I disagree with the result of this preliminary injunction, but because she proved just how unprincipled she is. Whether the Ninth Circuit upholds this injunction on appeal depends on what three judges make up the panel which hears it. Or, all the judges on the Circuit might decide it, en banc.
If judges refuse to follow the law, and higher courts conspire with them to do the same thing, we're all in big trouble. It's true that any U.S. President can exercise some discretion in enforcing federal laws. But that doesn't mean they're free not only to ignore federal laws entirely, but also to prevent states from enforcing them. We don't have kings in America--or so we've always thought, at least. The Constitution also obligates every president to take care that the laws are faithfully enforced. Mr. Obama has made his contempt for this country and its Constitution clear in this matter, too. His only concern is giving millions of illegal aliens amnesty so they can vote for his welfare state. And he couldn't care less whether he violates the Constitution, permanently harms this country, abuses his power, or gets lots of innocent Arizonans injured or even killed by illegal alien kidnappers, smugglers, and murderers to do it. | |
|
| Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/3/2010 10:44:36 AM |
The claim that respecting and insisting on the rule of law is a sign of bigotry or an urge to oppress anyone doesn't deserve any response, except that it's a cheap, irrational insult.
Not necessarily. There have been plenty of precedents of people using a procedural interpretation to mask an elitist/racist agenda. After a century of Jim Crow and "separate but equal," we all have a right to be suspicious of the motives of those who claim a strict interpretation that might well violate the spirit of the Constitution--which was to guarantee the supremacy of individual rights over government powers and equal regard over prejudice (hence the Establishment clause, freedom of association, etc.)
To refuse to be accountable for one's motives is prima facie evidence that they are ulterior, and you know it. There is nothing insulting at all about being asked to account for your motives. And if you take it that way, others have a right to wonder what you're hiding from yourself as much as from them.
So, whenver take an action that has the effect of disenfranchising someone already in an already vulnerable position, you have an obligation to be accountable for your motives. It is not enough to say that you are just following the law. Lots of good Germans did that.
There are all sorts of ways to follow the law. And one way is to engage in the lawful means of changing laws that create disproportionate hardships. | |
|
| Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/3/2010 11:06:59 AM |
And it was Mr. Clinton who appointed her. I've seen all sorts of rulings I didn't agree with--that's hardly a shock.
Silly Clinton, I don't know why he tried so hard to be "bi-partisan" for all the grief that created for the country. Who saw a sensible Republican and took the word of a right-wing Senator that she was worthy so he appointed her. And no surpirsed that you wouldn't agree with her...she's sane.
If judges refuse to follow the law, and higher courts conspire with them to do the same thing, we're all in big trouble.
Indeed. A good thing that we can still expect even Republican judges to follow the law and adjudicate accordingly. | |
|
| Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/3/2010 11:47:09 AM | Hey thinking
The basis of the federal lawsuit against Az. 1070 was that they, the feds, have the final say on illegal imigration............
Fine, but they, the feds, also want to prosecute terrorists in civil court, thereby washing their hands of it..........
They can't have both, so which would you rather have?
Paul K | |
|
| Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/3/2010 11:59:36 AM |
Fine, but they, the feds, also want to prosecute terrorists in civil court, thereby washing their hands of it..........
Maybe you missed the part where it was civilian (vs. military) Federal Courts? | |
|
| Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/3/2010 12:24:05 PM |
we all have a right to be suspicious of the motives of those who claim a strict interpretation that might well violate the spirit of the Constitution
I don't know what the "spirit of the Constitution" is, except the kind of phrase that's used to justify ignoring what it says. Whole books have been written about the balance between the 14th Amendment and the states' inherent police powers. Same with whether the Court affected this balance by reading the Privileges or Immunities Clause--the most important one in the 14th Am.--out of existence in the "Slaughter-House Cases," only five years after it was ratified. So I'm not going to get into all that here. The only legitimate readings of the Constitution are the ones which reasonably interpret what its authors meant by their words. To do anything else is just to substitute your own views for what it says, which no one has authority to do.
To refuse to be accountable for one's motives is prima facie evidence that they are ulterior, and you know it.
Not only do I not know that, I couldn't disagree with it more. Unless there's very good reason to think a person has a bad motive for saying something, I like to limit my argument to what he's saying. That's what debating is all about. Accusing someone of bad faith arbitrarily, or citing it to attack his argument, is the equivalent of a low blow in the boxing ring. It's usually a good sign of someone who hasn't got much else to rely on. I've never asked anyone here to explain their motives for saying anything, and I'm not about to do that myself.
There are all sorts of ways to follow the law. And one way is to engage in the lawful means of changing laws that create disproportionate hardships.
Of course. And that's all well and good. If a state or federal law is creating some unfair hardship, a majority of the people within that law's jurisdiction can change or repeal it. That happens all the time. If most Alabamans believe disenfranchising their state's felons causes them an unfair hardship, the state legislature can change the law to give them the vote. And the men who wrote the Constitution devoted Article V to describing several procedures for amending it, when changed conditions require that.
But the very fact those procedures are provided underscores that judges have no authority to make de facto constitutional amendments in their decisions. When they do--and Roe v. Wade was just one especially flagrant example out of many--they are substituting what Hayek called the rule of man for the rule of law. And to do that is a lawless, arbitrary act which undermines the Constitution and public respect for both our laws and courts. The law of man--rule by whim--is what's at work in tyrannies, and free people can't afford ever to tolerate or excuse it. Many of them are doing just that now, and it is risking the freedom of us all.
I don't care how smart or learned any Supreme Court Justice is. The whole point of our system of self-government in a democratic republic is that individuals are corruptible and are never to be trusted with too much power. If anyone wants to think these aren't valid reasons for me or anyone else to be a conservative, they must also think they weren't valid reasons for designing this government the way the Constitution did. I support the same political philosophy as most of the Framers, for most of the same reasons. | |
|
| Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/3/2010 9:25:37 PM | ^^^^^^^Excelllent post, matchlight; thank you for it.
Ever notice everything you lefties use to justify your beliefs is about you and your needs? Do you notice excessive discussion of your *rights* and never a mention of your obligations?~GulfCoast~
That is because they do not think they have any obligations to our society. This is especially true among the most recent immigrants, almost all of who lean left.
Why yes, I agree. And that's because we only know enough to talk about our selves~.ThinkinginCA~
Or care enough.
vvvvvvv
I was listening to a psychiatrist today explaining that when he began practicing decades ago the primary patient symptom was excessive guilt. It is now excessive narcissism.~Gulfcoast~
How apropos a statement in this discussion.
Being an immigrant myself,~thinking in~
You should be more grateful for the country that has let you enter; contrary to your statement, no one forced your entry here. Immigrants use to honor our laws for that is the main reason they and you are here.
I am disappointed by the Asian, mostly pacific rim immigrants, who although seeking all America has to offer give very little back. I hardly ever see them in our armed forces for instance. Since we are in a state of war I believe all immigrants should serve a stint in the armed forces as part of their requirements for citizenship and that includes women as well.
If a state or federal law is creating some unfair hardship, a majority of the people within that law's jurisdiction can change or repeal it.
This health care bill is a good example of this; we should all be writing our congressmen and senators to start a repeal process of this unconstitutional “Health care law”. But, unfortunately our government no longer listens to the people. | |
|
| Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/3/2010 9:58:39 PM |
The only legitimate readings of the Constitution are the ones which reasonably interpret what its authors meant by their words. To do anything else is just to substitute your own views for what it says, which no one has authority to do.
Match you know your onions! The founders left behind writings that explain virtually everything in the constitution. If people were intellectually honest, there would be little to discuss as far as what the founders meant.
Jefferson himself said "On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823
It amazes me how right the anti federalists were in their foresight of what would happen over time. A good article is at http://mises.org/daily/2335
Read what anti federalist Yates said about the Supreme Court. "As a result, he (Yates) objected to the fact that its provisions justifying the removal of judges didn't include making rulings that went beyond their constitutional authority, which would lead to judicial tyranny. | |
|
| Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/3/2010 10:15:31 PM |
Or care enough.
You know this how?
You should be more grateful for the country that has let you enter; contrary to your statement, no one forced your entry here.
Meow....hiss, hiss.....should I also kowtow? To whom would like me to show my "appreciation"?
I am disappointed by the Asian, mostly pacific rim immigrants, who although seeking all America has to offer give very little back. I hardly ever see them in our armed forces for instance. Since we are in a state of war I believe all immigrants should serve a stint in the armed forces as part of their requirements for citizenship and that includes women as well.
Oh, I see. Lets put the colored folks out on the front line against their will...because that's not really racist. Oh my.
This health care bill is a good example of this; we should all be writing our congressmen and senators to start a repeal process of this unconstitutional “Health care law”.
Indeed you should! Get crackin'!!! | |
|
| Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/3/2010 11:43:31 PM |
So, whenver take an action that has the effect of disenfranchising someone already in an already vulnerable position, you have an obligation to be accountable for your motives. It is not enough to say that you are just following the law. Lots of good Germans did that.
I think you'll find that some of the Nazis tried at Nurmberg and elsewhere defended their crimes by claiming they had their orders--not by claiming they were following any law. In this country, no one's required to obey a clearly unconstitutional law. If you violate a law like that in good faith to test its constitutionality, that reason is a defense even if the court upholds the law. And if it doesn't, what you violated was never really a law.
Our Constitution doesn't authorize laws which do what you seem to be describing, which is something grossly unfair. If a state or federal law does that kind of thing to everyone for no good reason, it will probably violate the Constitution's guarantee of due process of law. If it just does it to a certain group of people for no good reason, it will probably violate the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
But that doesn't mean the Constitution guarantees everyone perfect fairness, or freedom from unpleasant consequences. It clearly authorizes a death penalty, for example--it just prohibits the government from depriving anyone of life without due process of law, for instance by executing them without a trial, or for some minor offense. That is just lynching.
The 13th Amendment specifically allows involuntary servitude as a punishment for crimes, too--that's the reason prisoners can be made to pick up trash along the roads, clear trails, fight fires, etc. And if someone with a very similar house near yours pays only a quarter of the property tax you do because they're covered under Prop. 13, that's just too bad. Don't even think about an equal protection suit. And I could give a lot more examples. The law's never completely fair to everyone, and it never can be--but as long as our laws respect our Constitution, they won't go too far wrong. | |
|
| Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/4/2010 12:06:36 AM |
Lets put the colored folks out on the front line against their will...because that's not really racist. Oh my.
This is a stupid statement. Our white American young men are on the front lines willingly. Why should the immigrant cowards not also fight for the country they so desperately want to adopt? There is a price for the freedoms we have here; unfortunately it is a high price and not all of it should be paid by the American born.
The racist card is dead, only bigots use this tired and tried refrain now.
Recent immigrants should be ashamed of themselves for the little reverence they show in helping to defend and maintain American freedoms; rather than only taking advantage of our generosity they should show their gratitude in being granted American citizenship by joining the armed forces.
And since most do not, we should make serving in the armed forces a requisite for American citizenship.
Meow....hiss, hiss.....should I also kowtow? To whom would like me to show my "appreciation"?
I think it is unfortunate and a bad day for America that most recent immigrants are of this mind set. I still remember the Ellis Island films of immigrants kissing American soil when they landed here. | |
|
| Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/4/2010 12:19:09 AM |
Recent immigrants should be ashamed of themselves for the little reverence they show in helping to defend and maintain American freedoms; rather than only taking advantage of our generosity they should show their gratitude in being granted American citizenship by joining the armed forces.
That's patently ridiculous. People that now travel and live in other countries should fight their wars while living in those countries? Wow. I missed that part of civic lesson. Thank goodness and not many people in this country is of mind that "newly arrived" immigrants have an obligation to serve in a war.
I think it is unfortunate and a bad day for America that most recent immigrants are of this mind set. I still remember the Ellis Island films of immigrants kissing American soil when they landed here.
I guess that could be because they've been cooped up on a ship with bunch of other people for a few months and glad to see land.....or maybe the place they left was really awful....whatever. But if you think it should be mandated that all immigrants have to enter the military service, maybe you should try selling it to the Tea Party...I'm sure that will be another issue they'll be happy to adopt. | |
|
| Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/4/2010 12:41:38 AM | A lot of people here in America have maxed out their race cards, and are over their limit, if there was such a thing. It's funny how we are a melting pot, but this big push to demonize whites is getting old. I think Aillis makes a valid point, I'm not sure about the military, because we don't need people there, who don't want to serve, but I do find it odd, people who come here, than just tear America down, and complain.
Nothing wrong with having a voice, but when you come here, no matter your nationality, I would think you would appreciate all of the sacrifice that all of those that came before you have made.
People that now travel and live in other countries should fight their wars while living in those countries?
That is what you are doing? traveling? I don't think travelers vote.
I guess that could be because they've been cooped up on a ship with bunch of other people for a few months and glad to see land.....or maybe the place they left was really awful....whatever. But if you think it should be mandated that all immigrants have to enter the military service, maybe you should try selling it to the Tea Party...I'm sure that will be another issue they'll be happy to adopt.
Do you even realize what your saying? These people know what they have, America means something to them, freedom and liberty is important to us, especially those who left countries that are part of this socialism that is trying to take over here. There are so many immigrants who are wondering what in the world are we doing? Why would we give up freedom and liberty for tyranny? | |
|
| Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/4/2010 12:45:59 AM |
A good thing that we can still expect even Republican judges to follow the law and adjudicate accordingly
I see you're pretending, once again, to know what you're talking about regarding SB 1070. You've never even read it and don't know the first thing about it, but someone who lacks the grace to acknowledge their ignorance of a subject isn't about to let little details like that get in the way. And so you prattle on, as vapidly as ever, about Judge Bolton's presumed judicial integrity and adherence to the law. Maybe the sterling quality of her legal reasoning was revealed to you in a trance, or by reading tea leaves.
Next, I expect you'll be telling us what a trustworthy, reasonable statesman Mr. Ahmedinejad is, while doubting the sanity of anyone who says otherwise. But please keep shooting yourself in the foot. It's been quite a while since we've watched anyone discredit themselves and their half-baked notions so thoroughly here. | |
|
| Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/4/2010 1:36:18 AM |
I think Aillis makes a valid point, I'm not sure about the military, because we don't need people there, who don't want to serve, but I do find it odd, people who come here, than just tear America down, and complain.
Well, you look at it how you want...I have very few complaints and plenty of opinions.
Either way, I'm out of this discussion, it's getting a little personal here for my taste. | |
|
| Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/4/2010 1:47:12 AM |
A good thing that we can still expect even Republican judges to follow the law and adjudicate accordingly~allthinkin~ I see you're pretending, once again, to know what you're talking about regarding SB 1070. You've never even read it and don't know the first thing about it, but someone who lacks the grace to acknowledge their ignorance of a subject isn't about to let little details like that get in the way. And so you prattle on, as vapidly as ever, about Judge Bolton's presumed judicial integrity and adherence to the law It's been quite a while since we've watched anyone discredit themselves and their half-baked notions so thoroughly here.~match light~
+1
People that now travel and live in other countries should fight their wars while living in those countries? Wow. I missed that part of civic lesson.
That statement, like others, makes no sense. Perhaps you missed more than civic lessons.
But if you think it should be mandated that all immigrants have to enter the military service, maybe you should try selling it to the Tea Party...I'm sure that will be another issue they'll be happy to adopt.
It is completely unnecessary for me to “sell” anything to anyone. It is a premise, immigrants should serve in the armed forces as requisite to citizenship, that many Americans want to see happen. Way too many immigrants just languish on welfare or turn to crime. A special armed forces section should be implemented.
I seriously doubt that you can be sure of anything the Tea Party want to do.
I'm not sure about the military, because we don't need people there, who don't want to serve,
Well, we had the draft in the Second World War and Vietnam, so why not now?
I realize how special an all volunteer force is, but still we need more troops and too many of these immigrants are of the, “I’m here for the goodies” mindset with no loyalty to America. Perhaps they would rethink applying for citizenship if they realized they had to be willing to risk as much as Americans do to live within our free society.
Edit: Think it was something I said scared off troll | |
|
| Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/4/2010 6:50:12 AM | In 2006 Article White House Science Czar Still Talks Population Reduction and a “Substantial Carbon Tax”
Jurriaan Maessen
August 2, 2010
As recently as 2006, White House science czar repeated his call for curbing human population for the sake of the environment and “substantial carbon taxes”.
In the article titled “The Energy Innovation imperative: Addressing Oil Dependence, Climate Change, and Other 21st Century Energy Challenges“, Holdren admits (among other things) that notions such as “notably improving health care, reproductive rights, and educational opportunities for women” are, although “attractive in their own right”, only measures by which reduced population growth can be achieved. In regards to population-issues Holden writes (page 15):
“Lower is better for many reasons. If world population were 8 billion in 2100 rather than the midrange UN forecast of about 10 billion, holding down the carbon emissions from the energy to make everybody prosperous would be that much easier. Fortunately, reduced population growth can be achieved by measures that are attractive in their own right (notably improving health care, reproductive rights, and educational opportunities for women).”
Holdren not only makes clear he isn’t satisfied by the UN-target of 10 billion by the year 2100 (he would prefer cutting that number by 2 billion), he readily admits that improving health, reproductive rights and educational opportunities for women are means to that end.
In the same year Holdren published his essay, professor of medical demography of the London school of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, John Cleland, admitted to- and rejected- the fact that the scientific and political communities use coded language when speaking of population control. Speaking in front of representatives of the UN Population fund, the International Planned Parenthood Foundation, European Commission, World Bank and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Cleland stated (page 33):
“No more shrouding our statements in code. Because code just confuses people.(…) It does this cause no service at all to continue to shroud family planning in the obfuscating phrase “sexual and reproductive health”. People don’t really know what it means. If we mean family planning or contraception, we must say it. If we are worried about population growth, we must say it. We must use proper, straightforward language. I am fed up with the political correctness that daren’t say the name population stabilization, hardly dares to mention family planning or contraception out of fear that somebody is going to get offended. It is pathetic!”
In the mid-seventies, the current White House science czar had no problem using straightforward language, no problem at all, when he argued for a wide range of measures to cut population size to an “acceptable” level. In the much-debated textbook Ecoscience, Holdren was not hindered by political correctness when he proposed a number of gruesome measures to lower worldwide fertility-levels:
“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”
In the 2006 article mentioned before, John Holdren also touched upon the possibility of a carbon-tax:
“Perhaps most importantly in the context of the character of energy challenges as elaborated in this article, companies are likely to continue to under-invest in developing and deploying low- and no-carbon energy options until there is a stronger marketplace incentive for such action, either in the form of a substantial carbon tax or its practical equivalent in the form of economy-wide emissions caps implemented through tradable permits.”
It’s becoming clear that the aim of reducing the world’s population was still firmly on John P. Holdren’s mind in 2006, just as it was in 1977 when he co-authored Ecoscience. What has changed is the language he chooses to use. | |
|
| Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/4/2010 9:50:31 AM |
That statement, like others, makes no sense. Perhaps you missed more than civic lessons.
Let me spell it out for you.....there are quite a few ex-pat Americans living abroad for whatever reasons (work, marriage, travel).....should they all be obligated to fight for the military of their host countries? Because you make it sound like they should.
Edit: Think it was something I said scared off troll
I see, the definition of a troll around here is anyone that disagrees with you. You do scare me with your enthusiam to volunteer other people to fight and die for your comfort. | |
|
| Healthcare...and sound reverent guidance at only $6.66
Posted: 8/4/2010 11:20:34 AM |
should they all be obligated to fight for the military of their host countries?
Some of them are happy to do it, as long as the enemy is the U.S. Anwar al-Awlaki was born in New Mexico. He mentored two of the 9/11 hijackers for a year and a half, first in San Diego, and then in Virginia. But when things got too hot after 9/11, he left to live in Yemen, where his family had come from.
He's continued to serve as one of Al Qaeda's best recruiters and propagandists. He gave his blessing, in a series of e-mails in December, 2008, to Dr. Nidal "Porky" Hasan's idea of taking up arms against his country. Satisfied by Awlaki that Allah was smiling on his plan to smite the Great Satan, this hero waited and brooded for several months--and then murdered thirteen unarmed people at Ft. Hood.
Mr. Obama has ordered Awlaki (and several other U.S. citizens associated with Al Qaeda) to be tracked down and killed. No questions. No trial. No nothing. But why should something as ridiculous as the U.S. Constitution stand in his way? Since when can't Our Emperor do whatever he pleases? | |
|
|
|
|
Page
42
of
46 (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46)
|
|
Home
login 
