Topic: . - page 17. (Read 46171 times)

Darth Vador was the coolest Sith Lord ever.

The "Rule of Two" of the title requires that there be only two Sith in existence at one time: a Master and an Apprentice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_Darth_Bane:_Rule_of_Two

In this case Obama and valerie jarret would perfectly fit my definition of a Master and an Apprentice. And Sith Lord Obama has a ring to it.




Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that African Americans, whether slave or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court,[2][3] and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. Dred Scott, an African American slave who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom. In a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the Court denied Scott's request and in doing so, ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional for the second time in its history.[4][5]
Although Taney hoped that his ruling would settle the slavery question once and for all, the decision immediately spurred wide public debate. Most scholars and many contemporary political figures (including the leadership of the then-new Republican Party) considered the ruling regarding slavery in the territories to be dictum, not binding precedent. The decision would prove to be an indirect catalyst for the American Civil War and was functionally superseded by the post-war Reconstruction Amendments. It is now widely regarded as the worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford


Now it is perfectly OK to be over the top if based with facts and smile like I usually do AND be called a 5 alarm alarmist at the same time.

2014 is still young

It's a textbook example of the strange higher standard that Republicans are held to compared to Democrats.  Which is increasing, not decreasing.

Democratic politicians can be crackheads.

But Republican politicians can't be crackheads.

Do you not think you risk people calling you an alarmist?  Sith Lord? Slavery?  Take a moment to breathe and consider the alternative.  You disagree with Obamacare.  So do I.  But neither of us really believes that Barack Obama is a Sith Lord.  Do we?

Under what US authority does Sith Lord Obama can simply decide to apply part of a law, move a dead line around, etc? If you are a king, tyrant, emperor, pope, grand mufti, etc then Yes He Could!

The strangest thing is... He is a constitutional something something. This is perfect if the democrats are in power for the rest of the end of the USA. But all of those power grabbing moves are Jurisprudence example for the people you wish will never come back into power. Are you going to feel sad when the republicans will apply the same exact moves the Sith Lord did or happy?

Obamacare is the law of the land now... just like slavery used to be.

I signed up on Christmas because theyre administration extended the dealine

Big government has an outcome in photos:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4245914

Nearly 16,000 Iowans who tried to apply for coverage via the trouble-plagued federal health-insurance website are being told to apply separately through the state Department of Human Services.

The Friday afternoon announcement is the latest bout of bad news about the website, which is a key part of the Affordable Care Act.

The announcement affects people who entered their information into healthcare.gov and received a notice that they might qualify for Medicaid. The federal computer system was supposed to transfer their applications to a state computer system, but that transfer has been complicated by technical problems. The timing is critical, because the new insurance coverage is supposed to take effect on New Year’s Day, which is Wednesday.

http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2013/12/27/healthcare-gov-delays-lead-iowa-to-ask-16000-people-to-reapply-for-public-insurance-via-state-human-services-department/article?gcheck=1

You are right.

Just need a small correction and...

So wilikon, what's your problem?

If you like your plan you CAN keep it.  Just not your house, or car, or college education for your kids.

The Chapmans acknowledge that they are better off than many people, but they represent a little-understood reality of the Affordable Care Act. While the act clearly benefits those at the low end of the income scale — and rich people can continue to afford even the most generous plans — people like the Chapmans are caught in the uncomfortable middle: not poor enough for help, but not rich enough to be indifferent to cost. …

A 60-year-old living in Polk County, in northwestern Wisconsin, and earning $50,000 a year, for example, would have to spend more than 19 percent of his income, or $9,801 annually, to buy one of the cheapest plans available there. A person earning $45,000 would qualify for subsidies and would pay about 5 percent of his income, or $2,228, for an inexpensive plan. …

David Oscar, an insurance broker in New Jersey, another high-cost state, said many of his clients had been disappointed to learn that the premiums were much more expensive than they had expected.

“They’re frustrated,” he said. “Everybody was thinking that Obamacare was going to come in with more affordable rates. Well, they’re not more affordable.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/business/new-health-law-frustrates-many-in-middle-class.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Right, you don't want to talk about the Obamacare national database.

Thanks.

This is why you have to support Obama care, opiates for the masses 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/20/massachusetts-cops-intercept-more-than-1000-bags-of-obama-care-heroin/

The FDA says its illegal - they say they have a policy of non-enforcement under certain circumstances.  Nothing else to say - if you think they are wrong, feel free to take it up with your local elected representative.

Who cares about the price of Coke?  We are talking about medicine.  Its not a frivolous extra - its something your doctor told you to get.

And seriously, you are posting to defend the pre-Obamacare system.  Saying "How many things am I meant to worry about?" when you are made aware of flaws in the pre-Obamacare system seems a pretty poor defence.  Why not accept that it sucked and then see if you can come up with something better?

I know your first two paragraphs do not show correct understanding of facts.

The third one, well, what about the injustice of a can of Coca Cola costing US equivalent $5 in many parts of Europe?  Should I be concerned about that?  How many things should I worry about?

The topic is Obamacare.  I had no idea why you want to talk about databases.  I pointed out that doctors have to keep records and that the security services have access to these records.  So this all pre-exists Obamacare.  But, if you really care about databases, make a thread for it.  

You argued that its OK that drugs cost more in the US under the old system because you can import them from Canada.  You said that you did it yourself. That's illegal.  The fact that you were not prosecuted doesn't change the fact that its against the law.  

Regardless of whether or not you personally broke the law, its a bad system.  Do you really think its a great idea that drugs cost more in the US than Canada and that the reason for the price difference is based on regulations rather than on markets?

First of all, you don't know me, and thus you are clueless about what laws I care about breaking or not.  Neither will any solemn pronouncements about "the law" change my behavior one bit.

Second, the essence of free markets is competition, and I routinely buy from all over the globe, different types of things. 

Third, administrative law operates under it's own regulatory umbrella.  If you want to claim that a US regulatory agency is doing illegal things, go at it.  Hint:  Start with the EPA, then go to the DEA, the FBI, and let me know when you get around to Customs and Border Patrol and we'll talk.

Fourth, do you think you've skirted the subject of the National Health Database that I thought we were discussing?

Its a policy.  Like the police policy that they don't arrest for small quantities of drugs.  Its still illegal.

Your anecdote about border guards tells us how the system actually used to work.  You live in a rich country and had to go abroad to get drugs at a reasonable price and knowingly or not you broke the law. 

Would it not be better to be able to get them at a sensible price locally?  Forget the law breaking - just look at how stupid it is that you had to get the drugs from Canada.

Man, no offence intended, but your very link disproves your assertion.  Look, I'm not some guy looking up linkies to prove a point, I actually do this.  I've stood next to border guards and handed them my drugs and got waved through, etc.

Here is from your own link:


FDA, however, has a policy explaining that it typically does not object to personal imports of drugs that FDA has not approved under certain circumstances.


Anyway, you have not addressed the important of drugs that the FDA has approved.

Apparently neither does the FDA: http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm194904.htm

Your idea of a working health system is one where drugs are overcharged to people who are not prepared to break the law. 

Surely you can think of something better to defend?

Well, you don't know our laws on that, either.  So you've got that wrong, also.