1journeyman
Active Member
Activist judges are definitely a scourge on society.
Please don't vote for McCain
- Thread starter crimzy
- Start date
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2506491
Richard Nixon - (Sammy Hagar -- I can't drive 55) Commerce Clause
Scary the amount of laws created under the interstate commerce clause.
http:///forum/post/2506491
Richard Nixon - (Sammy Hagar -- I can't drive 55) Commerce Clause
Scary the amount of laws created under the interstate commerce clause.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by mie
http:///forum/post/2506883
Again, I'm for judges enforcing the Constitution. Roe vs. Wade is Unconstitutional. The Feds stepped in and took rights away from the States. Something the Constitution prohibits (See the 10th Amendment). Last time I check that was the President's postition as well. Abortion should be decided on the State level.
Are we not called the "UNITED SATES"?
Roe v. Wade is not unconstitutional because the Supreme Court decided that. Supreme court decisions carry the weight of constitutionality unless a amendment to the constitution changes that or the court at some point reverses itself.
Specifically on roe v wade I would like to see it handed back to the states. I am not in favor of banning abortions but I see nothing in the constitution prohibiting the regulation of the medical field. If the government can prevent a drug in use in other countries being prescribed here, or say a person can't ask a doctor to help them end their life, even if suffering from a terminal illness how in the world can you argue it has no right to regulate abortions?
http:///forum/post/2506883
Again, I'm for judges enforcing the Constitution. Roe vs. Wade is Unconstitutional. The Feds stepped in and took rights away from the States. Something the Constitution prohibits (See the 10th Amendment). Last time I check that was the President's postition as well. Abortion should be decided on the State level.
Are we not called the "UNITED SATES"?
Roe v. Wade is not unconstitutional because the Supreme Court decided that. Supreme court decisions carry the weight of constitutionality unless a amendment to the constitution changes that or the court at some point reverses itself.
Specifically on roe v wade I would like to see it handed back to the states. I am not in favor of banning abortions but I see nothing in the constitution prohibiting the regulation of the medical field. If the government can prevent a drug in use in other countries being prescribed here, or say a person can't ask a doctor to help them end their life, even if suffering from a terminal illness how in the world can you argue it has no right to regulate abortions?
mfp1016
Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2506739
Grape or cherry?
Reagan got rid of a couple of write offs? Oh, tragedy... considering how much he lowered taxes, lowered inflation, and started an economy that boomed for 20 years...
Gas prices- Have you ever seen the demand for a barrel of oil so high in your life? That's right... simple concept of supply and demand, amid speculators in the market....
How many millions in taxes will those Oil Companies pay for those record profits? You do know how regulated and how taxed the oil industry is, right?
Anyway... let's address your comment that I put in bold. First, so you read People magazine and the had a list you read? Great. I walked on the USS Lexington and read the list of names of military crewmen that died on that ship. Do you understand what kind of horrible casualty numbers we took in WWI and WWII? Do you realize that the Axis powers came to be such military machines because political leaders in the 30's kept looking the other way as Germany and Japan broke international "law" and former treaties they had signed. Appreasement does not work.
You bash Republicans for wanting to declare war on anybody. In addition to goofy, would you rather we do nothing like Clinton? Let's not forget, he too tried appeasement.... Rather leave world security in the hands of the UN? Look at Africa today for their track record. Rather the UN handle wars? Look to the Korean War for their stellar performance.
Now, as for Iraq: Taken from a Pentagon briefing last month..
Oil bashers also like to forget the $200 million to $1 billion/plant in up keep per year.
Its also funny that without oil revenue those companies would have never invested in the flailing alternative energies people love today.
http:///forum/post/2506739
Grape or cherry?
Reagan got rid of a couple of write offs? Oh, tragedy... considering how much he lowered taxes, lowered inflation, and started an economy that boomed for 20 years...
Gas prices- Have you ever seen the demand for a barrel of oil so high in your life? That's right... simple concept of supply and demand, amid speculators in the market....
How many millions in taxes will those Oil Companies pay for those record profits? You do know how regulated and how taxed the oil industry is, right?
Anyway... let's address your comment that I put in bold. First, so you read People magazine and the had a list you read? Great. I walked on the USS Lexington and read the list of names of military crewmen that died on that ship. Do you understand what kind of horrible casualty numbers we took in WWI and WWII? Do you realize that the Axis powers came to be such military machines because political leaders in the 30's kept looking the other way as Germany and Japan broke international "law" and former treaties they had signed. Appreasement does not work.
You bash Republicans for wanting to declare war on anybody. In addition to goofy, would you rather we do nothing like Clinton? Let's not forget, he too tried appeasement.... Rather leave world security in the hands of the UN? Look at Africa today for their track record. Rather the UN handle wars? Look to the Korean War for their stellar performance.
Now, as for Iraq: Taken from a Pentagon briefing last month..
Oil bashers also like to forget the $200 million to $1 billion/plant in up keep per year.
Its also funny that without oil revenue those companies would have never invested in the flailing alternative energies people love today.
reefraff
Active Member
People sniveling about the oil companies profit amuse me. What is the biggest corporation in the world? Wouldn't the biggest corporation be expected to have the highest profit?
A more important measure is to look at the profit margins. A lot of companies make better profits than the oil companies. I own stock in like 30 companies and the few oil and gas company stocks I've had haven't performed nearly as well as others. Better than than some but hardly the cash cow the propaganda would lead you to believe.
A more important measure is to look at the profit margins. A lot of companies make better profits than the oil companies. I own stock in like 30 companies and the few oil and gas company stocks I've had haven't performed nearly as well as others. Better than than some but hardly the cash cow the propaganda would lead you to believe.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2507119
Scary the amount of laws created under the interstate commerce clause.
No lie...
http:///forum/post/2507119
Scary the amount of laws created under the interstate commerce clause.
No lie...
bdhutier
Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2506440
You and I have been effected by the uninsured Americans. One (of many) reason why our employer plans have cost us more and put a burden on business. For one, the losses at Hospitals for treating uninsured has shifted the cost to the insured. So we are already paying for it indirectly.
I'm not so sure about this... The health system I worked for received recoupment funding from the government (Fed HHS through Texas DSHS, I believe) to make up for uninsured pts. I'm not sure they received as much as they would from private insurance companies, but I'd imagine it was near the medicare/medicaid/tricare amounts. I believe the highest cost of health care begins in the courtroom. The actual and potential cost of litigation, such as malpractice and equipment liability, is pushing costs through the roof.
Take drugs, for instance... The drug companies are forced to spend billions in additional research and trials of a drug before it's approved, therefore it's expensive. The physician must carry a hoop of malpractice insurance in the event you experience an adverse result and sue, so his fees are higher. The insurance company has to cover much of the cost of the medication, so to maintain a profit margin (it is a business, not a charity) you take on a higher co-pay. It goes on and on... BUT, it all starts with legitimate business interests who are forced to pay exorbitant amounts to protect themselves from litigation.
oscardeuce
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2507165
People sniveling about the oil companies profit amuse me. What is the biggest corporation in the world? Wouldn't the biggest corporation be expected to have the highest profit?
A more important measure is to look at the profit margins. A lot of companies make better profits than the oil companies. I own stock in like 30 companies and the few oil and gas company stocks I've had haven't performed nearly as well as others. Better than than some but hardly the cash cow the propaganda would lead you to believe.
The Gov't gets about 30-55 cents on the dollar in taxes, oil companies about 9 cents, the dealer 2-3 cents. Now, who is making the profit? Who is taking the risk?
http:///forum/post/2507165
People sniveling about the oil companies profit amuse me. What is the biggest corporation in the world? Wouldn't the biggest corporation be expected to have the highest profit?
A more important measure is to look at the profit margins. A lot of companies make better profits than the oil companies. I own stock in like 30 companies and the few oil and gas company stocks I've had haven't performed nearly as well as others. Better than than some but hardly the cash cow the propaganda would lead you to believe.
The Gov't gets about 30-55 cents on the dollar in taxes, oil companies about 9 cents, the dealer 2-3 cents. Now, who is making the profit? Who is taking the risk?
oscardeuce
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2506470
Really we need two things to happen.
First Term limits for members of Congress. It was originally intended that congress would be made up of the butcher, the Baker and the candle stick maker who would serve a term or two then go back to the real world and let the next wave come and serve. The Senate was to be the place where the professionals would serve and work with the congressmen to make things happen. Unfortunatly the politicians are never going to create a constitutional amendment to limit their stay on easy street or we the people.
Second is some rich ol fart needs to start filing lawsuits to enforce the 10th amendment. One of the reasons the federal government is so bloated is the 10th amendment has been ignored and the feds have taken on responsibilities better left to the states.
Right on! The Senate was originally there to represent the State, and not the people. We went and screwed that up when we ammended the Constitution to change the Sentate to a popular vote format.
http:///forum/post/2506470
Really we need two things to happen.
First Term limits for members of Congress. It was originally intended that congress would be made up of the butcher, the Baker and the candle stick maker who would serve a term or two then go back to the real world and let the next wave come and serve. The Senate was to be the place where the professionals would serve and work with the congressmen to make things happen. Unfortunatly the politicians are never going to create a constitutional amendment to limit their stay on easy street or we the people.
Second is some rich ol fart needs to start filing lawsuits to enforce the 10th amendment. One of the reasons the federal government is so bloated is the 10th amendment has been ignored and the feds have taken on responsibilities better left to the states.
Right on! The Senate was originally there to represent the State, and not the people. We went and screwed that up when we ammended the Constitution to change the Sentate to a popular vote format.
zman1
Active Member
Originally Posted by bdhutier
http:///forum/post/2507276
Take drugs, for instance... The drug companies are forced to spend billions in additional research and trials of a drug before it's approved, therefore it's expensive.
Only for the U.S. otherwise, they can and do sell the drugs at a reduced rate to other countries. I say let all consumers pay for R&D regardless of their country. Isn't this why you hear support to allow us to buy drugs from Canada. Correct me if what I am about to say is wrong - Dosen't McCain support this as well.
I was once too on a family government sponsored healthcare program, though only 4 years and the private sector ever since....
oscardeuce
Active Member
In the US, drug companies spend billions on drugs to test them in at least 3 phases. Even if these test go perfect, the first death attributed to a adverse reaction in the 100 millionth pathient costs them more millions ( thanks trial lawyers). Some of these adverse reactions may take years to show up despite testing and years of use.
Then after a drug is realeased and they find the problem,the drug is removed. Some other drugs are killing people, but the overall benefit of the drug well outweighs the risk. The drug is left in use and we treat the adverse effect as it happens. ACE inhibitors and angioedema is a classic example. A few people have died from this drug, but millions have longer lives. Still the trial lawyers look to nail the drug companies that make the drug, the
[hr]
dispensing the drug and the physician prescribing the drug.
So you wonder why the wonder drugs are so expensive? R+D, testing and FDA approval, and trial lawyers run the costs up.
Then after a drug is realeased and they find the problem,the drug is removed. Some other drugs are killing people, but the overall benefit of the drug well outweighs the risk. The drug is left in use and we treat the adverse effect as it happens. ACE inhibitors and angioedema is a classic example. A few people have died from this drug, but millions have longer lives. Still the trial lawyers look to nail the drug companies that make the drug, the
[hr]
dispensing the drug and the physician prescribing the drug.
So you wonder why the wonder drugs are so expensive? R+D, testing and FDA approval, and trial lawyers run the costs up.
zman1
Active Member
I have seen so many comments on here how democrats are just to the right of France. McCain isn't to the right, he's on France. Don't vote for McCain if he believes the French need a boost in their economy for our national defense contract dollars. Out-source defense
.....
Boeing supporters in Congress are directing their wrath at McCain, the Arizona senator and nominee in waiting, for scuttling an earlier deal that would have let Boeing build the next generation of Air Force refueling tankers. Boeing now will miss out on a deal that it says would have supported 44,000 new and existing jobs at the company and suppliers in 40 states.
The McCain deal - EADS (France) and Northrop say about 60 percent of their tanker will be built in the U.S
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080308/..._force_tankers
Boeing supporters in Congress are directing their wrath at McCain, the Arizona senator and nominee in waiting, for scuttling an earlier deal that would have let Boeing build the next generation of Air Force refueling tankers. Boeing now will miss out on a deal that it says would have supported 44,000 new and existing jobs at the company and suppliers in 40 states.
The McCain deal - EADS (France) and Northrop say about 60 percent of their tanker will be built in the U.S
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080308/..._force_tankers
reefraff
Active Member
Quite frankly part of me is loving this after seeing the flat out bigotry shown by Seattle area politicians and residents towards NASCAR fans and drivers when they were looking at building a track in the area. I was offended by the snoby, ignorant attitude they had over it.
As I said before I think they need to see if the lower bid really provides a net cost savings seeing as how part of the jobs will be moved overseas.
All that being said I will now demonstrat the hypocrocy of the left using the story you linked to Zman.
"McCain said he is keeping an open mind on the contract, but in the past he has boasted about his role in blocking an earlier version of the tanker deal that gave the contract to Boeing. The deal was killed in 2004 after a former Boeing executive improperly recruited an Air Force official while she was still overseeing contracts involving prospective Boeing deals. The former Air Force official, Darleen Druyun, and a top Boeing executive both served time in prison, and the scandal led to the departure of Boeing's chief executive and several top Air Force officials.
McCain has run ads touting his role in fighting "pork" such as the tanker project and cited the deal in a recent GOP debate.
"I saved the taxpayers $6 billion in a bogus tanker deal," he said.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., echoing the thoughts of many congressional Democrats, sees McCain's role in a less positive light. She said the earlier tanker deal was "on course for Boeing" before McCain started railing against it.
"I mean, the thought was that it would be a domestic supplier for it," Pelosi told reporters. "Senator McCain intervened, and now we have a situation where the contract may be — this work may be outsourced."
"Keith Ashdown, with the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, said Boeing executives who broke the law were to blame for the demise of the tanker contract — not McCain.
"This was theirs from day one," he said. "This idea that any lawmaker is to blame is a joke." "
I thought the Democrat party was going to clean up corruption in Washington DC? Now they are whining because Boeing couldn't win a fair bid process.
Odd how you didn't paste in the reason why the earlier deal was nixed Zman. I wasn't really aware of all the details of that deal. Makes me a little proud of the money I contributed to McCain now.
As I said before I think they need to see if the lower bid really provides a net cost savings seeing as how part of the jobs will be moved overseas.
All that being said I will now demonstrat the hypocrocy of the left using the story you linked to Zman.
"McCain said he is keeping an open mind on the contract, but in the past he has boasted about his role in blocking an earlier version of the tanker deal that gave the contract to Boeing. The deal was killed in 2004 after a former Boeing executive improperly recruited an Air Force official while she was still overseeing contracts involving prospective Boeing deals. The former Air Force official, Darleen Druyun, and a top Boeing executive both served time in prison, and the scandal led to the departure of Boeing's chief executive and several top Air Force officials.
McCain has run ads touting his role in fighting "pork" such as the tanker project and cited the deal in a recent GOP debate.
"I saved the taxpayers $6 billion in a bogus tanker deal," he said.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., echoing the thoughts of many congressional Democrats, sees McCain's role in a less positive light. She said the earlier tanker deal was "on course for Boeing" before McCain started railing against it.
"I mean, the thought was that it would be a domestic supplier for it," Pelosi told reporters. "Senator McCain intervened, and now we have a situation where the contract may be — this work may be outsourced."
"Keith Ashdown, with the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, said Boeing executives who broke the law were to blame for the demise of the tanker contract — not McCain.
"This was theirs from day one," he said. "This idea that any lawmaker is to blame is a joke." "
I thought the Democrat party was going to clean up corruption in Washington DC? Now they are whining because Boeing couldn't win a fair bid process.
Odd how you didn't paste in the reason why the earlier deal was nixed Zman. I wasn't really aware of all the details of that deal. Makes me a little proud of the money I contributed to McCain now.
zman1
Active Member
Fix it, jail them - But by all means don't export our tax dollars. Darn corrupt corporate american companies. (I guess it's an example of not enough regulation in the industry - figured you would like this one... )
You then support it going to FRANCE!!! 40% rather than fix it and keep it here. MCain was okay with it going to France.
I read the whole article and chose what to post as you.
Even Boeing's Republican supporters are critical of McCain.
"John McCain will be the nominee and I will support him, but if John McCain believes that Airbus or EADS is the company for our Air Force tanker program he's flat-out wrong — and I'll tell him that to his face," said Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash.
Rep. Todd Tiahrt, a Kansas Republican whose district includes a Boeing plant that could have gained hundreds of new jobs from the tanker program, said McCain's role in killing the earlier deal is likely to become an election issue. Both of the leading Democratic candidates for president, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, have criticized the Air Force decision.
"I think we absolutely will hear more about it," Tiahrt said. "We'll hear it mostly from the Democrats and they have every right to be concerned."
You then support it going to FRANCE!!! 40% rather than fix it and keep it here. MCain was okay with it going to France.
I read the whole article and chose what to post as you.
Even Boeing's Republican supporters are critical of McCain.
"John McCain will be the nominee and I will support him, but if John McCain believes that Airbus or EADS is the company for our Air Force tanker program he's flat-out wrong — and I'll tell him that to his face," said Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash.
Rep. Todd Tiahrt, a Kansas Republican whose district includes a Boeing plant that could have gained hundreds of new jobs from the tanker program, said McCain's role in killing the earlier deal is likely to become an election issue. Both of the leading Democratic candidates for president, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, have criticized the Air Force decision.
"I think we absolutely will hear more about it," Tiahrt said. "We'll hear it mostly from the Democrats and they have every right to be concerned."
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2508608
Fix it, jail them - But by all means don't export our tax dollars.....
You then support it going to FRANCE!!! 40%
I support the government opperating in the most efficient way possible. If that means 40% is outsourced to France so be it. Kinda sad how over regulation and rediculous union contracts have hammered our manufacturing base to the point friggin France can build it cheaper than a US company.
http:///forum/post/2508608
Fix it, jail them - But by all means don't export our tax dollars.....
You then support it going to FRANCE!!! 40%
I support the government opperating in the most efficient way possible. If that means 40% is outsourced to France so be it. Kinda sad how over regulation and rediculous union contracts have hammered our manufacturing base to the point friggin France can build it cheaper than a US company.
zman1
Active Member
Kansas will be one to watch - They are a solid hard red state in the past.
What gets me about the unemployment numbers - on the news today we lost 60,000 jobs.
The folks that run out of unemployment comp just disappear off that list. It's not like they found a job, but just not receiving unemployment payments. It's just an indicator of claims filed. Conversely, no can prove they are working. How does severance packages show, people take those all the time. Choice take the severance voluntarily or be let go. Severance people can't claim unemployment since it was voluntary - with a little cash. I just don't see how the economist can use that as a reliable number. Unless I am wrong..
What gets me about the unemployment numbers - on the news today we lost 60,000 jobs.
The folks that run out of unemployment comp just disappear off that list. It's not like they found a job, but just not receiving unemployment payments. It's just an indicator of claims filed. Conversely, no can prove they are working. How does severance packages show, people take those all the time. Choice take the severance voluntarily or be let go. Severance people can't claim unemployment since it was voluntary - with a little cash. I just don't see how the economist can use that as a reliable number. Unless I am wrong..
1journeyman
Active Member
We discussed this story on another thread.
First off, France elected a PM who campaigned partly on "restoring their relationship with the USA". For that, I give them credit. France seems to be back on board, so I'm fine with doing business with them just as I would be for any other ally.
The US Military has a budget. If Boeing can't make the tankers cheaper than a competitor how is that a win/win? Sounds to me like it is a lose/lose. More of our tax dollars are wasted/Air Force budget is shrunk by spending too much on fuel tankers for heaven's sakes.
This story is a prime example of the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. The Democrats keep talking about change; I think I figured out what they mean. They want to change the century we live in and roll it back to the early 1900's.
We live in the 21st century. We cannot expect taxpayers and the Government to prop up our industries so that they are competitive on the global market. Our companies need to suck it up, upgrade, banish unions, and get back to becoming the world leaders in their assorted industries.
Not all industry will survive. We live in a Post Industrial nation. Many jobs are going to be lost to developing nations that can do things cheaper. Unless the Democrats want to Socialize all of the industries in the USA we're all going to have to accept that fact.
First off, France elected a PM who campaigned partly on "restoring their relationship with the USA". For that, I give them credit. France seems to be back on board, so I'm fine with doing business with them just as I would be for any other ally.
The US Military has a budget. If Boeing can't make the tankers cheaper than a competitor how is that a win/win? Sounds to me like it is a lose/lose. More of our tax dollars are wasted/Air Force budget is shrunk by spending too much on fuel tankers for heaven's sakes.
This story is a prime example of the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. The Democrats keep talking about change; I think I figured out what they mean. They want to change the century we live in and roll it back to the early 1900's.
We live in the 21st century. We cannot expect taxpayers and the Government to prop up our industries so that they are competitive on the global market. Our companies need to suck it up, upgrade, banish unions, and get back to becoming the world leaders in their assorted industries.
Not all industry will survive. We live in a Post Industrial nation. Many jobs are going to be lost to developing nations that can do things cheaper. Unless the Democrats want to Socialize all of the industries in the USA we're all going to have to accept that fact.
