Reading the many, many responses of people who completely missed your premise, all I can say is, wow.
For the record, I totally agree with you (for once). Putting certain restrictions on potentially harmful products/services is not prohibition, it's common sense.
For the record, the Commerce clause does not give carte blanche to the federal government to do whatever the fuck they want. It does, however, give the federal government as much leeway as the States allow.
Also to be noted, a 2/3 vote by the states effectively negates federal legislation. Funny how we never hear about/use that particular power...
Marijuana is illegal for the simple reason that some right wing religious nuts think it's 'bad'.
Also incorrect.
It's the Law "Enforcement" and Incarceration lobbies that want to keep pot illegal; that shit's a cash cow to cops and prison owners.
Imagine what would happen to the budget of police organizations and private prison owners (like Dick Cheney), if suddenly they had to release/stop arresting 1/3 - 1/2 of their "customers?"
Far, far longer, actually, although I do admit they haven't been as blatant about it until recently.
It has resulted in our credit rating being downgraded and the recovery being sluggish.
A reason, but far from the sole factor (ProTip - there never is a 'sole factor,' major issues are always caused by an amalgam of issues).
If you believe the government that governs least governs best, then you must love our current one.
Ineffective governance != small government. "Governs least" implies, to me, a lessening of federal control over private liberty, not a bunch of elitist fat-cats pissing and moaning about how the elitist fat-cats on the other side of the aisle won't play ball.
I am personally sick of it...
Believe me, you're not the only one.
...and want to see them work together as Americans and solve some very big problems we have
Problem is, that's not going to happen, which brings me back to my point: Look at the legislation that has received 'bipartisan support' in recent years, little to none of it is beneficial to the American People: FISA, PATRIOT II, NDAA, Expansion of TSA powers, ACTA, SOPA*, CISPA, et. al..
When Congresscritters 'work together,' the only problem they end up solving is the problem of too much liberty and freedom. If that's the way it's going to be, I would rather they do nothing at all.
*Ok, so SOPA didn't end up becoming law, but that's not the point - the point is that it received almost unanimous support by Politicians.
Wrong. The tax is the PENALTY if you do not get insurance, not the insurance payment.
I'm not referring to the penalty. I'm referring to the mandate itself, which requires payment to private entities. The plethora of folks waxing philosophic about the legality of the penalty are thinking about this the wrong way.
That's the norm with MMOGs. Graphics engines get upgraded and old machines won't play it.
Everquest, for example, is on its second or third graphics engine. I believe they also dropped Win 9x support a few years ago.
Explains why I'm not an MMO kind of guy... well, that and monthly subscription fees, endless grinding, repetitive gameplay, hobbies that involve sunlight...
So who's job is it to look out for the best interests of the country?
Ours. The citizen's job. We elect people to look out for us. If we elect unqualified people, or people who aren't interested in looking out for our best interests, it's our own damn fault.
Indeed - we also have a mechanism for fixing the problems caused by the election of unqualified people, ala the 2nd Amendment; unfortunately, the vast majority of my countrymen appear to be massive pussies incapable of engaging their civic duty to overthrow the oppressive regime.
It's OUR country and OUR job to look after OUR own interests through the democratic process. Those whackjobs we send to the legislature are OUR representatives in the process.
You want to point a finger, point it at yourself.
Your mistake is in believing that these criminals actually represent the people of their respective districts.
Unless you can afford $30,000+/plate fund raising dinners, you are not being represented. Period.
Obama (and most Democrats) wanted a public option. Republicans (all of them) opposed it. So the Democrats compromised. I also believe that a public option would have been better. But at least the Democrats tried to fix some of the problems. If you are looking to blame someone for the lack of a public option, you need to look no further than the Republican Party.
Speaking of which... surely I can't be the only one who's noticed that every time the Congresscritters manage to "compromise," We the People end up taking it in the corn-shooter?
All things considered, I think I would prefer the D's and R's to be in constant opposition to one another. Apparently in US politics, not being able to get shit done turns out to be a good thing more often than not.
>>>do you have health insurance?
>>>if no, then you are a freeloader
The conclusion is not logical. It is equivalent to saying, "If you don't have cable tv, then you're a freeloader." Or "If you don't have to satellite radio, then you're a freeloader." In all three cases I buy things with medicine/videos/songs with cash.
Judging from their lack of proper mechanics, lack of punctuation and capitalization, and childishly hateful tone, I presume they are either A) too young to actually have to worry about buying their own health insurance (still on mommy's), or B) a legally retarded invalid living off taxpayer-funded disability.
Either way, not a person to be taken seriously in this debate.
So a plan like that would depend on Republicans winning both houses of Congress and the Presidency this November - a chance that's probably too big to take if you're a justice actively looking to stop this law.
You really think Republicans are actually going to repeal a law that does favors for their buddies running the insurance companies? Naive.
As for the GOP's opposition to the individual mandate, I find it hard to take them seriously considering it was their idea in the first place.
Meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss, same as the Boss before him...
tax:
noun
1. a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
2. a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.
As the mandate is to give money to private insurers, and not the government itself, it does not fall under the Constitutional definition of a legal tax. I'm a bit shocked to see the SCOTUS uphold the law under an obvious and blatantly false definition of taxation, although after Citizen's United, nothing those berobed assholes do is really all that surprising.
So, the real question is: Our government is imposing an illegal tax on the people in direct violation of the Constitution; what do we do now?
Windows® XP Service Pack 2 or better Intel® Core 2 Duo 2.0 GHz, Core i3, AMD Athlon 64 X2, or better 2 GB RAM NVIDIA® GeForce® 7800, ATI X1800, Intel HD 3000, or better (256MB of video RAM and shader model 3.0 or better) 25 GB available HDD space Broadband Internet connection Keyboard and mouse
Note: Due to potential changes, system requirements may change over time and you may be required to upgrade your current system (or obtain a new system) to continue to play the game.
Emphasis mine. So, at the outset it should easily play on my older rig (and my antiquated lappy too, hooray!), but judging from the note at the end, I may not be able to play it forever without upgrading my equipment...
Not really sure how I feel about that statement... Buy a game today, have to spend boo-koo bucks rebuilding my machine just to keep playing it? Something tells me that dog won't hunt.
Not usually an MMO kind of guy, but the more I read about GW2, the more I think I actually have cause to finally upgrade/replace my 4 year old gaming rig... funding, however, is a different matter.
Speaking of which, anybody want to buy some blood? Like, lots of it?
yes, clearly its the president who comes into term and then works to bring an end to the wars fault.
certainly not the pubs who have tried to stop every move to get our troops home in a rational manner.
That would be a valid point if shoplifting were just a harmless passtime. However, since it's a crime why not fine them 100 times the cost of what they stole? It might teach them not to do it again. If they only get fined what they steal that's precisely the same as them paying for it at the checkout but with the added bonus that they might well get away with it.
If you can't do the time (or don't want to pay the fine), don't do the crime.
Yea, like validation of the omitted portion of my statement.
I'm consistently amazed at how having access to all the world's knowledge at our fingertips has collectively made our species (at least, appear) less intelligent... thank goodness the internet didn't exist in the 8th century, we'd have never made it this far.
Slashdot Mirror
Reading the many, many responses of people who completely missed your premise, all I can say is, wow.
For the record, I totally agree with you (for once). Putting certain restrictions on potentially harmful products/services is not prohibition, it's common sense.
He's not saying that it shouldn't be allowed at all, but rather that it shouldn't be made so damn easy to access.
Similarly, we (as a society) don't put beer and cigarettes on the bottom shelves where children can reach them. Same concept.
For the record, the Commerce clause does not give carte blanche to the federal government to do whatever the fuck they want. It does, however, give the federal government as much leeway as the States allow.
Also to be noted, a 2/3 vote by the states effectively negates federal legislation. Funny how we never hear about/use that particular power...
Marijuana is illegal for the simple reason that some right wing religious nuts think it's 'bad'.
Also incorrect.
It's the Law "Enforcement" and Incarceration lobbies that want to keep pot illegal; that shit's a cash cow to cops and prison owners.
Imagine what would happen to the budget of police organizations and private prison owners (like Dick Cheney), if suddenly they had to release/stop arresting 1/3 - 1/2 of their "customers?"
VPN services hosted in Delaware.
+ Delaware P.O. box, forwarded to another P.O. Box, forwarded to your actual P.O. box...
Not under CISPA.
Speaking of which, whatever happened to Obama's promise to veto that one? Meet the new Boss...
Yea, "Try to be slightly less evil than the competition" would be a more accurate slogan.
Side note, kudos to Google for taking the first step.
We have had that for the past year and a half.
Far, far longer, actually, although I do admit they haven't been as blatant about it until recently.
It has resulted in our credit rating being downgraded and the recovery being sluggish.
A reason, but far from the sole factor (ProTip - there never is a 'sole factor,' major issues are always caused by an amalgam of issues).
If you believe the government that governs least governs best, then you must love our current one.
Ineffective governance != small government. "Governs least" implies, to me, a lessening of federal control over private liberty, not a bunch of elitist fat-cats pissing and moaning about how the elitist fat-cats on the other side of the aisle won't play ball.
I am personally sick of it...
Believe me, you're not the only one.
...and want to see them work together as Americans and solve some very big problems we have
Problem is, that's not going to happen, which brings me back to my point: Look at the legislation that has received 'bipartisan support' in recent years, little to none of it is beneficial to the American People: FISA, PATRIOT II, NDAA, Expansion of TSA powers, ACTA, SOPA*, CISPA, et. al..
When Congresscritters 'work together,' the only problem they end up solving is the problem of too much liberty and freedom. If that's the way it's going to be, I would rather they do nothing at all.
*Ok, so SOPA didn't end up becoming law, but that's not the point - the point is that it received almost unanimous support by Politicians.
Wrong. The tax is the PENALTY if you do not get insurance, not the insurance payment.
I'm not referring to the penalty. I'm referring to the mandate itself, which requires payment to private entities. The plethora of folks waxing philosophic about the legality of the penalty are thinking about this the wrong way.
That's the norm with MMOGs. Graphics engines get upgraded and old machines won't play it.
Everquest, for example, is on its second or third graphics engine. I believe they also dropped Win 9x support a few years ago.
Explains why I'm not an MMO kind of guy... well, that and monthly subscription fees, endless grinding, repetitive gameplay, hobbies that involve sunlight...
So who's job is it to look out for the best interests of the country?
Ours. The citizen's job. We elect people to look out for us. If we elect unqualified people, or people who aren't interested in looking out for our best interests, it's our own damn fault.
Indeed - we also have a mechanism for fixing the problems caused by the election of unqualified people, ala the 2nd Amendment; unfortunately, the vast majority of my countrymen appear to be massive pussies incapable of engaging their civic duty to overthrow the oppressive regime.
It's OUR country and OUR job to look after OUR own interests through the democratic process. Those whackjobs we send to the legislature are OUR representatives in the process.
You want to point a finger, point it at yourself.
Your mistake is in believing that these criminals actually represent the people of their respective districts.
Unless you can afford $30,000+/plate fund raising dinners, you are not being represented. Period.
Obama (and most Democrats) wanted a public option. Republicans (all of them) opposed it. So the Democrats compromised. I also believe that a public option would have been better. But at least the Democrats tried to fix some of the problems. If you are looking to blame someone for the lack of a public option, you need to look no further than the Republican Party.
Speaking of which... surely I can't be the only one who's noticed that every time the Congresscritters manage to "compromise," We the People end up taking it in the corn-shooter?
All things considered, I think I would prefer the D's and R's to be in constant opposition to one another. Apparently in US politics, not being able to get shit done turns out to be a good thing more often than not.
Better to die a free man, than to live as a slave.
Don't forget: We voted for the dicks who passed this legislation. It's our own fault.
I didn't.
Let this be a lesson: regardless of your chances, always, always vote third party.
>>>do you have health insurance? >>>if no, then you are a freeloader
The conclusion is not logical. It is equivalent to saying, "If you don't have cable tv, then you're a freeloader." Or "If you don't have to satellite radio, then you're a freeloader." In all three cases I buy things with medicine/videos/songs with cash.
Judging from their lack of proper mechanics, lack of punctuation and capitalization, and childishly hateful tone, I presume they are either A) too young to actually have to worry about buying their own health insurance (still on mommy's), or B) a legally retarded invalid living off taxpayer-funded disability.
Either way, not a person to be taken seriously in this debate.
So a plan like that would depend on Republicans winning both houses of Congress and the Presidency this November - a chance that's probably too big to take if you're a justice actively looking to stop this law.
You really think Republicans are actually going to repeal a law that does favors for their buddies running the insurance companies? Naive.
As for the GOP's opposition to the individual mandate, I find it hard to take them seriously considering it was their idea in the first place.
Meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss, same as the Boss before him...
This fine is just forcing those who cannot afford private health insurance to pay for their "ER-only" health insurance plan.
FTFY.
A) let's call it what it is, and it is not a tax by any definition I know of, and B)"asking" implies that we have a choice in the matter.
tax:
noun
1. a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
2. a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.
As the mandate is to give money to private insurers, and not the government itself, it does not fall under the Constitutional definition of a legal tax. I'm a bit shocked to see the SCOTUS uphold the law under an obvious and blatantly false definition of taxation, although after Citizen's United, nothing those berobed assholes do is really all that surprising.
So, the real question is: Our government is imposing an illegal tax on the people in direct violation of the Constitution; what do we do now?
Windows® XP Service Pack 2 or better Intel® Core 2 Duo 2.0 GHz, Core i3, AMD Athlon 64 X2, or better 2 GB RAM NVIDIA® GeForce® 7800, ATI X1800, Intel HD 3000, or better (256MB of video RAM and shader model 3.0 or better) 25 GB available HDD space Broadband Internet connection Keyboard and mouse Note: Due to potential changes, system requirements may change over time and you may be required to upgrade your current system (or obtain a new system) to continue to play the game.
Emphasis mine. So, at the outset it should easily play on my older rig (and my antiquated lappy too, hooray!), but judging from the note at the end, I may not be able to play it forever without upgrading my equipment...
Not really sure how I feel about that statement... Buy a game today, have to spend boo-koo bucks rebuilding my machine just to keep playing it? Something tells me that dog won't hunt.
Not usually an MMO kind of guy, but the more I read about GW2, the more I think I actually have cause to finally upgrade/replace my 4 year old gaming rig... funding, however, is a different matter.
Speaking of which, anybody want to buy some blood? Like, lots of it?
yes, clearly its the president who comes into term and then works to bring an end to the wars fault. certainly not the pubs who have tried to stop every move to get our troops home in a rational manner.
FISA, PATRIOT II, "Kill Lists," etc.
Not the knight in shining armor you think he is.
Yet...
Enjoy the mental imagery! Mwahahaha!!!
That would be a valid point if shoplifting were just a harmless passtime. However, since it's a crime why not fine them 100 times the cost of what they stole? It might teach them not to do it again. If they only get fined what they steal that's precisely the same as them paying for it at the checkout but with the added bonus that they might well get away with it.
If you can't do the time (or don't want to pay the fine), don't do the crime.
RIAA shill?
Probably not, but then again...
Yea, like validation of the omitted portion of my statement.
I'm consistently amazed at how having access to all the world's knowledge at our fingertips has collectively made our species (at least, appear) less intelligent... thank goodness the internet didn't exist in the 8th century, we'd have never made it this far.