Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually not a big but. It's a regulation, and regulating is not the same thing as taking over. The US government has for decades now, mandated that all new automobiles sold in the US have seatbelts. That does not mean the US controls the whole of the auto industry.
Charles Krauthammer's also the same the guy that on the eve of the invasion of Iraq laid out his hilarious neocon principles in a paper called "Democratic Realism" for the American Enterprise Institute that had wonderful gems such as:
American exceptionalism means the US has a duty to spread democracy throughout the world.
The US should intervene unilaterally anywhere it has a national interest.
"We will support democracy everywhere, but we will commit blood and treasure only in places where there is a strategic necessity -- meaning, places central to the larger war against the existential enemy, the enemy that poses a global mortal threat to freedom."
He was also decidedly incorrect about how on the war in Iraq would go. Many, many times.
"Actually not a big but. It's a regulation'". O Care is a LAW. I have never heard of anyone charged with breaking a regulation". Have you?
"The US government has for decades now, mandated that all new automobiles sold in the US have seatbelts. That does not mean the US controls the whole of the auto industry." I never claimed it did.
But try building a car that does NOT have multiple items "Required by law" that the car has to meet.
In fact you CAN sell old cars that did NOT have sea tbelts before the new law took affect.
Because of O care millions of policies were CANCELLED and people had to get BRAND NEW POLICIES that met O CARE REQUIREMENTS.
O Care's an entirely different story. O Care controls what are and are not in EVERY POLICY WRITTEN.
I called it years ago. I don't get why he seems so lost though. He's not a dumb man. His IQ has to be around 130 and he scored above the 95% percentile in the LSAT.
I think he over thinks issues, too professorial and no real head for strategy and leadership.
I think he over thinks issues, too professorial and no real head for strategy and leadership.
It's his lack of real life experience and hard knocks where most of us gain our common sense.
Many a very intelligent person is dumber than a brick in the real world.
Many have trouble functioning when they can't get people to see things or do things their way.
Along with such intellectual heavyweights as: Tucker Max, Nicholas Sparks, etc.
Along with your 4th grade analysis of federal policy.
The United States has long-standing policies that allow for asylum for refugees. The Obama Administration is actually very heavy on deportation of unlawful immigrants. So much for amnesty.
The DoJ, Eric Holder's department, is investigating in Ferguson. You don't like Eric Holder personally, so you see something that isn't there.
ISIS: yep, the United States had an easy opportunity to "take them out." And the Earth is the center of the universe.
Ebola: It is not happening throughout West Africa--only in select countries. You will note that no rich country has banned entry to people who have been to West Africa. That is because they have the public health resources to identify and manage any cases. The only countries that are taking such steps are those that lack public health infrastructure and are therefore particularly vulnerable to the spread of ebola.
Feel free to point out dishonesty, disingenuous claims, and bias with precision and support. Until then, your opinion is as valid as your grammar.
The current outbreak of ebola is the largest ever. It is not in "Africa," but in specific west African countries. People have been able to travel to the United States from African countries for an incredibly long time.
Do you mean that the federal government is being paid to intervene in Honduras, Guatemala, and Salvador? I don't recall that.
No thanks. You're too far gone to be reasoned with. Anyone who even remotely suggests that unemployment is down while ignoring the details to why that number is down....and while simultaneously crediting the President's "competence" for the reason the number decreased....doesn't deserve to be given the dignity of a thoughtful response.
You are part of the Cult of Obama. I decided long ago that your types can't be reasoned with because you're not interested in the facts. If you were, you wouldn't have spewed the vomit you put forth in the quoted post.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
