Santorum's take on church vs state

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar


He was trying to make a point how there was still a divide between the races because of past transgressions, but no one whats to hear that, its far to reasonable. Every president makes their own experience in the white house unique. They often redecorate then entire place when they move in and do all sorts of renovations. Here is a link about how much money each president gets when they come into office to redecorate. http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/55679/ How you can take a statement referring to a typical white woman and the redecorating of the white house as a deep seated hatred to white culture is absolutely IGNORANT. People will believe whatever they want to believe I suppose.

I take it you didn't watch the third video, which clearly shows he knew the truth and since it didn't suit his needs, he disregarded it. It also shows how corrupt his staff is as well, since they all knew and still went along with it. Also, what about his lying about touching one of the founding documents just to make it more dramatic. When you would lie about such a simple thing, to so many people, you will lie about anything. Not to mention all the crying nonsense, what a fake little person he is.

Let me make this perfectly clear, I did not automatically hate Glenn Beck, as much as you want to believe otherwise. I have provided many different examples that in part helped me form my opinion on him. I know you want to think that I just blindly hate the guy, but you are dead wrong, plain and simple. I have showed you videos of Beck himself to prove my notions, straight from the source, yet you choose to discredit them based on their length, or when they were produced, instead of something reasonable.

As far as your argument against my examples go, you take one small point of any of the examples and argue it, then you extrapolate that argument to discredit the entire example! Maybe he couldn't afford to continue to go to college, that still is technically dropping out. He then proceeded to call one of the biggest and oldest colleges in the world a double wide trailer. Seriously?

In conclusion, it seems I will never be able to convince you of the true nature of Glenn Beck, its going to be up to you to do it on your own. All I can say is read up on the psychological documentation on him and his former drug abuse, look at the majority of his followers, and come to your own resolution. Do you really want to be grouped in with those people from the stupid people don't know their stupid video? They all were completely ignorant and yet they were diehard Glenn Beck fans, doesn't that in itself provide some sort of doubt on what kind of person he is, by who his core followers are?

I leave you with this, good luck!

http://glennbeckreport.com/glenn-beck-lies/lie-of-the-day-archive/


 
To bad you have a narrow mind to think like this about these people.You are a right-winger no doubt I see!
 


Man, whatever your taking, give me some.
 
Don't engage in personal attacks. Resist the urge to call the other poster a Communist Tree-hugging Baby-killing Drug-Dealing Islamofascist bleeding-heart Hippie or a Right-wing gun-toting redneck homophobic bigoted warmongering corporate-bought racist. Leave the labels for each other at the door.
Avoid generalizations directed to groups of people.



 


http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45037 LOL nice try, I will go ahead and debunk a few for fun.

1. The 80% number is from people who think that taxes AND budget cuts are the way to go. The statement you listed is complete and utter B.S.
5. A large number of companies were already dropping coverage before Obama even got into office, the coal mines out here where I live are among the examples It is because of these rising costs that healthcare needed reformed. It needed it 10 years ago but not one would touch it, I think Bill Clinton tried but was unsuccessful, I can't remember.

6. Only three former lobbyists got positions within his administration that were actually important. Which is a huge difference compared to every other president. He also set strict guidelines and rules for the selection of these formers lobbyists. He has done more to fight lobbying in our government than any president, EVER. Considering that everyone in Washington is a lobbyist, I think he did alright.
7. Yes the supreme court justice that was selected by Bush is an expert in international finance. Good point.
8. What if they get pulled over for a speeding ticket or the cop thinks that they jaywalked? It is up to officer's discretion and only leads to open discrimination. How would you feel if every time you got pulled over you had to prove you were an American citizen, people complain about their rights getting taken away only if it affects them, if it is somebody else they could care less, despicable.
10. Wow! Really?

None of your arguments count anyways, its over 6 months old, is from a conservative website, and includes misrepresentations. Obama does not manipulate people's emotions and beliefs, if Glenn Beck was president I would move to Canada immediately and watch the fireworks.




 


10. LOL is all I can say to that.

I was being sarcastic with my last statement referring to your previous statements about the age and source of the material. Looks like it was a waste of time however, as you became upset about it and missed the point.

I don't think you even read half the articles I posted, so no, I don't expect you to accept something that you have not even read.

Let me get this straight, saying that he will fight global warming is the same as saying that the government is secretly communist, wants to take away all your freedoms and basically enslave you? That is truly laughable!,

I will admit he did not accomplish everything he said he would in his campaign but I think he's been a little busy with two wars, the economy and healthcare reform. Wasn't it you that said that not everyone is going to be happy?

Did you even look at the links on the last link you posted? I saw one that said Barrack lied about pulling out of Iraq, LOL, give me a break.

Lastly there will always be difference between the right and left media, not all of mine are from left biased sites though, even if you automatically think they are. Your last statement sounded like Glenn Beck reincarnated, the transformation is almost complete!

 


No evidence whatsoever, just your own opinion? If you think that drill baby drill is the right answer, you are wrong. We should make ourselves completely energy dependent on renewable energy and sell our oil for a huge profit. How can people be so stuck in the past and the present as to completely overlook the future?
 


First let me respond to you previous quote.

Your first demeaning statement I will overlook, I will stay the high road. The 10th amendment states the the federal government cannot force the states to pass federal statues. In this case, Obamacare does nothing of the sort. That is why I was disregarding that comment entirely. Instead of taking shots at me, maybe you should do research.

The sarcasm played on your initial ridiculous statements, so of course they were ridiculous.

How do you think he was going to lower the sea levels? By addressing global warming, it was a logical step. Seriously, how did you not make this connection? Laughable? Sure.....

He lied about pulling out all our combat troops from Iraq? Were are you getting this information from? Glenn Beck? All our combat troops are gone, all that remains is personal contractors, civilians, and the troops guarding the embassy. Its beyond me where you get these absurd statements from.

There is no manipulation in there as it is the truth, and even if it does have emotional attitudes attached to it you are comparing a pebble to a boulder.







 


Can't look at the link until I get home, the firewall at work is blocking it.

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/157441-fact-checking-the-washington-rhetoric-on-drilling

I will take proven numbers over speculations any day of the week.
 


You are making your own interpretation of the amendment to argue for your statement. Read that actual interpretation that the Supreme Court has made and you will understand my previous statement.

I will admit that no one can know how global warming will play out, because we have never witnessed what we will in the next few decades. However, messing with a system that has been in place for thousands of millions of years seems to be asking for trouble. The "If its not broke don't fix it" mentality seems to be appropriate here. Do you really want your children and grandchildren to grow up in a world were there are no ice caps and smog dominates the air in every major urban area? Not to mention the health concerns associated with living in big cities and breathing in that smog day in and day out. How can you not accept that this is a bad thing that needs addressed?

His campaign promise was to get all our combat troops out of Iraq, check.
 
A badge of honor to get us into another war with Iran. Another Hawk!
 


Where to begin.....let's start with your completely delusion concept of global warming, for this lets refer to it as climate change, it will help with the explanation. Much of our climate system is dependent on currents in the sea, its how the UK is even close to livable. If you throw a wrench into this system, it will cause some of the northern climates to be even colder. Canada is not as dependent on these currents but their entire way of life would be harmed by an increase in temperatures, but who cares about that? I hope you were kidding here, because if not, you are detached from the reality that climate change will cause more grief than anything else.

"The Virginia attorney general has promised to file a lawsuit against the federal government claiming that it can't compel Virginians to buy health insurance. His supporters say health care reform violates the 10th Amendment. Does it?
Probably not. The 10th Amendment states that "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The federal government, however, can claim two Constitutional justifications for mandating health care. One is the right to regulate interstate commerce, which includes any business that operates across state lines. (Even if not all health insurance companies operate in more than one state, Congress can still regulate them as long as that regulation is part of a comprehensive interstate scheme, according to the Supreme Court.) Congress also has the Constitutional right to tax. Just as Congress taxes polluting companies for imposing a burden on other people, it could tax Americans who don't buy health insurance for doing the same. As if to emphasize the point, the fine for not buying insurance is levied by the IRS"

As far as the states go, its not forcing the states to do anything, if they don't provide coverage the federal government will. Using a quote from one of the founding fathers about the general details of federalism is a lame attempt at an argument, maybe you should read the actual details of the healthcare bill as it pertains to our constitution instead of making your own interpretations of our constitution based on quotes.
 


Again your narrow scope of mind has obscured the logic from the interstate commerce clause ruling. Say that you have insurance and I don't. Now say that I live in a different state and get in an accident and cannot pay my healthcare bills. This then increases healthcare costs across the nation and that will include you, therefore me not having insurance increases healthcare costs throughout the nation and then raises your rate on insurance. Healthcare costs directly affect insurance premiums and since healthcare costs are distributed nationally it falls under the interstate commerce clause. Simple, right? This is just one of the many logical points you can make using the interstate commerce clause ruling.

Under penalty of law? LOL! Off with the non-insured citizen's head! Quit being so melodramatic, it would only cause you to pay a tax, that tax is completely within the power of congress, they are allowed to levy taxes under the constitution are they not? Another argument is that them not having insurance will increase costs for the rest of us hard working Americans. They are completely within their right under the constitution to levy a tax to make up for the increased costs those people are propagating to us.

I was not trying to demean what the founding fathers said or what they accomplished. I was addressing the fundamental core of your argument, you cannot use a quote describing the general way that federalism should be approached as an argument for the specifics involved in the rulings for amendment 10. Its like saying a slice of the orange is determined by the way the orange tree blows in the wind.


 
Funny, 2% is nothing sometimes, and huge, stop trying to be warm, shut down the world disastor the next.
The faiths of some come under scrutiny, even when the wording is obvious, while disclaiming a faith of their own
 


This link has only the abstract, the actual article would be far more indisputable. Either way, when the truth is harder to bear than the denial of it, people will bury their heads in the sand.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.34/abstract

On a side note, its not just about the greenhouse gases, its about all of the pollution that mankind is responsible for. It has a far greater reach than some people will ever admit too.
 
"We set out the methodological basis for detection and attribution and discuss the spatial scales on which it is possible to make robust attribution statements. "

From the link.
I dont want someone setting the basis, nor making robust statements on their findings of said set methodology.
To me, thats a leap of faith right there.
While much has been presented and charted on our usage and misuage odf our resources, the effects also, the extremes are what is primarily shown, for greater impact.

If we reduce what our founding fathers said, their beliefs, and how they should be respected and maintained within the constitution, then why have such strong faith without reduction as well in MMGW?
If one is curious, or so ready to cast off one thing, yet cling to another, it would seem their curiosity is misplaced, no?
 


So instead of using a methodical approach you would rather that they do what, just guess? "Methodology is the branch of logic that deals with the general principles of the formation of knowledge". How are they suppose quantify their research if they do not set a basis with which to judge not only how they detect changes in the environment but how much of it is related to mankind's involvement? Also we should plan for the worst and hope for the best in my opinion.

When it comes to the specifics of our constitution, things have changed, it is inevitable. The document that was originally drafted would not serve today. It has evolved, it was designed to evolve by the founding fathers, they knew that it had to be adaptable to stand the test of time. Our founding father's sentiment should always be taken into consideration, but did they ever talk about healthcare, globalization or illegal aliens? They wanted power split between the states and the national government so that it would almost be like another check and balance within our government.

If we reduce what our founding fathers said then why have such strong faith without reduction in man made global warming? Are you asking if I was wary of what the founding fathers said that I should be wary about MMGW?

Anyone's curiosity can be misplaced if the curiosity is unfounded, just because some is curious about something but not something else does not mean it is misplaced.
 
Things have changed thru the transgressions of the federal government, where now it appears they nudge at the very first amendment.
Now, since someone accepts this as being a rational end, why is it so hard to determine that a brand new theory, with brand new ideas, using brand new equipment is also so willing to change those things we know, that weather is possibly impossible to confirm.
If you cant change this, reasoning with those whose very livelihood is paramount upon having such a future in this particular area, ignoring this, and allowing methodology thats been created upon all these things, while ignoring history, the words, the applications of the past, yet firmly and faithfully approaching an unforhere unknown, like the weather, based upon this "new" tech, Im not sure your faith is firmly grounded.
I think such a faith is more about change and feelings than real facts, tho, saying this about one side, and ignoring another, again, I have to question ones firmament .
Burying your head in the sand, all the while throwing monies and making demands, and by government, which is always the lowest common denominator when it comes to efficiency also shows a lack of common sense, and before we make huge approaches towards making changes, on either important ideal here, waiting and watching, gaining more information, not jumping ahead in such tough times would not only be the prudent thing to do, but the wisest
 
What is an aggressive stance you are favoring?
 


Well spoken, I agree that both sides should be looked at when considering any problem. Also being rash in our judgement of said things would be a bad thing. However, when will it be too late to take action? This information they have gathered is from decades of research, and it all points to one logical conclusion, climate change. Would it not be on the side of caution to implement solutions that we have available to us now? Even if that logical conclusion is just plain wrong, the solutions will cause no "real" harm to us while the possibility of climate change could change the very face of the earth.
 



Far from “inactivity,” by choosing to forgo insurance plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now through the purchase of insurance, collectively shifting billions of dollars, $43 billion in 2008, onto other market participants. . . . The Supreme Court has consistently rejected claims that individuals who choose not to engage in commerce thereby place themselves beyond the reach of the Commerce Clause.

The shifting 43 billion is not a major part of the uptick in healthcare? Are you sure?

Convoluted? Sorry, I was going by years of rulings handed down by the supreme court, not my own interpretation, based on my feelings about the intent of the founding fathers. The inactivity of someone that leads to other people across the nation paying more money falls under the commerce clause, plain and simple.
 


What about my freedoms and liberties? I have to pay more because some deadbeat wont get insurance, so I have to pay for his healthcare as well? Think of it like this, you can get a reduction in your taxes by having health insurance. Its not forcing you to do anything, you argument is unfounded.


 


1. It would be nice but I think it would be incredibly complicated for the coverages from different companies to roll over to different organizations.

2. It would be hard to overrule the state mandates I think, the fact that they all differ is one of the key problems. Allowing the insurance companies the ability to acquire more customers would allow for a greater distribution of the costs as well.

3. Tort reform is needed, this would be an enormous task. Shouldn't be able to sue your doctor for treating you, when he or she is required by law to treat you, just because you don't like the end result. If he or she actually did something wrong, then hold them accountable.
 
Hmm
How about this, and remember how much disdain I have for governments mandating anything or almost anything.
Make every employer pay a certain % or amount, no matter your position or status or pay scale position.
Thats the only way to make it movble, and itll harm many a small business, which Obamacare will as well.
Now, each provider can have varying coverages at varying costs, but again, one states costs will be different than another, one hospital will cost more than another, due to taxes, doctors, equipment etc etc, and the employers coverage, which is a standard, would only cover x amount, not in %, but in real dollars, nd still, itd make it tough and hard for mobility, tho opening up across state lines etc, which again, is the feds covering the 10th amendment....Im just not sure of any easy everyone gets some solution
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom