A person this high up in government should have an autopsy to verify cause of death. Otherwise, it smells of a cover-up.
From what I understand, the wife said no to an autopsy. There're stories out there that Scalia was found in bed, his bed clothes unwrinkled, and a pillow over his head. He decided against security the night before so no one was around. Without the autopsy, those other items, even if only rumors, only fuel the conspiracy fires. Now if another justice mysteriously passes in the near future, then we might have a problem. Especially if that justice happens to be a conservative justice.
From what I understand, the wife said no to an autopsy. There're stories out there that Scalia was found in bed, his bed clothes unwrinkled, and a pillow over his head. He decided against security the night before so no one was around. Without the autopsy, those other items, even if only rumors, only fuel the conspiracy fires.
From what I understand, the wife said no to an autopsy. There're stories out there that Scalia was found in bed, his bed clothes unwrinkled, and a pillow over his head. He decided against security the night before so no one was around. Without the autopsy, those other items, even if only rumors, only fuel the conspiracy fires. Now if another justice mysteriously passes in the near future, then we might have a problem. Especially if that justice happens to be a conservative justice.
Did you look into taxes that you pay for utilities? You say they are needless. Bringing telephones and power to those without it... needless? This is the progress I talked about. Without government intervention, we would not be the great country that we are today. We would have "3rd world" areas within our own borders. That is not good for the country.
Government produces nothing. It taxes working Americans to not only pay for those who are not working, but to also pay for subsidies given to the huge corporations who lobby this same government to impose rules and regulations on anyone else who is a potential competitor. Have you read the recent story about the new EPA regs that are aimed at killing the automotive performance aftermarket (and by extension, our common Fiero hobby)? SEMA believes those rules were lobbied for by the automobile manufacturers - and I believe it.
Very little of those tax dollars you think are so valuable to the under-privileged actually make it to them. Most of those tax dollars are absorbed paying for federal employee positions (ie: administrative costs).
I don't have a problem with helping people in need. I do have a problem with robbing Peter to pay Paul; paying for people not to work (who are perfectly capable of working but choose not to); and using the government and regulations as a means of influencing commerce to benefit one over another (ie: picking and choosing winners).
quote
The Constitution doesn't say a lot of things. Doesn't say "Air Force"... but we have one.
It doesn't say Marine Corps either but it existed before this country declared independence from England. What's your point?
quote
How about those federal highways you drive on? You say we need those for commerce??? Regulating does not mean building roads, especially highways, but we have them. We should let each state develop their own road system, with no consistency, is that what you are saying?
I didn't say the answer was absolutely no regulation. What I did say is over-regulation is not a good thing either. Go anywhere in the world where the is an over abundance of regulation and you'll find a lower standard of living for the middle class on down.
quote
If you say it is for the defense of the country, well, so is health care, then. We need strong, healthy people to defend our country
On that same note, should we not then strive to make everyone as happy as possible so their mental health is good? How do you propose we please all the people all of the time?
quote
One could say that country-wide broadband is necessary for defense and commerce. Should the Feds build it?
The feds don't build or produce anything. They simply take money from tax revenue to fund anything they want built. Most (if not all) weapons aren't built by the feds. They are built by private industry paid for by tax revenue.
quote
Same for droughts and climate change.... should the feds attempt to "regulate" those?
The climate has changed and there have been floods and droughts long before the creation of the SUV and industry. How do you regulate mother nature?
Do we continue this insane policy of letting today's equivalent of snake oil salesmen drive and shape government regulations? Consensus is not proof. Computer models are not proof.
Do you actually believe if we removed money from the "climate change" debate there would be anyone left advocating man-made climate change? I think not. It has been and always will be about money.
quote
Founding fathers couldn't have imagined nuclear weapons, yet we have them, and we have defenses against them. This means the feds must up their game and play a larger roll in our government.
The constitution mandates that the Federal government provide for the defense of the people. I take that to mean: by any means necessary. If it means dropping two atomic bombs to end a war, then so be it.
quote
I don't believe in warrant-less wiretapping (are you attempting to label me?).
Not at all, I believe we both agree on this one topic. But this a prime example of government-overreach.
quote
I never said the government was efficient. It is what it is. Sometimes there is waste and fraud, just like any organization.
So what's your solution then? Just throw your arms up in the air and say "it is what it is"??? That's unacceptable to me.
If I go talk to my union friends, they always have an axe to grind with management. They always tell me there is too much management or management makes poor decisions. But yet, when I ask these same people about the Federal government, most have no problem with its ever-expanding role in everyone's daily life. I don't get it. How can you be against one and not the other when they are doing the same thing? It defies logic.
quote
Sometimes the government must step in and pay for things (major disasters, cleanups, etc).
No disagreement from me there. But the way they do it and the decisions behind if and when they will do it can stand to be improved greatly.
quote
Our country is great because we have a government that is by thesome people and for thesome people.
Fixed it for ya.
Again, the government should not be picking winners and losers - but they do, based on lobbying efforts and ideologies.
quote
As for Scilia, he interpreted what HE believed the founding fathers wanted, but you have to remember that the Constitution was not approved by a handful of people.... many, many were involved and ultimately approved it. Are you going to tell me that Scilia knew how those people thought, also? There was disagreement when writing the Constitution and not everyone had the same opinion. Scilia selected what HE believed was intended. Of course, people will agree with him because they are of the same mind-set. That is what makes our country great, though... different opinions and understandings that are focused around a central set of laws and rights. It is not perfect, but it has worked for quite some time and will continue to do so, even with all the chicken littles telling us the Constitution is falling
Whether something is perceived to be "working" or not is in the eye of the observer. That has been and always will be the case when it comes to anything politics.
The Constitution was written to limit government so we didn't have a repeat of what we fought over in the Revolutionary War.
Those that believe the Constitution is merely a "suggestion guide of how to run government" put us at the mercy of those who occupy office. That's because they believe what's written in the Constitution is up for debate and the meaning can be interpreted based on whatever the majority ruling party at the time says it is. (And nothing could be further from the truth.) We've recently seen activists within government agencies with no Congressional oversight do things that go against the majority of public opinion. We've even seen the Congress itself pass legislation that did not get a majority of public support. But those people who agree with what was done and what has been done don't have any problem with it. I'm sure they would if the shoe was on the other foot and things were being passed and done they don't agree with.
I look at the Constitution the same way Scalia did. The intent of its authors is there in plain language for everyone to see, if they would only open their eyes. But all too often, people let their politics and political ambitions influence what they see and read. Some want to read what is not there and others don't want to see what is there in black and white. And that's why we have problems.
[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 02-16-2016).]
Like myself? Historically, people have been wiping since it was written, but ignore that fact as it doesn't fit your agenda. How can so many people be wrong, yet so few (like yourself) be right? It can't. I have already shown that if the Constitution was taken literally, we would not have many of the things that make the US great (in another topic)... but you don't seem to have a problem with those things. Hmmm. I guess it only matters when you don't like a ruling.
You can circle your words all day if you want with these other guys. I'm not interested in your bullshit.
The constitution should be taken with the utmost seriousness on every issue. When you accuse me and others of having a problem with it only when it suits our "agenda" is Ludicrous . Our "Agenda" is to make sure it is followed and not "interpreted to its weakest possible meaning. Thee most ridiculously insane pro constitutionalist with the highest degrees in constitutional law should be supreme court judges.
There is a process for amendments. It should be the most serious thing on every citizens mind when the constitution is in flux do to changing needs and certain realities of our age and the coming ages.
Every single social endeavor paid for by American taxes should meet the harshest of critics. The most stringent concern while being openly weighed against our principles of freedom,individualism and the welfare of the country as a whole. The lack of general concern and indifference to government involvement in the lives of the majority of the public always leads to a bloated, overbearing, inefficient ,corrupt and out of control fascist state.
There is some confusion that people have some right to not accept consequences and that all problems should have a solution by creating a law and having the government enforce it.
You are in a good position according to your views because you will get what you are fighting for.
We should have a common goal always with the Constitutions integrity being the first priority regardless of your idea of what we need. You **** on and make amusement out of anyone that has a strong respect for the constitution with your discussion tactics. Using extremism points to shut the other person down is not learning,understanding,educating or furthering progress to strengthen our bonds as citizens. By default the only extreme leaning should be to protecting the constitution. It should be that hard to change it.
[This message has been edited by pokeyfiero (edited 02-16-2016).]
You can circle your words all day if you want with these other guys. I'm not interested in your bullshit.
The constitution should be taken with the utmost seriousness on every issue. When you accuse me and others of having a problem with it only when it suits our "agenda" is Ludicrous . Our "Agenda" is to make sure it is followed and not "interpreted to its weakest possible meaning. Thee most ridiculously insane pro constitutionalist with the highest degrees in constitutional law should be supreme court judges.
There is a process for amendments. It should be the most serious thing on every citizens mind when the constitution is in flux do to changing needs and certain realities of our age and the coming ages.
Every single social endeavor paid for by American taxes should meet the harshest of critics. The most stringent concern while being openly weighed against our principles of freedom,individualism and the welfare of the country as a whole. The lack of general concern and indifference to government involvement in the lives of the majority of the public always leads to a bloated, overbearing, inefficient ,corrupt and out of control fascist state.
There is some confusion that people have some right to not accept consequences and that all problems should have a solution by creating a law and having the government enforce it.
You are in a good position according to your views because you will get what you are fighting for.
We should have a common goal always with the Constitutions integrity being the first priority regardless of your idea of what we need. You **** on and make amusement out of anyone that has a strong respect for the constitution with your discussion tactics. Using extremism points to shut the other person down is not learning,understanding,educating or furthering progress to strengthen our bonds as citizens. By default the only extreme leaning should be to protecting the constitution. It should be that hard to change it.
I get your amendment stance. The supreme court gets faster results but they get it wrong sometimes. Citizens united (or corporations united) is an example.
Without government intervention, we would not be the great country that we are today. We would have "3rd world" areas within our own borders. That is not good for the country.
Do some research on Appalachia, and get back to us on 3rd world areas within our border. Or Detroit, even.
Do some research on Appalachia, and get back to us on 3rd world areas within our border. Or Detroit, even.
And with your interpretation, you these areas to spread... the US to be a 3rd world country. Interesting.... might as well hand the keys to the Russians.
We should have a common goal always with the Constitutions integrity being the first priority regardless of your idea of what we need. You **** on and make amusement out of anyone that has a strong respect for the constitution with your discussion tactics. Using extremism points to shut the other person down is not learning,understanding,educating or furthering progress to strengthen our bonds as citizens. By default the only extreme leaning should be to protecting the constitution. It should be that hard to change it.
You don't like what I have to say. Boo Hoo. I have a very strong respect for the Constitution but I don't believe in YOUR INTERPRETATION. (and that is exactly it, as you can NOT talk to the Constitution authors or those who ratified it)
I point out what we would have if we followed the Constitution literally. You call that "extreme"... well, yes, it is extreme, but it is also what you get with a literal interpretation. No Air Force, no Highways, limited telecommunications, etc... enjoy the 3rd world... that is what you would have.... and in truth, we wouldn't even be the US of A if we took the Constitution word for word. We would have fell apart in the Civil War, and WWII would have done us in. A nation divided does not stand. The Federal government would have been too weak to do anything to save this country.
Do you not drive on Federal Highways? Ever use a Vaccine with federally funded research? How about your beef, do you eat USDA inspected meat? Shame on you, if you do, as these are not in the Constitution. Or is it "do as I say, not as I do"?
Those that believe the Constitution is merely a "suggestion guide of how to run government" put us at the mercy of those who occupy office. That's because they believe what's written in the Constitution is up for debate and the meaning can be interpreted based on whatever the majority ruling party at the time says it is. (And nothing could be further from the truth.) We've recently seen activists within government agencies with no Congressional oversight do things that go against the majority of public opinion. We've even seen the Congress itself pass legislation that did not get a majority of public support. But those people who agree with what was done and what has been done don't have any problem with it. I'm sure they would if the shoe was on the other foot and things were being passed and done they don't agree with.
I look at the Constitution the same way Scalia did. The intent of its authors is there in plain language for everyone to see, if they would only open their eyes. But all too often, people let their politics and political ambitions influence what they see and read. Some want to read what is not there and others don't want to see what is there in black and white. And that's why we have problems.
No, the Constitution is not a guide, it is a document that lays out the government.
Congress can pass bills with or without majority support of the people. They are elected. If you don't like what they did, recall or replace. Just like ACA that was passed and approved. It happened, it is our government working through the system. Many (here) don't like it, but they are too lazy to do anything about it. They complain about the breach of the Constitution and such, but when it is something they want, they shut up and let it happen (patriot act, Iraq invasion, etc). I will agree with you there.
What was the intent of the authors? How do you know? What was written in books? Or the movie-of-the-week on TV? Are you a lawyer, who has studied the authors and the Constitution? I can read the Bible, but that doesn't make me the Pope. I can take any meaning I want out of it, and the same thing happens with the Constitution. That is why we have a SCOTUS. Of course, nothing is perfect, but it works and, really, the only reason we are talking about it is because Obama is in office. People don't like how he runs his office, yet what he is doing is legal and within the bounds of the Constitution. If not, then we have two other branches of government that are also corrupt. Do you believe that? If so, what will the people do? Rise up? Or will things just quietly die down if a Republican gets into the Oval office... which is most likely true.
Congress can pass bills with or without majority support of the people. They are elected. If you don't like what they did, recall or replace. Just like ACA that was passed and approved. It happened, it is our government working through the system. Many (here) don't like it, but they are too lazy to do anything about it.
Maybe they had to pass it in order to read it?
"The "end run" was something called "Deem And Pass". Technically, I suppose, it wasn't Obama who did this, but rather Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House. It's hard to believe that he wasn't involved in the process or the strategy - but as the Speaker, this was her doing.
The political process that is supposed to be followed is that the bill is passed in the House of Representatives, then goes to the Senate for a vote. if the Senate approves it, it goes to the President's desk for a signature. However, if any changes are made in the Senate, these changes have to go back to the House for another vote.
So the bill passed the House the first time around by one vote; and when it got to the Senate, they didn't have enough votes to pass it. Harry Reid set out to secure these votes by tucking a bunch of additional legislation into it - all little pieces of "pork" promised to opposing Senators for their home states in exchange for changing their votes.
The most famous of these was called "The Cornhusker Kickback", which was an outright bribe to Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Democrats guaranteed that the federal government would pay the full price of expanded Medicaid coverage in Nebraska, in exchange for his changing his vote and allowing the bill to pass the Senate.
There were other incidents of outright bribery involved in securing the votes in the Senate; Link here
However, changes to the bill then required that it go back to the House of Representatives - and Pelosi was not confident that she had enough votes on her side to pass the changes. She believed that some representatives may have changed their minds - and she didn't want to give them the opportunity to vote under those circumstances.
She used what many call a "procedural sleight of hand" called "Deem and Pass". Essentially, this means that instead of re-voting on the entire bill, she managed to bring only a handful of changes up for a vote - enabling them to presume that if the changes passed this time around, and the rest of the bill had passed the earlier time around, then they could "Deem" that the whole thing would have passed, and they could push it through without a full vote on the full bill.
Her stated reason was that it would 'politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure"
Get that? A $1.7 trillion law that will fundamentally change, and likely cause irreparable damage to our economy and our healthcare system, was pushed into being for the political expediency and protection of Representatives.
Put another way, Pelosi would not accept that members of her House of Representatives would vote against the bill because they opposed it - only because it might damage them politically if they voted for it - so she was saving them from this political embarrassment by assuming their "yes" vote, and deeming that the bill would have passed if it had come to a vote. " answers@yahoo
And yet, she is still in office. We have a process to remove her. People seem to completely ignore this fact. WE THE PEOPLE have the power to change things. People blame Obama for ACA, but it was Congress who approved. These are the people elected to represent us and if they don't, then we have the power to change. Well, corporations have the power to change
quote
Originally posted by 2.5:
Maybe they had to pass it in order to read it?
"The "end run" was something called "Deem And Pass". Technically, I suppose, it wasn't Obama who did this, but rather Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House. It's hard to believe that he wasn't involved in the process or the strategy - but as the Speaker, this was her doing.
The political process that is supposed to be followed is that the bill is passed in the House of Representatives, then goes to the Senate for a vote. if the Senate approves it, it goes to the President's desk for a signature. However, if any changes are made in the Senate, these changes have to go back to the House for another vote.
So the bill passed the House the first time around by one vote; and when it got to the Senate, they didn't have enough votes to pass it. Harry Reid set out to secure these votes by tucking a bunch of additional legislation into it - all little pieces of "pork" promised to opposing Senators for their home states in exchange for changing their votes.
The most famous of these was called "The Cornhusker Kickback", which was an outright bribe to Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Democrats guaranteed that the federal government would pay the full price of expanded Medicaid coverage in Nebraska, in exchange for his changing his vote and allowing the bill to pass the Senate.
There were other incidents of outright bribery involved in securing the votes in the Senate; Link here
However, changes to the bill then required that it go back to the House of Representatives - and Pelosi was not confident that she had enough votes on her side to pass the changes. She believed that some representatives may have changed their minds - and she didn't want to give them the opportunity to vote under those circumstances.
She used what many call a "procedural sleight of hand" called "Deem and Pass". Essentially, this means that instead of re-voting on the entire bill, she managed to bring only a handful of changes up for a vote - enabling them to presume that if the changes passed this time around, and the rest of the bill had passed the earlier time around, then they could "Deem" that the whole thing would have passed, and they could push it through without a full vote on the full bill.
Her stated reason was that it would 'politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure"
Get that? A $1.7 trillion law that will fundamentally change, and likely cause irreparable damage to our economy and our healthcare system, was pushed into being for the political expediency and protection of Representatives.
Put another way, Pelosi would not accept that members of her House of Representatives would vote against the bill because they opposed it - only because it might damage them politically if they voted for it - so she was saving them from this political embarrassment by assuming their "yes" vote, and deeming that the bill would have passed if it had come to a vote. " answers@yahoo
What was the intent of the authors? How do you know? .. Are you a lawyer, who has studied the authors and the Constitution? I can read the Bible, but that doesn't make me the Pope. I can take any meaning I want out of it, and the same thing happens with the Constitution.
Sounds like the same age old excuse, "Did he really say...?" I dont plan to give up my understanding to a Pope or a King.
And yet, she is still in office. We have a process to remove her. People seem to completely ignore this fact. WE THE PEOPLE have the power to change things. People blame Obama for ACA, but it was Congress who approved. These are the people elected to represent us and if they don't, then we have the power to change. Well, corporations have the power to change
Sadly many are more happy to be playcated with free stuff.
Sadly many are more happy to be playcated with free stuff.
Nothing new, historically, very true. Tax breaks for wealthy, and for corporations, government contracts, etc. It isn't just recently that free stuff has been handed out. That is the fraud within our government and it won't go away anytime soon.
"the machine" keeps people like Nancy in office... money talks.
[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 02-17-2016).]
Nothing new, historically, very true. Tax breaks for wealthy, and for corporations, government contracts, etc. It isn't just recently that free stuff has been handed out. That is the fraud within our government and it won't go away anytime soon.
"the machine" keeps people like Nancy in office... money talks.
Yeah. Bribing should be illegal, all they gotta do is bribe the law so it isnt. -
You know though Jaski sometimes it seems like you post arguments contrary to your arguments.
Yeah. Bribing should be illegal, all they gotta do is bribe the law so it isnt. -
You know though Jaski sometimes it seems like you post arguments contrary to your arguments.
My view is not black/white. That is the problem with some here... they want to pin a label on people.
In this case, we have a law, if people don't like it, then they have the power to vote in change. It doesn't happen, so they whine about POTUS and think that somehow this type of situation never happened before and we must act now or all is lost.
With Scalia's death, our government will work through the process to replace him.... like it or not, Obama has that power and should use it, as it is his duty as president. It is up to Congress to approve or not. Nothing to argue about, nothing to think the world is ending.... this has happened before and will happen in the future.
Originally posted by jaskispyder: My view is not black/white. That is the problem with some here... they want to pin a label on people.
In this case, we have a law, if people don't like it, then they have the power to vote in change. It doesn't happen, so they whine about POTUS and think that somehow this type of situation never happened before and we must act now or all is lost.
With Scalia's death, our government will work through the process to replace him.... like it or not, Obama has that power and should use it, as it is his duty as president. It is up to Congress to approve or not. Nothing to argue about, nothing to think the world is ending.... this has happened before and will happen in the future.
Well yeah all the while doing it corruptly and paying folks off, working aroud the process. Thats the issue.
Well yeah all the while doing it corruptly and paying folks off, working aroud the process. Thats the issue.
Vote her out, take her to court... recall her.... lots of options and talking about it does nothing. What have you done to fix this (if you don't like it)? I will ask that of anyone who complains about it. The answer is "nothing".... "I can't change it"... blah blah...
We have the power to make changes, but most elect to sit on their butt, and do nothing, except to watch Fox News and read "obamaissatannews.com"
My view is not black/white. That is the problem with some here... they want to pin a label on people.
.
quote
Originally posted by newf:
I'm glad others see it. I figure it makes it easier for some to compartmentalize things in their heads. Less of that yucky thinking.
You are doing what is the exact same thing you complain is happening. Writing them off. Claiming people are thinking in black and white, and that they are only labeling people. Its pigeion holing folks to make it easier to argue against them, the problem usually is you end up arguing against no one, yourself, or straw people.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 02-17-2016).]
You are doing what is the exact same thing you complain is happening. Writing them off. Claiming people are thinking in black and white, and that they are only labeling people. Its pigeion holing folks to make it easier to argue against them, the problem usually is you end up arguing against no one, yourself, or straw people.
who are you talking to?
There are people, here, that believe things are B/W.... they want to label me as a liberal because I don't agree with them and in their mind they can only see their view and the rest are "liberals". They have very narrow-minded views and will only accept what they believe is correct and not look at other "reasonable" sources or information. For example, some people ONLY get their news from Fox News and they think the rest of the media is biased. Hello... Fox News is biased. Of course, I will joke about Fox News, but you have to look at the source, the reporting and the subject. Fox News has a agenda and an audience, just like other news sources. This is where I will look at various sources (including Fox News) and the CONTENT (Important part) and pull upon that. There are "fringe" websites that claim they are providing "true news".... but they are feeding the beast. People will quote them as real news, as if real journalism happened. These are basically opinion blog sites, with little in the way of fact checking and research. The internet has brought out a whole new crop of "tabloids".
Back to Scilia... no autopsy. Anyone concerned or just accept his death because of the people involved and who said what?
[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 02-17-2016).]
So, no autopsy..... Americans should be demanding it!
<sarcasm>
Absolutely! Mrs Scalia should have no say whatsoever in the after-death treatment of her own husband. The will of the people conspiracy theorists must be abided!
Death of a member of the highest court in the US..... no concern to anyone. Interesting, but not surprising, anymore.
I figured he died from a night of wild sex, drugs and rock n roll!
quote
Originally posted by Blacktree:
<sarcasm>
Absolutely! Mrs Scalia should have no say whatsoever in the after-death treatment of her own husband. The will of the people conspiracy theorists must be abided!
You are doing what is the exact same thing you complain is happening. Writing them off. Claiming people are thinking in black and white, and that they are only labeling people. Its pigeion holing folks to make it easier to argue against them, the problem usually is you end up arguing against no one, yourself, or straw people.
I would dispute that somewhat...I try ask questions and listen for the most part. Sometimes I have a different view but I try to be open to differing opinions changing my position on a subject if it comes from an informed and accurate view.
You will of course show me where I have pigeon holed others?
You will of course show me where I have pigeon holed others?
It seemed like you agreed with Jaskis post.
I see it as similar to compartmentalizing things/people in ones head to make it easier to think/not think. Labeling, pigeion holeing, claiming people are thinking in black and white, and that they are only labeling you.
