Started by MV/Liberace!, February 08, 2012, 10:50:42 AM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: analog kid on June 28, 2012, 03:42:34 PMThey also think that, if Larry the Cable Guy doesn't have access to someone else's personal information, or can't walk into Harvard and get a look at Obama's records, it's a sign of a conspiracy.
Quote from: MV on June 28, 2012, 02:14:38 PMyou'll get no disagreement here. it's just that i don't think obama's solution is the right one. we listened for TWO YEARS to this guy telling us what a bunch of cunts the insurance companies are... and now he's forcing the poorest among us to become their customers or pay a fine? really? and his supporters (the people who cheered as he railed against the insurance industry) are on board with this too?
Quote from: Camazotz Automat on June 28, 2012, 02:23:06 PMParrots speak of pre-existing conditions being accepted while ignoring the fact that health insurance coverage does not guarantee treatment of any kind. Physicians can and do limit the amount of patients they treat. Insurance companies do DENY treatments THEY deem too expensive or experimental, etc, even if the physician RECOMMENDS the denied treatment. This reality will only sharpen as "hordes descend."
Quote from: Zircon on June 28, 2012, 01:38:41 PM1So what do you propose Bob, the UK model? 2Do you actually think medical care is free? 3Are you a moron? 4I think you're model is fucking bullshit.
Quote from: Zircon on June 28, 2012, 05:47:36 PMWe wanted the Court to really decide the limits of the Commerce clause of the Constitution, instead, the Court whimped out by hiding behind the authority to tax. It's a HUGE mistake on the part of the Court because now it invites ever more Commerce Clause issues to boil up. Lost an opportunity to decisively draw the line on the extent of the Commerce Clause. That is the real failure that occurred today.
QuoteConstruing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congressâ€™s power to â€œregulate Commerce.â€
Quote from: HAL 9000 on June 28, 2012, 07:22:59 PMSo my analysis is that, Commerce Clause arguments to compel or mandate activity was diminished, while the ability to compel activity via a tax, even though the legislation went out of its way to deny it was not a tax (the incoherent concept "invented" by Justice Roberts) was largely increased.
Quote from: Paper*Boy on June 28, 2012, 07:21:31 PM All modern presidents and presidential candidates have routinely provided exhaustive documents - tax returns, birth, health, school, docs related to prior service in state/fed govt, all sorts of pretty boring stuff. Instead of that, Obama has literaly spent millions on lawyers bottling all this stuff up. There is a lot we don't know about time gaps in his life, other things he's said or are part of his narrative are seemingly contradictory (did he ever decide once and for all which Honolulu hospital he was born in?). Prior to his 2 years in the US Senate, outside of Illinois he was a complete unknown and seemingly appeared on the national stage out of nowhere. Do you really not see why some of this would lead to questions?
Quote from: MV on June 27, 2012, 04:29:02 PMthat's exactly right. one of my roommates when i was 19 was a guy named terry. he was a VERY gay drag queen. EVERY FUCKING CONVERSATION with this guy would inevitably end up being steered (by him) toward his gayness. always. i've known several gay people like that who have hinged their entire identity onto being gay. just stop it, already. i felt like grabbing him by the collar and shouting, "BEING GAY DOESN'T MAKE YOU A BAD PERSON!!!! YOU DON'T NEED MY APPROVAL OR CONFIRMATION!!!!"
Quote from: EvB on July 01, 2012, 04:19:57 PMSounds like someone who is young and insecure, whatever their 'partition.'
Quote from: MV on July 01, 2012, 04:33:49 PMmy point was that it seems from my personal experiences with gays that a disproportionate number of them are woefully insecure.
Quote from: b_dubb on July 20, 2012, 03:48:50 AMGuys get beat up for lots of reasons. Wearing the wrong color clothes. Making eye contact with wrong psychotic. I won't say that being gay doesn't make you a target. But I think there is something to the idea that homosexuality is a mental illness. Go to the Castro District in San Francisco. Go to the Folsom Street Festival. You'll see that for a lot of gay men that sex has become a compulsion towards instant gratification. And that everyone has to accept them or they're just evil. I went to the Folsom Street Festival and after seeing the Mutual Felatio Society of SF both with their molded plastic glory hole I began to consider there may be something to the AMA's position that homosexuality was a mental illness. But then maybe this behavior is all part of a fringe element within the gay community? I know some responsible seemingly well adjusted gays. They aren't dressed up in bondage gear in a gay pride parade. They're at home doing their taxes and mowing the lawn.Don't think the freaks are indicative of the general population because they are not
Quote from: onan on July 20, 2012, 06:44:50 AMAs to sexual compulsion... hard to refute. The reasons are difficult to explain in a handful of paragraphs.
Quote from: stevesh on July 20, 2012, 07:01:07 AMMy simplistic mind has always assumed that gay men tend toward sexual compulsion because their partners are, well, other men. We straight guys would be sexually compulsive, too, if women would let us.
Quote from: Zircon on July 20, 2012, 09:05:21 AMHomosexuality has been around forever. I'd think that even during prehistoric times when a woman wasn't around, men would engage in sex. Greeks and Romans did this when on military campaigns. And we all know about Sodomy and Gonorrhea from the Old Testament.I never had a problem working with gay men as they were comfortable in the working environment knowing straight men knew they were gay. I have almost always had a problem with lesbians however. They actually dislike men. They actually dislike straight women (regard them as slaves). Most straight women I know are uncomfortable around lesbians as well. Lesbians often demean straight women and act "butch" around them trying to assume a male role expecting the straight woman to comply by submitting or leaving.Mental disorder? Let me see. Gay men use their mouths and anuses as substitute vaginas. If you want sex then why settle for a filthy ass hole. Go get the real thing. There is plenty out there and in our loose culture, more than willing to participate. Lesbians are more often driven to hate men so they go after women with a like past. You'll quite often see two divorcees with kids who are living in a lesbian relationship. I do not like companies that suggest, "we love gays and lesbians" as part of their hiring practices. What you do in your own bedroom shouldn't be a consideration for employment.
Quote from: BobGrau on July 20, 2012, 03:10:04 PMI think I might organise a Masturbator's Parade. Who's in?
Quote from: onan on July 20, 2012, 03:05:01 PMSodomy isn't only practiced by homosexuals. Same with oral sex.