 |
Surprised you even watch Bill Maher, since that liberal refers to the dufus as a whiny little beetch, but I suppose conservative rather talk about HC than Ukraine, Turkey, Syria, Russia, or Impeachment as a court ruling says the redacted portions of the Mueller Report be turned over to congress which of course will be appealed and add to the obstruction in a legal and constitutional congressional investigation.
Wonder what Barr is up to with HIS criminal investigation of the Mueller Report?
good ;I wanted the whole thing released from the start . Guess they can add any charges they want when they conclude their secret kangaroo court .Quote:
a court ruling says the redacted portions of the Mueller Report be turned over to congress
Guessing now that the precedent is now set by an Imperial black robe that a Grand Jury proceeding is no longer confidential .Either that or the idiot judge determined that the kangaroo court the House is conducting is a legitimate judicial proceeding . But that can't be can it ? In a legitimate proceeding the witnesses would be subject to cross examination ;the accused would be permitted the right to confront the accuser .(oh that pesky 6th amendment ) .That is why in the past Congress voted on an impeachment inquiry so they could at least make it appear to be legit .
They had better hurry …. If the House doesn't impeach real soon then they risk having half their candidates for President sitting in a Senate trial instead of campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire .
I don't know why you righties can't get the facts through your thick heads. This is the INVESTIGATIVE phase. The cops don't have witnesses be cross-examined during their investigation. Don't you watch any cop shows on TV? The TRIAL phase is when witnesses are cross-examined, defendants can confront their accusers, and present their version of events.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
As for the whistleblower, he is no longer needed for the trial since Trump himself, Mulvaney and Rudy have all confessed. No more evidence is needed. The Trump lawyers know all this and conveyed it to Trump, but Trump wants blood.
He wants the whistleblower identified so one of his crazies out there can do some damage to the person. Rocket Science 101. I'm sure you know all this Tom, you may be on the wrong side, but you're no dummy.
That's not a problem. Still plenty of time for campaigning.Quote:
They had better hurry …. If the House doesn't impeach real soon then they risk having half their candidates for President sitting in a Senate trial instead of campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire .
Hillary Clinton is old news? You need to start watching the news.Quote:
Um, *cough cough* aren't both of them, like um, old news? And they looked like dinosaurs at Cummings' funeral.
Talaniman: Word is that Barr and company is seeking the "ring" that made up the Dossier in terms of the information suppliers and IF these people were paid and by whom...He is also looking at FBI entrapment practices involved.....But the biggest link he is wanting to find is the FISA warrants or, most probably why they were unwarranted based upon unverified reports with the big thrust being that he thinks the FBI lied in order to get a judge or judges to grant the warrants.
Barr is following his bosses marching orders and making a big show of it publicly. The dufus has been hollering witch hunt and hoax forever with the loony right amplifying the message and demanding JUSTICE. I can get with a review of everything the government does, but you would be unwise to trust the motives of Barr, given his predilliction for lying to protect his boss, or his lying cheating boss.
He's got his talking points though against the Impeachment charges and I suspect he may well still be trying to clear Vlad of what EVERYBODY says was cyber attacks of our elections. What? You think the dufus isn't a wholly owned subsiduary of everything Vlad wants?
E Warren says her Medicare for All plan will cost about 5 trillion per year, which of course means it will cost more than 5 trillion per year. That is more than the current TOTAL fed budget which itself is not being paid for without massive borrowing. She then tries to tell us that it will not mean tax increases for the middle class. And you wonder why people vote for Trump? If liberal dems want people to vote for their candidate, then they better find someone better than the insanity represented by Warren or Sanders. Sanders has his own Med for all plan that will cost merely 3 trillion per year.
jlisenbe: Ain't no way any thinking person would vote for these blithering dingbats.....they can't even lie good, which is the first discipline of a politician.....Maybe I'm jaded, but this whole HEALTH CARE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE WORLD viewpoint is insane: You are going to die! Everyone wants to live forever: that ain't happening! This life we live is preordained: You had better live life to the fullest and enjoy it while you can, while your health is good: Stop worrying about what is out of your control. Warren and Sanders are psychos, especially WARREN: Just saw a video of here at a CONSERVATIVE symposium from 1992 where she said that anyone not paying their credit card debt should be thrown in jail! She changed from being a women on the Right to being a woman on the left.....but, then again, she changed from being an INDIAN to a whiter than white woman overnight, too......Bernie didn't change: He's always been a Bolshevik! Took one of his three honeymoons in SOVIET RUSSIA but now he hates Russia....back when they were solid commies, he loved Russia! Go figure!
I wonder if you would have the same view if you or your family were actually in the situation of catastrophic illness or injury, or even high maintenance disease or ailments? While 85% of Americans enjoy the benefit of employer based health insurance, put yourself in the shoes of those that do NOT have that benefit, and have medical needs. I can only speak for myself, but labor negotiations for many years with my employer was less about more money in wages than it was about more medical coverage and benefits.Quote:
Maybe I'm jaded, but this whole HEALTH CARE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE WORLD viewpoint is insane:.../Vac
Health insurance is a pain to have when you don't NEED it, but catastrophic if you NEED it but don't have it. Even if you do, as I have always had, costs are through the roof for some things and I can only imagine what very sick poor people go through without it. No ordinary human can afford it, so I guess you and yours are really healthy and don't see a need for it being a priority, and I hope your good health continues, but it's hardly insane for people with life threatening conditions to deal with, or even high maintenance conditions suffered by many.
I'm not convinced Bernie and Liz have the right ideas or how to pay for it, but for many it's a priority, because there is a great NEED for medical care. I got mine, but for many others they got none. I suspect you got yours TOO! Maybe visit some hospitals and tell people sorry you're going to die any way. Let me know how that works for you. Explain to them how rising costs of health care means you can't afford your insulin.
Go ahead I dare you! Now that's insane! Or at least ask repubs what they are going to do after they repeal Obama Care! Their plan is pretty much YOUR ideas so I can see you go for it. Die MOFO, you can't afford that kidney transplant! That's some plan dude! It's INSANE!
What's your idea for paying for the kidney transplant which typically cost a quarter of a million dollars in the United States?Quote:
you can't afford that kidney transplant!
If the dems will nominate a candidate who will not support abortion, will promise a balanced budget, and will appoint sensible federal judges, I will vote for that person.
And why does it cost that much? My younger son was DOA by the time the ambulance got him to the ER, yet he was billed over $10k for ER services.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Talaniman: I hear your argument...and you make valid points, that can not be denied....I don't want to sound like a horse's arse all the time, which I do quite often...I'm probably different than most because I'm a fatalist: Whatever is God's plan can not be changed...and that's all that I will say about faith before someone calls me a religious nutcase: this is not religion, exactly, but a set or rules and a lot of faith. Healthcare is a NECESSARY EVIL for the very reason you mention: You don't use it but you pay for it. However, I have yet to hear a single PLAN, whether it be Demo or Repub, that is truly viable: They cost too much and they weigh SO, SO HEAVY on the Middle Class that they are suffocating. So, what is the answer: I surely don't know and I don't think anyone else does, either.
The plans are supposed to cover huge costs by hospitals and doctors plus meds sold by Big Pharma. Hmm, are all those costs fair and affordable?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacuum7
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The notion of profits over people, is deplorable, so changing profit to non profit is the START of my solution as well as regulating compensation for research and development. Maximizing positive outcomes, while reigning in RISING costs to consumers is a win/win for both. 15% profit as the law is currently written over costs that includes advertising is legalized stealing on close scrutiny, as well as the timeline for ROI, which invites abuses. Does that mean a more effective streamlining of regulations? You bet it does, but we have to also recognize the GOVERNMENT investment side of the R/D equation.
If holding your nose and voting for the dufus was good enough for you, then holding my nose and voting for the dem nominee will work for me.Quote:
If the dems will nominate a candidate who will not support abortion, will promise a balanced budget, and will appoint sensible federal judges, I will vote for that person.
You fool no one JL with your sensible judges comments though, and I read it as conservative judges that will overturn the legality of Roe v Wade, as the law of the land. Such a litmus tests is just to narrow for me and smacks of the same argument you make for all those liberal ACTIST judges you say do not follow the law.
I believe God gave humans free will and the ability to rise to the challenge of problem solving. Or we drown in our own shat! I laid out my opinion above for your perusal. I'm not a fatalists nor a religious nut. I think we should choose to RISE to the challenge no matter the OBSTACLES.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacuum7
Let's suppose we do as you propose, even there should be no great confidence that non-profits will be the answer, but if we take off the 15% profit from the quarter million kidney transplant, how do you propose we pay for the remaining 210 grand?Quote:
The notion of profits over people, is deplorable, so changing profit to non profit is the START of my solution as well as regulating compensation for research and development. Maximizing positive outcomes, while reigning in RISING costs to consumers is a win/win for both. 15% profit as the law is currently written over costs that includes advertising is legalized stealing on close scrutiny, as well as the timeline for ROI, which invites abuses. Does that mean a more effective streamlining of regulations? You bet it does, but we have to also recognize the GOVERNMENT investment side of the R/D equation.
What was the Constitutional rationale for the Roe decision? Do you know what it was?Quote:
You fool no one JL with your sensible judges comments though, and I read it as conservative judges that will overturn the legality of Roe v Wade, as the law of the land. Such a litmus tests is just to narrow for me and smacks of the same argument you make for all those liberal ACTIST judges you say do not follow the law.
"Roe v. Wade was a landmark legal decision issued on January 22, 1973, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure across the United States. The court held that a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution."Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
https://www.history.com/topics/womens-rights/roe-v-wade
EXCELLENT question and the right one. To be clear the 15% profits is arrived at not by individual costs, but overall costs after expenses. So looking at expenses you calculate profit AFTER those expenses. Take out the PROFIT and apply the 15% allowable by law to cost gives us a reduction of those costs. To further reduce those costs, you add revenue by using a bigger revenue pool, much the same as employers enjoy by pooling their employees. It's a contracted fixed cost that workers and employers have borne in lieu of raises for decades. The model is that healthy workers in the pool, mitigate the costs of workers that are not as healthy, and its made huge profit for insurance companies even as they have raised profits at the same time. Sure costs have gone up, but that's an artificial cost based on projected profit targets. It has become automatic and the fact insurance companies raise what state regulators must approve every few years without exception is the legacy of more profits which is the current incentive to pick and chose what procedures they allow YOUR doctor to take. Not saying it's a completely bad thing, but limiting procedures and jacking up profits IS a bad thing we should be eliminating.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The goal is better care outcomes and options for everybody, not just those that can afford it, and bend the cost curve downward over time compared to the 10/12% increase every couple of years. 2% over 5/10 years is a more ideal model for consumers.
You sure make me do a lot of homework don't you? That's okay, but in simple terms people are seeking the freedom to make their own choices concerning life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and those who use to be in the closet folks are coming into the light. That includes of course all the social and ethnic minorities, who want control over their own lives.Quote:
What was the Constitutional rationale for the Roe decision? Do you know what it was?
I have posted the 14th Amendment below. See if you can find the part guaranteeing a right to privacy. Also see if you can figure out how an amendment prohibiting any state depriving a person of life could somehow be construed to guarantee a right for a doctor to kill an unborn child.Quote:
The court held that a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution."
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
I agree, but how do we get there? That's the big question. If medical care continues to rise at the current rate, then there are no answers. I have a bill from my grandmother in 1949 when she spent six days in the hospital for less than a hundred bucks. How have we gotten from that point to where we are today? If the same thing had happened with food, then we would be paying five hundred dollars for a loaf of bread.Quote:
The goal is better care outcomes and options for everybody, not just those that can afford it, and bend the cost curve downward over time compared to the 10/12% increase every couple of years. 2% over 5/10 years is a more ideal model for consumers.
I agree. Why doesn't an unborn child get the right to live rather than being brutally killed? Giving me a link the the Roe decision doesn't answer the question.Quote:
That's okay, but in simple terms people are seeking the freedom to make their own choices concerning life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
Ruling:Quote:
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
A woman's right to an abortion falls within the right to privacy as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. However, while decision gave women autonomy during the first trimester of pregnancy, different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters were allowed.
We obviously disagree on that right to privacy, but the law is very clear as to woman having that right, rather than guys like you believing she does NOT. You are a minority on this as a nationwide issue by the way.
https://www.thoughtco.com/abortion-i...states-3367873
The debate continues but the LAW is clear as is the intent to change it.
Just a couple of questions: How is it that the SAME PEOPLE WHO ARE AGAINST CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ARE FOR ABORTION? Why is it that if someone murders a pregnant woman, that person is charged for TWO MURDERS AND NOT ONE? It seems that the government's dichotomy in this argument shows that and UNBORN CHILD IS A PERSON, OTHERWIDE THERE WOULD BE NO MURDER CHARGE.
I have never heard these questions addressed.
For one, it's not clear if the same people who support abortions ARE the same ones who are against capital punishment, nor vice versa. Now if you know something I don't then let me in on those facts. To me, you are talking very separate and different issues. I mean should I include in that a choice to terminate medical care with the choice of a hospital not to provide it to someone that cannot pay?
As such your question cannot be addressed until you are a lot more specific. We can agree the sky is blue, but disagree what shade that blue is can't we.
There is no law to that effect. It is a Supreme Court decision and not a law passed by the representatives of the people. As you could see from the previous posts, there is no Constitutional right to an abortion. The liberal justices on SCOTUS just basically made it up from nothing. No thinking person reading the 14th Amendment would come away believing it somehow guaranteed a doctor's right to kill an unborn child. Certainly the 14th Amendment was not passed with the idea in mind of allowing abortions.Quote:
but the law is very clear as to woman having that right, rather than guys like you believing she does NOT. You are a minority on this as a nationwide issue by the way.
As to Vac's comments, find a leading democrat who does not have the twin positions of opposing cap punishment and allowing abortion. I'd like to know who they are. Vac hit the nail on the head in that respect.
Who does the unborn baby (i.e., the fetus) belong to?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Let me jump in here and pose a question to JL.
You want the fetus to never be aborted, but, one day after that fetus becomes a live child, you believe that it spends eternity in hell being continously tortured if the child dies as an unbeliever.
Do I have that right?
Yes there is, as it says abortions in the first trimester are a part of a woman's privacy. Now you can blame it on liberal judges all you want, and I can fully understand your solution is conservative judges, but the LAW stands until that happens, if it happens, and just as conservatives won't stand idly by waiting, you can expect liberals won't either. I am aware that the 14th amendment was passed for the rights of FREED slaves, and became law after the Prez vetoed it and congress over rode it, and southern states were forced to ratify it as a condition of returning to the union, because despite losing the war, and freeing the slaves, restrictions were put on those former slaves (The Black Codes) that no white man had to endure.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
It is what it is until it ain't I guess.
That's a question you both must answer for yourselves and frankly you can vote for whoever you wish for whatever your reasons.Quote:
As to Vac's comments, find a leading democrat who does not have the twin positions of opposing cap punishment and allowing abortion. I'd like to know who they are.
I've said exactly the opposite multiple times in the past, so your representation of my position is ridiculous. However, I've already told you that I won't discuss this topic further until you get the courage to take a position on the Matthew 25 passage. You've been dodging that for weeks. Your last comment was to proclaim that you were running your ideas by some scholar to see if he agreed with you or not. Why not just put on your big boy britches and say what you think?Quote:
You want the fetus to never be aborted, but, one day after that fetus becomes a live child, you believe that it spends eternity in hell being continously tortured if the child dies as an unbeliever.
His/her parents, in the sense that he/she is their child. Why do you ask?Quote:
Who does the unborn baby (i.e., the fetus) belong to?
Just for the point of education, here's a late first trimester fetus. If you are comfortable with killing that, then I don't know what to say to you. I'd paste it but I can't get copy/paste to work on this site for some reason.
https://img.webmd.com/dtmcms/live/we...-_12_Weeks.jpg
More on Roe v Wade
I'm not comfortable with 12 weeks, 6 weeks or even 4 weeks,
https://www.bing.com/th?id=OIP.wDuP1...pr=1.5&pid=3.1
So the 24 hour pill should be free and easy and a women should have the right doctors to consult, given all the social and economics involved in such a decision. The law says first trimester, and that's when most abortions occur, but humans better get it in their brains that any law is flawed because man cannot make a perfect law. JL, abstinence only works for a set of humans and many that are flawed will make mistakes even those that don't believe in it. Maybe you could be better served by applying abstinence laws to MEN as well as females. Or make doctor visits mandatory, take your pick.
If your not about shared responsibility then your credibility to an eons long practice (Breeding) falls on deaf ears. The good news is if that's the focus on giving your vote to someone then have at it.
PS.
I do not understand your inability to right click on an image and copy it, then paste it somewhere else. Is your computer up to date or are you too cheap to get a newer one, or too ashamed to ask your grandkids to enable that feature?
I don't think you've said "exactly the opposite multiple times in the past". In fact, I don't think you've ever said "exactly the opposite". If you have, please refresh our memories.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Now, that IS something you've said. I'll try not to delay much longer.Quote:
However, I've already told you that I won't discuss this topic further until you get the courage to take a position on the Matthew 25 passage.
I'm always amused by how you criticize others for name-calling, and yet no one, and I mean NO ONE, does it as frequently as YOU!Quote:
Why not just put on your big boy britches and say what you think?
Why aren't you comfortable with that?Quote:
I'm not comfortable with 12 weeks, 6 weeks or even 4 weeks,
You thinking I am cheap is an example of prejudice. (joke)Quote:
I do not understand your inability to right click on an image and copy it, then paste it somewhere else. Is your computer up to date or are you too cheap to get a newer one, or too ashamed to ask your grandkids to enable that feature?
Good grief. Good thing I didn't ask anything complicated.Quote:
Now, that IS something you've said. I'll try not to delay much longer.
I did not engage in name calling, but it is time for you to gain some courage and say what you think. While you're at it, you can stop misrepresenting my views.Quote:
I'm always amused by how you criticize others for name-calling, and yet no one, and I mean NO ONE, does it as frequently as YOU!
Why not just say, "Please say what you think"?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I have a position.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Nothing (mental illness, autism, undeveloped brain, etc.) can prevent God‘s bestowal of grace. The only thing preventing it is the person’s cognitive refusal to accept it.
That's a fair question. First of all, I said pretty much that weeks ago. Bear in mind that this is the same person who loves to try and call people out such as the ridiculous post he made above. If not for that, I never would have brought it up. Well, if you want call people out, then man up and say what you think.Quote:
Why not just say, "Please say what you think"?
What scripture do you draw that from?Quote:
I have a position.
Nothing (mental illness, autism, undeveloped brain, etc.) can prevent God‘s bestowal of grace. The only thing preventing it is the person’s cognitive refusal to accept it.
The Holy Scriptures I've been reading for 70+ years.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Any specifics? I'm particularly interested in the "cognitive refusal to accept" clause. John 3:16 would not seem to agree with that, but I'd like to know your view on it.Quote:
The Holy Scriptures I've been reading for 70+ years.
I don't cherry-pick gotcha verses.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Gotcha. But you didn't pick (cherry or otherwise) any verses of any kind.Quote:
I don't cherry-pick gotcha verses.
Nope. Read the entire Bible. Don't look for proof-passages.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Women shouldn't use Abortion as BIRTH CONTROL, I don't think.....and men should be ready to become FATHERS if they choose to have recreational sex....I have no tolerance for ANY MALE WHO HAS THE TEMERITY TO ASK A WOMAN TO HAVE AN ABORTION BECAUSE HE "JUST COULDN'T CONTROL HIMSELF!" That is not a man, that is a bastard, no other way to describe him. A man has NO RIGHT to pressure a woman he has had sex with to have an ABORTION, and I mean NONE!
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:08 AM. |