They did that with the stimulus bill, they brought it out in the morning and Queen Pelosi said.... VOTE!
They did that with the climate bill where 300 pages were added at 3AM, then the next morning Queen Pelosi said ... VOTE!
ObamaCare is getting fudged behind closed doors in secret.... Queen Pelosi will bring it out first thing of a morning ans say... VOTE!
Behind closed door and in secret. That is the legecy of this 111th congress.Why do congressional liberals hide their legislation behind closed doors until it's time to vote?Pork, pork and more pork.
Oh, and if the public won't really know what their representatives are voting on, they can't flood their offices with calls and emails and letters about how they think their representatives should vote.
The Representatives have forgotten their true purpose - to REPRESENT their constituents. Now, all they want to do is get more power and keep their constituents in the dark about things so they won't be held accountable.
Shameful.Why do congressional liberals hide their legislation behind closed doors until it's time to vote?
you sound totally unbiased. i respect your opinion!Why do congressional liberals hide their legislation behind closed doors until it's time to vote?You mean as opposed to the congressional conservatives and neocons who ran Congress for several years? You have no basis and no case on which to criticize liberals. We are seeing more proposed legislation online than we have ever seen.
Because they know no one will stand for the nonsense if they find outWhy do congressional liberals hide their legislation behind closed doors until it's time to vote?I suppose they could use fabricated evidence and third-party interviews to justify a war...
You do realize committee's in our government include members from both parties right?Why do congressional liberals hide their legislation behind closed doors until it's time to vote?
Wrong. They're doing exactly what previous Congresses have done--doing final reconciliation behind closed doors. It's called a "conference committee," and it's nothing new. The only thing that's new is your interest in the legislative process.
That is not the way the process worked. False.Why do congressional liberals hide their legislation behind closed doors until it's time to vote?
These are just a few examples of Obama and the Democrats pulling the rug out from under us...people should be asking why the stimulus we had to have won't be used until 2010 and 2012 and why the health care bill won't go into effect until 2013, after the 2012 elections.
They don't. Failed question.
You nailed it!!
just another example of obama's transparency. the king and queen gotta go while there's still time to try to fix the disaster we're about to be in.
These sheep don't want to hear it...NOTHING will shake their faith in the One.
Neo,...Uh, I meant Obama will fly, and save us all from ourselves. And he will make all the mean white people give their money and goods away to black and minorities and the homeless. Then he will force them to keep working and tax them at 100%, and then he will reveal himself, and the little liberal pantywaists on here will be like, " we didn't know, it's not our fault"!
Morons
Patriot Act...mmkay?
At least they are letting Republicans to be involved in the committee process. After the way Republicans ran things before 2006, anyone with any kind of memory would realize that Democrats are being quite open and inclusive.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Does anyone know where you can read the specifics of the debt legislation?
I'd like to see what the cuts are.Does anyone know where you can read the specifics of the debt legislation?http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/鈥?/a>
What was the last piece of legislation that Republicans supported that favored the good of the many over the..?
good of the few?
Time after time the Republicans come down on the side of helping out the few whether it be the health insurers in the health care reform bill or the uber wealthy (tax cuts during the Bush years).
When was the last time the Repubs actually voted for something that helped out the majority of Americans against the desires of their wealthy campaign contributors?What was the last piece of legislation that Republicans supported that favored the good of the many over the..?They believe that all those things you cited are actually good for the average Joe. So they will cite those things again and again, in spite of evidence to the contrary.
Some of them even think we paid 100 million for the Louisiana Purchase, when the actual cost was $15 million. And the purchase of Alaska was half that.What was the last piece of legislation that Republicans supported that favored the good of the many over the..?
Trust me, by coming down on the side of fiscal responsibility and anti-manipulation, the GOP has shown the country its willingness to stand up for what is right for the country.
Harry Reid is a low life liar and manipulator evidenced by the arm twisting of Senators from New Orleans and Arkansas. Partisan voting is as un-American in principal as Communism is righteous.
I wish people like you who ignore the numbers and just look at the superficial promise of the democrats, would wake up and do your homework. I'm confident that you too will see the fallacy in the democratic proposal.What was the last piece of legislation that Republicans supported that favored the good of the many over the..?Your "(tax cuts during the Bush years)" were for everyone employed.....income tax.
That didn't take much looking.
Clinton had the income tax at 39%, Bush lowered it to 36%, 0bama will raise it back to 39%, supposedly in 2010 but now he states he will wait for the economy to recover.What was the last piece of legislation that Republicans supported that favored the good of the many over the..?
And 850 billion to 1.2 trillion for less than 10% of the population is any better? Lets not forget the 100 million dollar Louisianna Purchase. This bribe cost more than what we paid for Alaska.What was the last piece of legislation that Republicans supported that favored the good of the many over the..?Bush's tax cutsWhat was the last piece of legislation that Republicans supported that favored the good of the many over the..?
That's not how the GOP rolls!
Ummmm ? ... Oh I give up !
Time after time the Republicans come down on the side of helping out the few whether it be the health insurers in the health care reform bill or the uber wealthy (tax cuts during the Bush years).
When was the last time the Repubs actually voted for something that helped out the majority of Americans against the desires of their wealthy campaign contributors?What was the last piece of legislation that Republicans supported that favored the good of the many over the..?They believe that all those things you cited are actually good for the average Joe. So they will cite those things again and again, in spite of evidence to the contrary.
Some of them even think we paid 100 million for the Louisiana Purchase, when the actual cost was $15 million. And the purchase of Alaska was half that.What was the last piece of legislation that Republicans supported that favored the good of the many over the..?
Trust me, by coming down on the side of fiscal responsibility and anti-manipulation, the GOP has shown the country its willingness to stand up for what is right for the country.
Harry Reid is a low life liar and manipulator evidenced by the arm twisting of Senators from New Orleans and Arkansas. Partisan voting is as un-American in principal as Communism is righteous.
I wish people like you who ignore the numbers and just look at the superficial promise of the democrats, would wake up and do your homework. I'm confident that you too will see the fallacy in the democratic proposal.What was the last piece of legislation that Republicans supported that favored the good of the many over the..?Your "(tax cuts during the Bush years)" were for everyone employed.....income tax.
That didn't take much looking.
Clinton had the income tax at 39%, Bush lowered it to 36%, 0bama will raise it back to 39%, supposedly in 2010 but now he states he will wait for the economy to recover.What was the last piece of legislation that Republicans supported that favored the good of the many over the..?
And 850 billion to 1.2 trillion for less than 10% of the population is any better? Lets not forget the 100 million dollar Louisianna Purchase. This bribe cost more than what we paid for Alaska.What was the last piece of legislation that Republicans supported that favored the good of the many over the..?Bush's tax cutsWhat was the last piece of legislation that Republicans supported that favored the good of the many over the..?
That's not how the GOP rolls!
Ummmm ? ... Oh I give up !
What do you think would happen if we didnt have animal welfare legislation?
should the question not be why do we have animal welfare legislation and no one follows the guidelines?animals are not protected by these rules if so there would not be the amount of cruelty that goes on.animals being transported for slaughter are treated horrendously animal testing its barbaric animals being skinned alive for there fur and the ongoing battle against cruelty animals are equals in my eyes and the legislation does not protect them at all take a look on Peta's website www.peta.com or www.rspca.co.uk and see if theses animals are protectedWhat do you think would happen if we didnt have animal welfare legislation?You would be seeing domestic animals on the menus of some ethnic cuisine restaurants.What do you think would happen if we didnt have animal welfare legislation?
Things would be as they were for hundreds of years before there was any such legislation. Humane people would treat animals humanely pretty much. Inhumane people would treat animanls inhumanely. Pretty much the way it is after such legislation. The few who would really abuse or neglect their animanls will do so no matter what legislation you pass. You still have to enforce any law you make.What do you think would happen if we didnt have animal welfare legislation?That stupid yapping poodle next door would be on my BBQ Pit...........What do you think would happen if we didnt have animal welfare legislation?
Same as now, people who give a crap do the right thing and people who get a kick out of tormenting dumb creatures wouldn't.
The law can't force people to be good parents or pet owners, its not what its there for. The law is to enable prosecution and punishment for people who can't or won't regulate their own behaviour.What do you think would happen if we didnt have animal welfare legislation?the best stir fry i ever cooked was made with mangy mutt
Things would be as they were for hundreds of years before there was any such legislation. Humane people would treat animals humanely pretty much. Inhumane people would treat animanls inhumanely. Pretty much the way it is after such legislation. The few who would really abuse or neglect their animanls will do so no matter what legislation you pass. You still have to enforce any law you make.What do you think would happen if we didnt have animal welfare legislation?That stupid yapping poodle next door would be on my BBQ Pit...........What do you think would happen if we didnt have animal welfare legislation?
Same as now, people who give a crap do the right thing and people who get a kick out of tormenting dumb creatures wouldn't.
The law can't force people to be good parents or pet owners, its not what its there for. The law is to enable prosecution and punishment for people who can't or won't regulate their own behaviour.What do you think would happen if we didnt have animal welfare legislation?the best stir fry i ever cooked was made with mangy mutt
Sarbanes - Oxley Legislation take care of Whistle Blowers, does that include someone bullied by the boss?
Sarbanes-Oxley Legislation came out in 2002, to protect employees from retaliation if they come forward and say anything about the corporation and their financial reports that may not be completely true. Does this law include blowing the whistle on poor behavior? I know you have 90 days from the retalatory act to file a report with OSHA, but I am unsure if there is another law that fits bad behavior better?Sarbanes - Oxley Legislation take care of Whistle Blowers, does that include someone bullied by the boss?SOX will not help you in this matter. It was legislation passed to swing power back into the auditiors hands and make the heads of the companies more liable for the financial statements among other things. It would help you if you knew your boss was engaged in activities to help the company tinker with the financial statements or commit fraud. but it's not help for bad behavior.Sarbanes - Oxley Legislation take care of Whistle Blowers, does that include someone bullied by the boss?There may be a "bad behaviour" law out there--gods know we've tried to legislate everything else--but it isn't Sarbox.tagalog translator edelbrock
What is the name of the legislation where FDR signed where servicemen can come home and recieve funds?
The Serviceman's Readjustment Act of 1944, or the GI Bill as commonly known. It provided tuition and living expense for college or vocational training, or one year's unemployment compensation for all members of the military. It also provided loans to purchase a house (VA loan guarantees).
Two year's later most US colleges and universities had tripled the size of their enrollments.What is the name of the legislation where FDR signed where servicemen can come home and recieve funds?The G.I. Bill (officially titled Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, PL345) provided for college or vocational education for returning World War II veterans (commonly referred to as GIs or G.I.s) as well as one year of unemployment compensation. It also provided loans for returning veterans to buy homes and start businesses.
Two year's later most US colleges and universities had tripled the size of their enrollments.What is the name of the legislation where FDR signed where servicemen can come home and recieve funds?The G.I. Bill (officially titled Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, PL345) provided for college or vocational education for returning World War II veterans (commonly referred to as GIs or G.I.s) as well as one year of unemployment compensation. It also provided loans for returning veterans to buy homes and start businesses.
Has your state drafted or passed legislation claiming sovereignty and do you support it?
These non-binding resolutions are stupid. Legally invalid, and a waste of time.
Edit: No, they are not binding upon anyone. They're pointless. The people who wrote them, voted for them, and support these resolutions don't know what the 10th Amendment means. That's probably why they think it's some kind of magic pill.Has your state drafted or passed legislation claiming sovereignty and do you support it?Yes! It is in legislation now and I am so proud of my state standing up for states rights and my rights.Has your state drafted or passed legislation claiming sovereignty and do you support it?
My state did it back in 1995.Has your state drafted or passed legislation claiming sovereignty and do you support it?umm lemme check
NOHas your state drafted or passed legislation claiming sovereignty and do you support it?
No, my state is not one of them, sadly. I wish they would. I would support such a move wholeheartedly.
Adam B, you are wrong. These are binding according to the 10th amendment to the US Constitution which allows the states to run themselves. The federal government has been, and is increasingly, trying to take over state juristiction.Has your state drafted or passed legislation claiming sovereignty and do you support it?Yes, I'm going to a rally in Concord on Wednesday to support HCR6, which is a bill currently labeled ITL in the NH legislature that is almost word for word taken from the Kentucky Resolutions.
And yes, Adam B. the resolutions are binding. The only question is whether or not the federal government decides to agree that it has violated the 9th and 10th amendments hundreds of times and as such has caused the dissolution of the Union.Has your state drafted or passed legislation claiming sovereignty and do you support it?
Sadly, my state has not drafted or passed such legislation, but they are one of the states considering it and I would support it 100%. At this point, I would even support my states secession from the Union. I feel that it is going to take drastic measures to restore the freedoms that we have lost over the years and clear the corruption that is so prevalent in our federal government. If it takes a revolt on the part of the states to make it happen, so be it!
Edit: No, they are not binding upon anyone. They're pointless. The people who wrote them, voted for them, and support these resolutions don't know what the 10th Amendment means. That's probably why they think it's some kind of magic pill.Has your state drafted or passed legislation claiming sovereignty and do you support it?Yes! It is in legislation now and I am so proud of my state standing up for states rights and my rights.Has your state drafted or passed legislation claiming sovereignty and do you support it?
My state did it back in 1995.Has your state drafted or passed legislation claiming sovereignty and do you support it?umm lemme check
NOHas your state drafted or passed legislation claiming sovereignty and do you support it?
No, my state is not one of them, sadly. I wish they would. I would support such a move wholeheartedly.
Adam B, you are wrong. These are binding according to the 10th amendment to the US Constitution which allows the states to run themselves. The federal government has been, and is increasingly, trying to take over state juristiction.Has your state drafted or passed legislation claiming sovereignty and do you support it?Yes, I'm going to a rally in Concord on Wednesday to support HCR6, which is a bill currently labeled ITL in the NH legislature that is almost word for word taken from the Kentucky Resolutions.
And yes, Adam B. the resolutions are binding. The only question is whether or not the federal government decides to agree that it has violated the 9th and 10th amendments hundreds of times and as such has caused the dissolution of the Union.Has your state drafted or passed legislation claiming sovereignty and do you support it?
Sadly, my state has not drafted or passed such legislation, but they are one of the states considering it and I would support it 100%. At this point, I would even support my states secession from the Union. I feel that it is going to take drastic measures to restore the freedoms that we have lost over the years and clear the corruption that is so prevalent in our federal government. If it takes a revolt on the part of the states to make it happen, so be it!
Is Obama like FDR with his legislation for economic recovery from an economic slump?
FDR had the first and second new deals.
Obama had the bailout and health care reform (so far).
Please answer thoroughly, include educated, non-hostile statements, and provide factual evidence supporting your argument.Is Obama like FDR with his legislation for economic recovery from an economic slump?hoodrich is pretty right here, but he gives FDR too much credit. FDR prolonged the depression 7 years.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR鈥?/a>
capitalistic economies go up and down, government intervention usually hurts more than it helps.Is Obama like FDR with his legislation for economic recovery from an economic slump?
Yes.
They both made it worse!!!!!!Is Obama like FDR with his legislation for economic recovery from an economic slump?It doesn't really require great detail. They both spent money to kickstart the economy. it's a gamble, but it can work, especially, in FDR's case, if you have a couple of years making money out of war before you join in.Is Obama like FDR with his legislation for economic recovery from an economic slump?
FDR- used direct hiring for shovel ready jobs building things we needed like parks, roads, the golden gate bridge, and Hoover dam.
obama- ummmmm, errr, created some nothing government jobs, and uh? dug a tunnel for some turtles in Florida for some reason.Is Obama like FDR with his legislation for economic recovery from an economic slump?"Please answer thoroughly, include educated, non-hostile statements, and provide factual evidence supporting your argument."
You realize you're in Y!A, right?Is Obama like FDR with his legislation for economic recovery from an economic slump?
Obama hasn't done anything near what FDR did in getting the economy back on track. Under Obama, most of the federal money spent thus far has gone to banks and financial institutions that got the economy in a mess in the first place. Even with huge deficit spending by FDR, it took WWII to really dig America out of depression. America already has two wars going now. Maybe USA ought to escalate the wars, put them to an end and further stimulate the economy.
Obama had the bailout and health care reform (so far).
Please answer thoroughly, include educated, non-hostile statements, and provide factual evidence supporting your argument.Is Obama like FDR with his legislation for economic recovery from an economic slump?hoodrich is pretty right here, but he gives FDR too much credit. FDR prolonged the depression 7 years.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR鈥?/a>
capitalistic economies go up and down, government intervention usually hurts more than it helps.Is Obama like FDR with his legislation for economic recovery from an economic slump?
Yes.
They both made it worse!!!!!!Is Obama like FDR with his legislation for economic recovery from an economic slump?It doesn't really require great detail. They both spent money to kickstart the economy. it's a gamble, but it can work, especially, in FDR's case, if you have a couple of years making money out of war before you join in.Is Obama like FDR with his legislation for economic recovery from an economic slump?
FDR- used direct hiring for shovel ready jobs building things we needed like parks, roads, the golden gate bridge, and Hoover dam.
obama- ummmmm, errr, created some nothing government jobs, and uh? dug a tunnel for some turtles in Florida for some reason.Is Obama like FDR with his legislation for economic recovery from an economic slump?"Please answer thoroughly, include educated, non-hostile statements, and provide factual evidence supporting your argument."
You realize you're in Y!A, right?Is Obama like FDR with his legislation for economic recovery from an economic slump?
Obama hasn't done anything near what FDR did in getting the economy back on track. Under Obama, most of the federal money spent thus far has gone to banks and financial institutions that got the economy in a mess in the first place. Even with huge deficit spending by FDR, it took WWII to really dig America out of depression. America already has two wars going now. Maybe USA ought to escalate the wars, put them to an end and further stimulate the economy.
Should legislation be altered or struck down by judicial rulings in our democracy?
What do you think?Should legislation be altered or struck down by judicial rulings in our democracy?Yes if they violate the constitution in any fashion they should be.
What are some of the laws and legislation set up to protect the homeless?
Does anyone know?What are some of the laws and legislation set up to protect the homeless?most shelters, food banks and soup kitchens are run by charities, that is to say, NOT the government. (most often, some kind of church.)
There's no specific laws for the homeless. (there is social sevrvices, but that's not just for the homeless.)What are some of the laws and legislation set up to protect the homeless?I don't know about your state but each state does have a provision in the laws for weather..in other words if it's really cold they won't kick them off the heating grills...Otherwise homeless people are given the same protections under the law and non homeless people.english to arabic superchips
There's no specific laws for the homeless. (there is social sevrvices, but that's not just for the homeless.)What are some of the laws and legislation set up to protect the homeless?I don't know about your state but each state does have a provision in the laws for weather..in other words if it's really cold they won't kick them off the heating grills...Otherwise homeless people are given the same protections under the law and non homeless people.
How do you find recent delegated legislation that has been made?
OPSI (the ridiculous 'new' name of Her Majesty's Stationery Office)
The chronological tables are at:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/stat.htm
These are from 1987 onwards and since you wanted 'recent' secondary legislation, these are presumably the ones you require.
If you only know the name of the secondary legislation, you can search by name.
The OPSI site also has functionality for an RSS feed for new secondary (ie delegated ) legislation at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/whats鈥?/a>
Remember, you'll have to search separately on OPSI for delegated legislation for the devolved parts of the UK
The secondary legislation does not contain the amended versions of the instruments, obviously.
How do you find recent delegated legislation that has been made?Halsbury's Statutory Instruments in the public library. Go to a loose leaf update and hope it is updated. If you want to go further The stationary office (HMSO) will sell you copies. You will need to be more specific than this How do you find recent delegated legislation that has been made?http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk is a useful source for older legislation
Is the American system of legislation being eroded by only having two parties?
Both parties, Republican and Democratic, are the only two major parties in todays political system. Are we allowing them to degredade our system of governing. This is susposed to be a system of the people and by the people. Most politicians in the big arena have millions of dollars, yet most of americans don't. Should there be a working class party?
Don't get me confused, I am not suggesting Ron Paul?Is the American system of legislation being eroded by only having two parties?They two party system has worked in the past, but now with this current administration it has been broken. The only way to fix this problem is to introduce a four party system. This way there is balance because no one side controls the congress or the house. They have to actually debate the issues not pat each others back by passing bills that are full of ear marks and pork belly spending.Is the American system of legislation being eroded by only having two parties?The two party systems have created Corporate US Government. Bush is the President of this Corporate US Government. The Agencies of this Corporate US Government are sub-corporations. Our Republic is not represented by this Corporate US Government but it is controlled by this Corporate US Government. This Corporate US Government is based on commerce. The Corporate US Government Department of Justice does not administer law based on Constitutional law. The Corporate US Government Department of Justice administers law based on ADMIRALTY LAW (commerce). We the People, need to take back our Republic so that the voice of the People can control their own Government. The American Public must be educated and wake up to these facts as they exist.Is the American system of legislation being eroded by only having two parties?No its being erodded by liberal judges making laws form the bench, instead of following the laws congress makes.Is the American system of legislation being eroded by only having two parties?
It would be nice to have an Independent Minority in the House to keep both parties in Check.
Don't get me confused, I am not suggesting Ron Paul?Is the American system of legislation being eroded by only having two parties?They two party system has worked in the past, but now with this current administration it has been broken. The only way to fix this problem is to introduce a four party system. This way there is balance because no one side controls the congress or the house. They have to actually debate the issues not pat each others back by passing bills that are full of ear marks and pork belly spending.Is the American system of legislation being eroded by only having two parties?The two party systems have created Corporate US Government. Bush is the President of this Corporate US Government. The Agencies of this Corporate US Government are sub-corporations. Our Republic is not represented by this Corporate US Government but it is controlled by this Corporate US Government. This Corporate US Government is based on commerce. The Corporate US Government Department of Justice does not administer law based on Constitutional law. The Corporate US Government Department of Justice administers law based on ADMIRALTY LAW (commerce). We the People, need to take back our Republic so that the voice of the People can control their own Government. The American Public must be educated and wake up to these facts as they exist.Is the American system of legislation being eroded by only having two parties?No its being erodded by liberal judges making laws form the bench, instead of following the laws congress makes.Is the American system of legislation being eroded by only having two parties?
It would be nice to have an Independent Minority in the House to keep both parties in Check.
Legislation of marijuana and alcohol: How do lawmakers decide?
which forms of self anesthetization drugs are legalized?
I never thought I would be asking this question here, but the question never seems to go away. What is your opinion?Legislation of marijuana and alcohol: How do lawmakers decide?May I offer the following as food for thought.
As a police officer, I see more issues involved with the usage of these two elements
than most civilians do in a life time. My uniformed officers deal with the front line issues
involved in the usage of both, I could list statistics till the cows come home, on how much
of a negative effect these two elements have on our society, Most Domestic assaults are
caused by alcohol or drugs. Either one or the other household member becomes a victim.
Domestic violence is a train wreck looking to occur when either party is involved with the above.
25% of the Homicides I handle are alcohol or direct drug usage involved.
40% of the Armed Robbery's in my jurisdiction are related to drugs or alcohol usage.
These are social issues that are trying to be handled criminally and through legislation. Both
are failing miserably. Interdiction. Rehabilitation. Treatment. Are the keys to success of lessening
these problems.
Until we come to a meeting of the minds on how best to deal with the above problems, I will
be looking at increased statistics. Thanks for asking, Just a thought.Legislation of marijuana and alcohol: How do lawmakers decide?This subject tends to be controversial for any number of reasons.
Substance abuse takes many forms, and not all the substances are illegal or even regulated. One can argue against any substance that can be abused based on its potential for abuse. One can argue in favor of them as being beneficial if not abused.
I liked the first answer to this question from the police officer, because he deals with the specific problems abuse of these two substances (and other illegal drugs besides marijuana) cause. Note I said abuse. That can be extended to include trafficking issues.
The majority of people who use alcohol do so responsibly and in moderation. Those who abuse it cause any number of problems and not everyone who abuses it abuses it all the time. Responsible alcohol use means keeping it under control and not driving if enough has been consumed to impair. Alcoholism is a condition that affects a comparatively small percentage of alcohol consumers. It is a complex issue. I believe alcohol should be legal and its use regulated. I favor a legal drinking age of 21 and that driving while intoxicated should be punished at least as severely as it is now, but much more consistently. It should be noted that past attempts to prohibit sale and use of alcoholic beverages resulted in very high profits for organized crime. Also, some doctors say a moderate consumption of alcohol can have positive health benefits.
Marijuana is a bit more complex. While it has been argued that its effects are less damaging than those of alcohol, as an illegal substance there is little or no quality control. At a time when this society is trying to limit or eliminate tobacco use it makes little sense to increase the access and acceptability of a drug that must be smoked to have whatever effects it is going to have. It would seem to me that the active ingredient--if found to have a beneficial medical effect--should be legal if it can be produced in a different form such as a pill or liquid and if its quality and effect can be regulated. It should also be noted that as an illegal drug, marijuana is far more profitable than it would be if it were legal and regulated.
I've never used marijuana. I have used alcohol and have on occasion abused it.
Under no circumstances, regardless of what legal status these drugs are given, should socially harmful abuse or illegal trafficking be allowed or encouraged.
It seems to me that our society should be trying to find out what social inducements exist that result in any drug being abused. The culprit might well be not the drug, but the social environment that leads to its abuse. If we can find ways to make smoking less acceptable and less practiced we should be able to find ways to halt abuse of drugs, illegal, legal, or regulated.
Long answer, and I hope it makes sense.Legislation of marijuana and alcohol: How do lawmakers decide?Do you live in a dry county?
Be sure here you can wash your car with Chablis in Burgundy only the description care will make you drunk!don't smell the screen
there is a difference between alcololic beverages and Marijuana we call this **** Haschich muslim word
translation murderer.
I have seen what plan Ron Paul to shortsocket traffics:free markett!
About drugattic a prescription would be a better solution to limit to control .Legislation of marijuana and alcohol: How do lawmakers decide?
Alcohol is taxed about 100%.
MJ isn't that is how they decide:
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$…
I never thought I would be asking this question here, but the question never seems to go away. What is your opinion?Legislation of marijuana and alcohol: How do lawmakers decide?May I offer the following as food for thought.
As a police officer, I see more issues involved with the usage of these two elements
than most civilians do in a life time. My uniformed officers deal with the front line issues
involved in the usage of both, I could list statistics till the cows come home, on how much
of a negative effect these two elements have on our society, Most Domestic assaults are
caused by alcohol or drugs. Either one or the other household member becomes a victim.
Domestic violence is a train wreck looking to occur when either party is involved with the above.
25% of the Homicides I handle are alcohol or direct drug usage involved.
40% of the Armed Robbery's in my jurisdiction are related to drugs or alcohol usage.
These are social issues that are trying to be handled criminally and through legislation. Both
are failing miserably. Interdiction. Rehabilitation. Treatment. Are the keys to success of lessening
these problems.
Until we come to a meeting of the minds on how best to deal with the above problems, I will
be looking at increased statistics. Thanks for asking, Just a thought.Legislation of marijuana and alcohol: How do lawmakers decide?This subject tends to be controversial for any number of reasons.
Substance abuse takes many forms, and not all the substances are illegal or even regulated. One can argue against any substance that can be abused based on its potential for abuse. One can argue in favor of them as being beneficial if not abused.
I liked the first answer to this question from the police officer, because he deals with the specific problems abuse of these two substances (and other illegal drugs besides marijuana) cause. Note I said abuse. That can be extended to include trafficking issues.
The majority of people who use alcohol do so responsibly and in moderation. Those who abuse it cause any number of problems and not everyone who abuses it abuses it all the time. Responsible alcohol use means keeping it under control and not driving if enough has been consumed to impair. Alcoholism is a condition that affects a comparatively small percentage of alcohol consumers. It is a complex issue. I believe alcohol should be legal and its use regulated. I favor a legal drinking age of 21 and that driving while intoxicated should be punished at least as severely as it is now, but much more consistently. It should be noted that past attempts to prohibit sale and use of alcoholic beverages resulted in very high profits for organized crime. Also, some doctors say a moderate consumption of alcohol can have positive health benefits.
Marijuana is a bit more complex. While it has been argued that its effects are less damaging than those of alcohol, as an illegal substance there is little or no quality control. At a time when this society is trying to limit or eliminate tobacco use it makes little sense to increase the access and acceptability of a drug that must be smoked to have whatever effects it is going to have. It would seem to me that the active ingredient--if found to have a beneficial medical effect--should be legal if it can be produced in a different form such as a pill or liquid and if its quality and effect can be regulated. It should also be noted that as an illegal drug, marijuana is far more profitable than it would be if it were legal and regulated.
I've never used marijuana. I have used alcohol and have on occasion abused it.
Under no circumstances, regardless of what legal status these drugs are given, should socially harmful abuse or illegal trafficking be allowed or encouraged.
It seems to me that our society should be trying to find out what social inducements exist that result in any drug being abused. The culprit might well be not the drug, but the social environment that leads to its abuse. If we can find ways to make smoking less acceptable and less practiced we should be able to find ways to halt abuse of drugs, illegal, legal, or regulated.
Long answer, and I hope it makes sense.Legislation of marijuana and alcohol: How do lawmakers decide?Do you live in a dry county?
Be sure here you can wash your car with Chablis in Burgundy only the description care will make you drunk!don't smell the screen
there is a difference between alcololic beverages and Marijuana we call this **** Haschich muslim word
translation murderer.
I have seen what plan Ron Paul to shortsocket traffics:free markett!
About drugattic a prescription would be a better solution to limit to control .Legislation of marijuana and alcohol: How do lawmakers decide?
Alcohol is taxed about 100%.
MJ isn't that is how they decide:
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$…
Isn't it ironic that Obama is outraising McCain, when McCain's signature legislation was campaign finance?
It sure says alot about the effectiveness of McCain-Feingold doesn't it?
Now we hear Republicans complaining about Obama "buying" this election. So which is it? Is Obama "buying" the election, which proves that McCain's most famous legislative accomplishment is effectively useless? Or is he playing fair, and the Maverick(tm)'s legislation is helping to keep the playing field even and keep big money from ruining Washington, DC?Isn't it ironic that Obama is outraising McCain, when McCain's signature legislation was campaign finance?McCain is exploiting loopholes in his own campaign finance laws, for example...the RNC is allowed to run campaign ads on his behalf, without actually donating to the campaign....this somewhat levels the playing field, but it isn't even close to the funds Obama has at his disposal.Isn't it ironic that Obama is outraising McCain, when McCain's signature legislation was campaign finance?In order for intelligence to exist, there has to be stupidity
Now we hear Republicans complaining about Obama "buying" this election. So which is it? Is Obama "buying" the election, which proves that McCain's most famous legislative accomplishment is effectively useless? Or is he playing fair, and the Maverick(tm)'s legislation is helping to keep the playing field even and keep big money from ruining Washington, DC?Isn't it ironic that Obama is outraising McCain, when McCain's signature legislation was campaign finance?McCain is exploiting loopholes in his own campaign finance laws, for example...the RNC is allowed to run campaign ads on his behalf, without actually donating to the campaign....this somewhat levels the playing field, but it isn't even close to the funds Obama has at his disposal.Isn't it ironic that Obama is outraising McCain, when McCain's signature legislation was campaign finance?In order for intelligence to exist, there has to be stupidity
I have a question about the proposed legislation for the extension of the housing tax credit.?
If the new legislation is passed and the income limitations are removed, would I be able to claim the credit even though I purchased my house earlier in the year?I have a question about the proposed legislation for the extension of the housing tax credit.?Since nothing has been passed in to law there's NO possible way to answer the question.
The odds of another credit are not that hot. Sales tend to slump during the winter months anyway, so I'd speculate that no action will be taken until late Winter or early Spring. That of course is only a guess.
The odds of a larger credit or higher income limits or removal of the first time buyer requirement are even less.
The odds that it would be retro-active to any purchases in 2009 are pretty much zero. Congress surprised everyone when the current credit was back-dated to January 1, 2009. That proves that anything CAN happen, but don't hold your breath!cb radio translate japanese to english
The odds of another credit are not that hot. Sales tend to slump during the winter months anyway, so I'd speculate that no action will be taken until late Winter or early Spring. That of course is only a guess.
The odds of a larger credit or higher income limits or removal of the first time buyer requirement are even less.
The odds that it would be retro-active to any purchases in 2009 are pretty much zero. Congress surprised everyone when the current credit was back-dated to January 1, 2009. That proves that anything CAN happen, but don't hold your breath!
Gays: Do you think hate crime legislation is good or bad?
I think the laws are hypocritical. Your views.Gays: Do you think hate crime legislation is good or bad?As a gay, I'm against hate crime laws. For me, a crime is a crime..a murder is a murder. The *why* really isn't all that important, unless of course, mental illness played a part.Gays: Do you think hate crime legislation is good or bad?
It depends on how they're implemented. Nothing should abridge free speech or the free exercise of religion (or irreligion). To that end, I think that hate crime legislation should apply to religious groups. Jerks who terrorize a group of people with violence should fall under hate crime legislation.
I'm not sure how effective hate crime legislation is. People don't go gay bashing because they're rational, or because they fear the law.Gays: Do you think hate crime legislation is good or bad?Bad. Crime is crime. There are already laws to prevent violence, etc, against people, regardless of gender, race, sexuality, creed, etc.Gays: Do you think hate crime legislation is good or bad?
Hate crime legislation is a good thing, people who's are motivated by hate deserve more time in the slammer.Gays: Do you think hate crime legislation is good or bad?Hate crimes are sadly NECESSARY to add Penalty to Perpetrator!!
It depends on how they're implemented. Nothing should abridge free speech or the free exercise of religion (or irreligion). To that end, I think that hate crime legislation should apply to religious groups. Jerks who terrorize a group of people with violence should fall under hate crime legislation.
I'm not sure how effective hate crime legislation is. People don't go gay bashing because they're rational, or because they fear the law.Gays: Do you think hate crime legislation is good or bad?Bad. Crime is crime. There are already laws to prevent violence, etc, against people, regardless of gender, race, sexuality, creed, etc.Gays: Do you think hate crime legislation is good or bad?
Hate crime legislation is a good thing, people who's are motivated by hate deserve more time in the slammer.Gays: Do you think hate crime legislation is good or bad?Hate crimes are sadly NECESSARY to add Penalty to Perpetrator!!
Should there be a change in legislation that limits woman's rights to abort if the father wants the baby?
Could that include other family members? How would that happen?Should there be a change in legislation that limits woman's rights to abort if the father wants the baby?There should be a change in legislation and this is why...
Some will argue that it's a woman's right to choose. If she chooses to abort she is relinquishing her parental rights. If the male wants to keep the child, he should be allowed to force her to carry the baby to term. She has no other involvement with the child.
If you don't think this is fair, reverse the roles. If the woman chooses to keep the baby and the male wants her to abort it, he is responsible for the baby's financial care via child support for 18 years. Let him walk scot free or pay 9 months of child support while the baby is incubating. And then he has no other involvement with the child.
The bottom line is this: which is more important, the egg or the sperm? Current legislation obvioiusly favors the egg, however, without a sperm there is no baby. I think it's a 50/50 split. What good for one, is good for all. Change the legislation.Should there be a change in legislation that limits woman's rights to abort if the father wants the baby?
I most definately believe that if the father wants the baby, he should be given that opportunity. My Girlfriens is currently with child and i would not ever allow her to have an abbortion. (she would never want to). Now youll have these womens rights people saying well its their body, thats bull ****.
edit: Ill modify this a little and say that this should be circumstantial. I definately do not think that if 2 people are together that one should she should be able to go behind his back. However in cases of rape, or abandonment, i do not think that the "father" needs to be located.Should there be a change in legislation that limits woman's rights to abort if the father wants the baby?women have become too selfish, i am convinced that fathers have rights too.Should there be a change in legislation that limits woman's rights to abort if the father wants the baby?
No there shouldn't be a change in legislation. The right to have a baby is solely a woman's decision. Even if the father did want to keep the baby he's not the one to make that decision because he isn't that will have to carry a growing fetus for nine months. I personally believe that its solely a woman's choice whether to bring another human being into this world.
I'm not a feminist but I do believe that this is the best way to go.Should there be a change in legislation that limits woman's rights to abort if the father wants the baby?Suppose the child was conceived during rape. Would the rapist be allowed to stop the abortion? Suppose the conception took place during a wild weekend where the mother had sex with multiple partners. Would all the partners be allowed to stop the abortion? These are real possibilities; perhaps remote but still possible.
Then there is the sticky issue of family. How closely related does a person have to be to stop an abortion? Technically we can trace our DNA back to a few common ancestors.
It is up to the woman whether or not she wants to be responsible for bringing a life into this world or not. Lets leave it at that. If you are opposed to abortion, fine; go and convince women not to abort their babies. However, outlawing abortions is the dumbest thing a society can do.
The only way a family member could technically stop an abortion is to prove the woman is incompetent and be given power of attorney over the woman. Then they would also have to monitor the woman 24/7 to make sure she does not try to abort the fetus herself.Should there be a change in legislation that limits woman's rights to abort if the father wants the baby?
There is the obvious stipulation of consensual sex. Common sense dictates that a victim of rape who becomes pregnant as a result is the sole decision maker. The only problem with that is that there will be cases of fathers filing lawsuits against women whom they claim aborted their child without their consent. Obviously, the woman would have had to claim rape in order to carry out the abortion without a father's consent which causes a whole other mess of problems, not to mention abortion clinics having to "store" samples of DNA tissue from aborted fetuses for evidence! It creates a ton of new mess from a legal standpoint, but in my opinion, it would be worth it!
RickyRed makes an excellent point. If a woman gets to choose whether or not to be responsible for a baby, then the man should also have that right as well. He should be able to say, "OK if you want it, but I don't" and be able to walk away free of any support, financial or otherwise. Women want to argue that "it's MY body". Well, men ought to have the right to say "it's MY wallet"!
Another point in the "it's MY body" argument that seems often overlooked is that since a female can choose to remove a beating heart from her womb, then she should also have the right to remove her own beating heart, yet this is considered suicide! But wait- it's HER body, isn't it? How can it be suicide to remove her own beating heart from HER body and yet not be considered homicide to remove someone else's beating heart from HER body?
Pro- choicers are selfish, there's no way around it. It's NOT the end of the world to have a baby! There are plenty of people willing to adopt and no end to the rewards for raising the child yourself! Considering the options, abortion is akin to choosing amputation of limbs and replacing them with prosthetics because it's quick and easy and there's somewhere that you want to be RIGHT NOW even though modern medical alternatives could save the limbs with (9) months of surgery and physical therapy and still get you where you want to be later.
It's sad, really. Think of all the wonderful people that could have been walking amongst us today had they not been aborted...
Some will argue that it's a woman's right to choose. If she chooses to abort she is relinquishing her parental rights. If the male wants to keep the child, he should be allowed to force her to carry the baby to term. She has no other involvement with the child.
If you don't think this is fair, reverse the roles. If the woman chooses to keep the baby and the male wants her to abort it, he is responsible for the baby's financial care via child support for 18 years. Let him walk scot free or pay 9 months of child support while the baby is incubating. And then he has no other involvement with the child.
The bottom line is this: which is more important, the egg or the sperm? Current legislation obvioiusly favors the egg, however, without a sperm there is no baby. I think it's a 50/50 split. What good for one, is good for all. Change the legislation.Should there be a change in legislation that limits woman's rights to abort if the father wants the baby?
I most definately believe that if the father wants the baby, he should be given that opportunity. My Girlfriens is currently with child and i would not ever allow her to have an abbortion. (she would never want to). Now youll have these womens rights people saying well its their body, thats bull ****.
edit: Ill modify this a little and say that this should be circumstantial. I definately do not think that if 2 people are together that one should she should be able to go behind his back. However in cases of rape, or abandonment, i do not think that the "father" needs to be located.Should there be a change in legislation that limits woman's rights to abort if the father wants the baby?women have become too selfish, i am convinced that fathers have rights too.Should there be a change in legislation that limits woman's rights to abort if the father wants the baby?
No there shouldn't be a change in legislation. The right to have a baby is solely a woman's decision. Even if the father did want to keep the baby he's not the one to make that decision because he isn't that will have to carry a growing fetus for nine months. I personally believe that its solely a woman's choice whether to bring another human being into this world.
I'm not a feminist but I do believe that this is the best way to go.Should there be a change in legislation that limits woman's rights to abort if the father wants the baby?Suppose the child was conceived during rape. Would the rapist be allowed to stop the abortion? Suppose the conception took place during a wild weekend where the mother had sex with multiple partners. Would all the partners be allowed to stop the abortion? These are real possibilities; perhaps remote but still possible.
Then there is the sticky issue of family. How closely related does a person have to be to stop an abortion? Technically we can trace our DNA back to a few common ancestors.
It is up to the woman whether or not she wants to be responsible for bringing a life into this world or not. Lets leave it at that. If you are opposed to abortion, fine; go and convince women not to abort their babies. However, outlawing abortions is the dumbest thing a society can do.
The only way a family member could technically stop an abortion is to prove the woman is incompetent and be given power of attorney over the woman. Then they would also have to monitor the woman 24/7 to make sure she does not try to abort the fetus herself.Should there be a change in legislation that limits woman's rights to abort if the father wants the baby?
There is the obvious stipulation of consensual sex. Common sense dictates that a victim of rape who becomes pregnant as a result is the sole decision maker. The only problem with that is that there will be cases of fathers filing lawsuits against women whom they claim aborted their child without their consent. Obviously, the woman would have had to claim rape in order to carry out the abortion without a father's consent which causes a whole other mess of problems, not to mention abortion clinics having to "store" samples of DNA tissue from aborted fetuses for evidence! It creates a ton of new mess from a legal standpoint, but in my opinion, it would be worth it!
RickyRed makes an excellent point. If a woman gets to choose whether or not to be responsible for a baby, then the man should also have that right as well. He should be able to say, "OK if you want it, but I don't" and be able to walk away free of any support, financial or otherwise. Women want to argue that "it's MY body". Well, men ought to have the right to say "it's MY wallet"!
Another point in the "it's MY body" argument that seems often overlooked is that since a female can choose to remove a beating heart from her womb, then she should also have the right to remove her own beating heart, yet this is considered suicide! But wait- it's HER body, isn't it? How can it be suicide to remove her own beating heart from HER body and yet not be considered homicide to remove someone else's beating heart from HER body?
Pro- choicers are selfish, there's no way around it. It's NOT the end of the world to have a baby! There are plenty of people willing to adopt and no end to the rewards for raising the child yourself! Considering the options, abortion is akin to choosing amputation of limbs and replacing them with prosthetics because it's quick and easy and there's somewhere that you want to be RIGHT NOW even though modern medical alternatives could save the limbs with (9) months of surgery and physical therapy and still get you where you want to be later.
It's sad, really. Think of all the wonderful people that could have been walking amongst us today had they not been aborted...
How will Kennedy's proposed legislation help anyone? His health insurance proposal calls for businesses to be?
fined if they do not offer health insurance and for individuals to be fined if they do not chose to get either private insurance or a public plan?
How will this NOT cripple both the economy and businesses?How will Kennedy's proposed legislation help anyone? His health insurance proposal calls for businesses to be?I am unsure why business's need to offer to pay for health insurance anyway...it is major burden to them
Why can't we do away it and people pay themselves and have a one payer system
PBS.org had a very informative show regarding this idea
Need to look at who is preventing any reform from happening and why
it is the insurance companies who want it to remain the same
and doctors are protesting the fact that they have to spend time on the phone with the insurance companies fighting for their patients non stop
The insurance companies remain the problem and turn away anyone with illness...people believe they are covered but soon as find out they are sick they find themselves in debt a was not
We need to look at many different ideas and think outside the box to have real reform
What he proposes is to ensure all people are covered and no one left out and do not believe that fines are the way to go
As the reform is in early stages...best to get ideas out as the ones we have now do not work....it will go no where and not law so best to keep putting forth ideas....any out there?How will Kennedy's proposed legislation help anyone? His health insurance proposal calls for businesses to be?
Kennedy....HELP??? I don't think so.........Let him answer the questions about Mary Joe before screwing up our health care systemHow will Kennedy's proposed legislation help anyone? His health insurance proposal calls for businesses to be?He doesn't care who it cripples, as long the the govt./politicians get their cut.How will Kennedy's proposed legislation help anyone? His health insurance proposal calls for businesses to be?
Think about it. Social Security dead by 2017. States cannot afford their own welfare programs. Medicare is in very serious trouble. Ohio has completely cut out heating bill assistance which has run out of money, etc... With current deficits, not including future ones, our tax base with the loss of the middle class means virtually zero money in the treasury. I think it is way to optimistic to assume it will ONLY cripple the economy and businesses. I plan on leaving the USA immediately after graduation upon any credible job offers to areas of the world I am looking at. People have always asked me where would I go that is better than here. In four years, that is going to be a long list. How bad will it get here? Here's a couple of clues. Stalinist USSR and Mao's China. Hitler's Germany is another possibility. If you think it cannot happen here, you're not watching the news.How will Kennedy's proposed legislation help anyone? His health insurance proposal calls for businesses to be?Have you read the proposed legislation?How will Kennedy's proposed legislation help anyone? His health insurance proposal calls for businesses to be?
Federal government's interference in health care is unconstitutional (I DARE ALL OF YOU TO PROVE ME WRONG). If Comrade Kennedy is so confident in government interfered health care, he should go to Washington General Hospital (or the nearest public health clinic) the next time Mary Jo Kopekne's ghost visits him. Anyone who has confidence in the federal government's handling of health care should look at education, the welfare state programs, Socialist Insecurity, Medicare and Medicaid, all failed agencies of the federal government.
Darcy, how many of the people "turned away" by insurance companies waited until they needed help before they got insurance? If the federal government didn't interfere and make up so many useless rules health care would be a LOT cheaper. How's this for an idea - I go to a doctor, I pay; you go to a doctor, you pay? Personal responsibility - what a concept!
How will this NOT cripple both the economy and businesses?How will Kennedy's proposed legislation help anyone? His health insurance proposal calls for businesses to be?I am unsure why business's need to offer to pay for health insurance anyway...it is major burden to them
Why can't we do away it and people pay themselves and have a one payer system
PBS.org had a very informative show regarding this idea
Need to look at who is preventing any reform from happening and why
it is the insurance companies who want it to remain the same
and doctors are protesting the fact that they have to spend time on the phone with the insurance companies fighting for their patients non stop
The insurance companies remain the problem and turn away anyone with illness...people believe they are covered but soon as find out they are sick they find themselves in debt a was not
We need to look at many different ideas and think outside the box to have real reform
What he proposes is to ensure all people are covered and no one left out and do not believe that fines are the way to go
As the reform is in early stages...best to get ideas out as the ones we have now do not work....it will go no where and not law so best to keep putting forth ideas....any out there?How will Kennedy's proposed legislation help anyone? His health insurance proposal calls for businesses to be?
Kennedy....HELP??? I don't think so.........Let him answer the questions about Mary Joe before screwing up our health care systemHow will Kennedy's proposed legislation help anyone? His health insurance proposal calls for businesses to be?He doesn't care who it cripples, as long the the govt./politicians get their cut.How will Kennedy's proposed legislation help anyone? His health insurance proposal calls for businesses to be?
Think about it. Social Security dead by 2017. States cannot afford their own welfare programs. Medicare is in very serious trouble. Ohio has completely cut out heating bill assistance which has run out of money, etc... With current deficits, not including future ones, our tax base with the loss of the middle class means virtually zero money in the treasury. I think it is way to optimistic to assume it will ONLY cripple the economy and businesses. I plan on leaving the USA immediately after graduation upon any credible job offers to areas of the world I am looking at. People have always asked me where would I go that is better than here. In four years, that is going to be a long list. How bad will it get here? Here's a couple of clues. Stalinist USSR and Mao's China. Hitler's Germany is another possibility. If you think it cannot happen here, you're not watching the news.How will Kennedy's proposed legislation help anyone? His health insurance proposal calls for businesses to be?Have you read the proposed legislation?How will Kennedy's proposed legislation help anyone? His health insurance proposal calls for businesses to be?
Federal government's interference in health care is unconstitutional (I DARE ALL OF YOU TO PROVE ME WRONG). If Comrade Kennedy is so confident in government interfered health care, he should go to Washington General Hospital (or the nearest public health clinic) the next time Mary Jo Kopekne's ghost visits him. Anyone who has confidence in the federal government's handling of health care should look at education, the welfare state programs, Socialist Insecurity, Medicare and Medicaid, all failed agencies of the federal government.
Darcy, how many of the people "turned away" by insurance companies waited until they needed help before they got insurance? If the federal government didn't interfere and make up so many useless rules health care would be a LOT cheaper. How's this for an idea - I go to a doctor, I pay; you go to a doctor, you pay? Personal responsibility - what a concept!
Which political party routinely proposes legislation to further the idea of the Nanny State?
Another easy one, what say you?Which political party routinely proposes legislation to further the idea of the Nanny State?Any thinking person knows that it is the Democratic party. The delusional dems are just, well, delusional.Which political party routinely proposes legislation to further the idea of the Nanny State?
Republicans. See "gay marriage" constitutional amendments for the latest details.
You know the party that tells you who you should marry, wants to ban publications that they don't think you should be reading and programming they don't think you should watching (see porn), dictate what kind of sex you can have and approve of which genders you can have it with, what religion you must be, I could go on and on. Republicans make this too easy.Which political party routinely proposes legislation to further the idea of the Nanny State?Republicans...hands down.
Republicans
In his new book, economist Dean Baker debunks the myth that conservatives favor the market over government intervention. In fact, conservatives rely on a range of “nanny state” policies that ensure the rich get richer while leaving most Americans worse off. It’s time for the rules to change. Sound economic policy should harness the market in ways that produce desirable social outcomes – decent wages, good jobs and affordable health care.Which political party routinely proposes legislation to further the idea of the Nanny State?Studies show that the welfare queen idea has roots in both race and gender. Franklin Gilliam, the author of a public perception experiment on welfare, concludes that:
"While poor women of all races get blamed for their impoverished condition, African-American women commit the most egregious violations of American values. This story line taps into stereotypes about both women (uncontrolled sexuality) and African-Americans (laziness)."
Studies show that the public dramatically overestimates the number of African-Americans in poverty, with the cause of this attributed to media trends and its portrayal of poverty.[9] Political scientist Martin Gilens found that the media shifted its focus on poverty from white Appalachian farmers and factory closings during the 1960s, to a very darker image following civil unrest in major US cities.[9] By 1973, 75% of magazine pictures featured African Americans as the face of welfare, despite African Americans making up only 35% of welfare recipients.[9] This darkening of welfare recipients was accompanied by a feminization of poverty during the same time, where from the 1970s onwards, women became the predominant face of poverty.[3][1]
Franklin Gilliam’s study examined the intersection of people’s attitudes on race, gender, and the media. The experiment showed an 11-minute news clip, with a welfare story embedded at some point in the clip, to two groups of participants. Each welfare clip had a different recipient -- one with a white woman and the other with a black woman. The results showed that people were extremely accurate in their recall of the race and gender of the black female welfare recipient, confirming that the gendered and racial narrative had entered common knowledge and that implicit associations were often made.[3]Which political party routinely proposes legislation to further the idea of the Nanny State?
Republicans.
they wait until they have made huge fortunes on a loophole, then propose a law to close the loophole, and find another one, blaming the old one on democrats.
Republicans once again.Which political party routinely proposes legislation to further the idea of the Nanny State?
Repubic ians.
Republicans lately and they will take the mantle of being the least fiscally conservative of any governance over the last 30 years, just based on the growth of the national debt under Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43.
Dems do Nanny state stuff while Reps do Ninny state stuff. Substance versus symbolism. Any gay flag burners in your area lately?
None. That is a construct of the uber-Right wing of the Repugnican party...IOW, its a made-up crock of crap!
Both parties do this.....I wouldn't say either one has a leg up on the other here...
Depends on whether the "child" getting the nanny is a giant corporation or investment bank trying to have all regulation on it's particular industry removed ... in which case the party proposing the legislation is the Republican party.....
by the way how has all that deregulation that's occurred since Reagan working out.... so far only the airlines and the entire banking industry have failed but hey....at least Bush has weakened environmental laws so my air is dirtier... wait that's not good for anyone or anything, is it?
....or whether you are talking about a nanny state as it relates to individuals getting an affordable education or welfare when they are down and out... or affordable healthcare so they don't die unnecessarily just because they don't have the funds.... or maybe even a doctor who was willing to help the poor by accepting medicare/medicaid at his/her office that now (or at least through last week) was looking at a huge pay cut because of Medicare "reform" ..... in which case I think you have to say that it's almost always a Democrat proposing such legislation. ( And related to the last example given...Democrats working to override vetoes so we can actually get something done in our government... including making sure our doctors get paid and not our insurance companies).
Hope this answers your "softball" of a question.... and I wish I lived in the close-minded, sound-bite world you live in. It would simplify everything... and I like you... could go around thinking I was right all the time but never really looking at the problem with any depth. Yep... your black and white world must be a comforting place to live.... too bad it only exists in your head.
President Franklin Roosevelt’s socialistic program he called our “Second Bill of Rights.”
By 1944, when he began his fourth term (he was the only President unconstrained by the traditional limit of two terms), President Roosevelt candidly acknowledged in his State of the Union message that the New Deal welfare state was not part of the original Constitutional government of the United States and that the Constitution had never been amended, in accordance with the express provision of Article V, to legitimize the welfare state:
We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all – regardless of station, race, or creed. Among these are: The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries, or shops or farms or mines of the Nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; The right to a good education. All these rights spell security.
It is this “Second Bill of Rights” aspect of the liberal paradigm that leads today’s public, ignorant of history, to believe that health care and other welfare benefits are literally “constitutional rights.”
Republicans
the one that wants to control the bedroom but not the boardroom.
The Democrats..
The one that is running a communist for president this year.
Republicans. See "gay marriage" constitutional amendments for the latest details.
You know the party that tells you who you should marry, wants to ban publications that they don't think you should be reading and programming they don't think you should watching (see porn), dictate what kind of sex you can have and approve of which genders you can have it with, what religion you must be, I could go on and on. Republicans make this too easy.Which political party routinely proposes legislation to further the idea of the Nanny State?Republicans...hands down.
Republicans
In his new book, economist Dean Baker debunks the myth that conservatives favor the market over government intervention. In fact, conservatives rely on a range of “nanny state” policies that ensure the rich get richer while leaving most Americans worse off. It’s time for the rules to change. Sound economic policy should harness the market in ways that produce desirable social outcomes – decent wages, good jobs and affordable health care.Which political party routinely proposes legislation to further the idea of the Nanny State?Studies show that the welfare queen idea has roots in both race and gender. Franklin Gilliam, the author of a public perception experiment on welfare, concludes that:
"While poor women of all races get blamed for their impoverished condition, African-American women commit the most egregious violations of American values. This story line taps into stereotypes about both women (uncontrolled sexuality) and African-Americans (laziness)."
Studies show that the public dramatically overestimates the number of African-Americans in poverty, with the cause of this attributed to media trends and its portrayal of poverty.[9] Political scientist Martin Gilens found that the media shifted its focus on poverty from white Appalachian farmers and factory closings during the 1960s, to a very darker image following civil unrest in major US cities.[9] By 1973, 75% of magazine pictures featured African Americans as the face of welfare, despite African Americans making up only 35% of welfare recipients.[9] This darkening of welfare recipients was accompanied by a feminization of poverty during the same time, where from the 1970s onwards, women became the predominant face of poverty.[3][1]
Franklin Gilliam’s study examined the intersection of people’s attitudes on race, gender, and the media. The experiment showed an 11-minute news clip, with a welfare story embedded at some point in the clip, to two groups of participants. Each welfare clip had a different recipient -- one with a white woman and the other with a black woman. The results showed that people were extremely accurate in their recall of the race and gender of the black female welfare recipient, confirming that the gendered and racial narrative had entered common knowledge and that implicit associations were often made.[3]Which political party routinely proposes legislation to further the idea of the Nanny State?
Republicans.
they wait until they have made huge fortunes on a loophole, then propose a law to close the loophole, and find another one, blaming the old one on democrats.
Republicans once again.Which political party routinely proposes legislation to further the idea of the Nanny State?
Repubic ians.
Republicans lately and they will take the mantle of being the least fiscally conservative of any governance over the last 30 years, just based on the growth of the national debt under Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43.
Dems do Nanny state stuff while Reps do Ninny state stuff. Substance versus symbolism. Any gay flag burners in your area lately?
None. That is a construct of the uber-Right wing of the Repugnican party...IOW, its a made-up crock of crap!
Both parties do this.....I wouldn't say either one has a leg up on the other here...
Depends on whether the "child" getting the nanny is a giant corporation or investment bank trying to have all regulation on it's particular industry removed ... in which case the party proposing the legislation is the Republican party.....
by the way how has all that deregulation that's occurred since Reagan working out.... so far only the airlines and the entire banking industry have failed but hey....at least Bush has weakened environmental laws so my air is dirtier... wait that's not good for anyone or anything, is it?
....or whether you are talking about a nanny state as it relates to individuals getting an affordable education or welfare when they are down and out... or affordable healthcare so they don't die unnecessarily just because they don't have the funds.... or maybe even a doctor who was willing to help the poor by accepting medicare/medicaid at his/her office that now (or at least through last week) was looking at a huge pay cut because of Medicare "reform" ..... in which case I think you have to say that it's almost always a Democrat proposing such legislation. ( And related to the last example given...Democrats working to override vetoes so we can actually get something done in our government... including making sure our doctors get paid and not our insurance companies).
Hope this answers your "softball" of a question.... and I wish I lived in the close-minded, sound-bite world you live in. It would simplify everything... and I like you... could go around thinking I was right all the time but never really looking at the problem with any depth. Yep... your black and white world must be a comforting place to live.... too bad it only exists in your head.
President Franklin Roosevelt’s socialistic program he called our “Second Bill of Rights.”
By 1944, when he began his fourth term (he was the only President unconstrained by the traditional limit of two terms), President Roosevelt candidly acknowledged in his State of the Union message that the New Deal welfare state was not part of the original Constitutional government of the United States and that the Constitution had never been amended, in accordance with the express provision of Article V, to legitimize the welfare state:
We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all – regardless of station, race, or creed. Among these are: The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries, or shops or farms or mines of the Nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; The right to a good education. All these rights spell security.
It is this “Second Bill of Rights” aspect of the liberal paradigm that leads today’s public, ignorant of history, to believe that health care and other welfare benefits are literally “constitutional rights.”
Republicans
the one that wants to control the bedroom but not the boardroom.
The Democrats..
The one that is running a communist for president this year.
Will the ethics and lobby reform legislation will make a difference in congress?
Do you beleive this will cause any difference in the day to day operation of Congress, or is it filled with loopholes?Will the ethics and lobby reform legislation will make a difference in congress?No, it won't make a difference. And it shouldn't. People like to complain about lobbyists. But they really need to look into a mirror. Lobbyists work for us. One of the most powerful lobbies in the country is the AARP, for old people. Or how about the NRA, for gun owners. Or Sierra Club, for greens. Or the Chamber of Commerce, for small business owners. The list is endless.
We need lobbyists. I don't have the time or money to make my voice heard to my congressman. If there is an issue that I care about, I can simply donate money to the organization and let them do the work for me.publishing companies spanish translation online
We need lobbyists. I don't have the time or money to make my voice heard to my congressman. If there is an issue that I care about, I can simply donate money to the organization and let them do the work for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)