1 - 9
In response to:

Obamacare Battle Takes Bizarre Turn

Gekkobear Wrote: Jul 23, 2013 11:01 AM
'First, Republicans introduced a bill that would write into law what the president had already done by fiat -- that is, delay the employer mandate a year. That seemed unnecessary, and a little mischievous' Right, the President had already used his power to unilaterally change written law, as any President can do. He doesn't need Congress to change the law; he already did. Everyone knows the President can change the text of any law at any time to say whatever he wants it to say with no checks, balances, or oversight... right? It's unnecessary for Congress to be involved in changing laws; just have the President use his unlimited power to change all laws at a whim. VIVA EL PRESIDENTE! Oh, the President doesn't have the power to change written law on a whim? The written law says the employer mandate starts Jan 1 2014... there is no "unless the Executive Branch wants to delay it" provision. Why is breaking the law on a whim good, and "mischievous" to have Congress rewrite the law for required changes? And when did President come to mean Emperor whose whim is law?
Hey, once we remove all crime we won't need police... wait, i got that order wrong didn't I? We should get rid of all guns now, and teach people to remove rape... later. That was her argument. So we should get rid of all police now; so we can train people not to commit crimes... later. Sorry, I wasn't following the proper "logical" flow of her argument at first. Lets fire all police and close all the police departments; we won't need them because we'll teach everyone not to commit any crimes.
"Democrats want the right, just like in the area of abortion and rape, to publicly state their position. " So... they can't open their mouths themselves? The media is blacklisting liberals now? If that was what they wanted they could have had it before now.
"Conservatives seem to write into the constitution and its provisions any right that they seem to think the government shouldn't infringe upon. " Um... yeah. We do. Those are the 9th and 10th amendments actually. I'm sorry you didn't get that far, let me help you. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Government shouldn't infringe on ANYTHING unless it's in the Constitution. Too bad your Constitutional law education didn't cover READING the Constitution. Try again.
Wait even better. MAKE THEFT ILLEGAL. Since laws will prevent CRIMINALS from certain actions, make it illegal to STEAL a gun. Problem solved. Oh wait, that is illegal? Then why didn't it work? THAT is your plan, why didn't it already work?
And how do you "balance" it? More "gun free zones"? Like the one where this shooting was... will that help? Restrict guns from anyone who might in any way ever be connected to anyone who could be mentally ill so they can't steal your gun? Right, that actually would have helped, but the 7 degrees of separation from a looney equals a full gun ban. The one thing you will NEVER support it LETTING PEOPLE DEFEND THEMSELVES. When seconds count the police are minutes away, and YOU'RE HAPPY WITH THAT. ... That's why conservatives will never trust liberals. You think criminals will follow your new laws, and that police in 10 minutes is good enough when you're threatened.
So we should starve the active kids so that the inactive kids aren't fed too many calories? Good plan, reward the kids doing what you want to prevent, and force any kids doing the right thing to suffer needlessly. Only by punishing the activity we want can we get more of it... because everyone is a masochist w\ho will seek activity that they are punished for... Oh, everyone isn't a masochist? You don't punish kids for the activity you want? Could you let the Federal Government know about that?
Horse excrment http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/13/president-obama-signs-healthy-hunger-free-kids-act-2010-law "Gives USDA the authority to set nutritional standards for all foods regularly sold in schools during the school day, including vending machines, the “a la carte” lunch lines, and school stores." From the White House Fact Sheet on the law signed in 2010 giving the Federal Government control to set school lunches. But I'm sure the Administration is wrong about what they signed into law; would you care to post a link showing that the White House Fact Sheet is incorrect?
So "one size fits all" dietary policies don't work for everyone? Government programs have unintended consequences and cause problems nobody considered? Federal Government Bureaucracy isn't quick and nimble to deal with problems and issues? I don't believe it... certainly nobody could possibly have predicted any of this. At least not anyone born less than 2 minutes ago. Oh, you're more than 2 minutes old? Then yes, this isn't really a surprise.
1 - 9