Great tunes! Thanks for sharing PlainOl!
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 1:44 PM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
btw - what a week of music!
http://tinpansouth.com/performers2012.html
ending with these guys:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Znhvb0pYjO0
old and sweet!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXq9q7NS1qc&feature=related
Tele's rule!
then in May!
http://www.keywestsongwritersfestival.com/home.php
On Mar 30, 12:31 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> My friend, I think we are on the same side here.
> --
> thanks for the friendship ... we usually have similar opinions
>
> I am just pointing out
> that there is NO way out of the HC mandate. NONE!
> ---
> a fine (penalty-tax)
>
> Whereas, there is with
> car insurance - don't drive.
> ---
> some state allow a post bond instead
> there have always been good Americans who refused to be shackled with
> insurance
>
> The better comparison would be funeral insurance (which is becoming
> VERY
> popular), as we most certainly will all die. Ergo, you MUST buy it,
> and we
> mean NOW!!! Or pay the PENALTY! NOW!
> ---
> Tennessee has no law preventing anyone from burying their family
> members on private property.
>
> On Mar 30, 10:15 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > My friend, I think we are on the same side here. I am just pointing out
> > that there is NO way out of the HC mandate. NONE! Whereas, there is with
> > car insurance - don't drive.
>
> > The better comparison would be funeral insurance (which is becoming VERY
> > popular), as we most certainly will all die. Ergo, you MUST buy it, and we
> > mean NOW!!! Or pay the PENALTY! NOW!
>
> > Dig?
>
> > On Thursday, March 29, 2012 11:48:18 AM UTC-4, plainolamerican wrote:
> > > No its not. If I don't wanna drive, I don't have to buy car
> > > insurance.
>
> > > Please show me the same escape in OBambicare.
> > > ---
> > > I concede it's not the same ... in that you will forced to buy health
> > > insurance.
>
> > > the only point I was making is that the state DOES require you to buy
> > > auto insurance ... so they can require you buy health insurance ... if
> > > this OC is ok's by the USSC
>
> > > On Mar 29, 10:28 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > No its not. If I don't wanna drive, I don't have to buy car insurance.
>
> > > > Please show me the same escape in OBambicare.
>
> > > > On Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:51:03 AM UTC-4, plainolamerican wrote:
> > > > > but it does force you to buy auto insurance if you do drive.
> > > > > tom's point is valid
> > > > > Some states will allow you to post a bond instead of buying insurance
>
> > > > > On Mar 29, 7:45 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > The STATE government cannot force you to buy car insurance if you do
> > > not
> > > > > > intend to drive a car.
>
> > > > > > The comparison falls down right there.
>
> > > > > > On Tuesday, March 27, 2012 2:34:05 PM UTC-4, Tommy News wrote:
> > > > > > > If the government can force you to buy car insurance, and it does,
> > > why
> > > > > > > can't it ask you to buy health insurance?
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 25, 1:56 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > "If the
> > > > > > > > government can force you to buy health insurance, why can't it
> > > force
> > > > > > > > you to buy broccoli?"
>
> > > > > > > > This is the crux of the matter.....
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 12:30 pm, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-the-supreme-court-debates...
>
> > > > > > > > > What's going to happen during 3 days of arguments on health
> > > care?
> > > > > > > > > By Jeffrey Rosen, PROFESSOR OF LAW Published: March 23
>
> > > > > > > > > Starting Monday, the Supreme Court has scheduled six hours of
> > > oral
> > > > > > > > > arguments over three days to consider the constitutionality of
> > > > > > > > > health-care reform, the most time given to a case in more than
> > > 45
> > > > > > > > > years. We're certainly in for a historic event — but it might
> > > be
> > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > entertaining one, too.
>
> > > > > > > > > Oral arguments are always theatrical: The lawyers stand only a
> > > few
> > > > > > > > > feet from the justices, who loom above them on a curved bench,
> > > and
> > > > > > > > > they are barraged with so many questions that they often have
> > > > > trouble
> > > > > > > > > completing a sentence. The hearings are also an opportunity
> > > for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > traditionally secretive Supreme Court to cut loose. In fact,
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > Roberts court is known as a "hot bench" — not a reference to
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > unusual sexiness of the justices but to the fact that eight of
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > nine are unusually chatty during oral arguments (Justice
> > > Clarence
> > > > > > > > > Thomas hasn't uttered a word since 2006). Even though the
> > > justices
> > > > > > > > > rarely change their minds during oral arguments if they
> > > already
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > strong views about a case, the hearings can clarify their
> > > > > thinking,
> > > > > > > > > offer some lively give and take, and occasionally lead to
> > > humor.
>
> > > > > > > > > So, will the oral arguments over health-care reform produce
> > > some
> > > > > > > > > laughs? Here's a preview of what might transpire when the
> > > commerce
> > > > > > > > > clause becomes a punch line.
>
> > > > > > > > > Justice Antonin Scalia
>
> > > > > > > > > According to a 2010 study in the Communication Law Review,
> > > Scalia
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > the funniest member of the court, based on how many laughs the
> > > > > various
> > > > > > > > > justices have elicited in the courtroom. But his wit sometimes
> > > has
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > sharp edge. In 1988, when a lawyer fumbled for the answer to a
> > > > > > > > > question, Scalia exclaimed, "When you find it, say 'Bingo!' "
>
> > > > > > > > > Expect some zingers from Scalia in the health-care argument,
> > > > > perhaps
> > > > > > > > > focused on the not-so-side-splitting subject of whether
> > > Congress
> > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > the authority to require people to buy health insurance as
> > > part of
> > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > power to regulate interstate commerce. Imagine, for example,
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > following exchange:
>
> > > > > > > > > Solicitor General Donald Verrilli: "In 2005, Justice Scalia,
> > > you
> > > > > held
> > > > > > > > > that Congress has the power to prevent California from
> > > authorizing
> > > > > > > > > people to grow marijuana for their own use. Surely, the
> > > decision
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > to buy health insurance has a far greater impact on the
> > > economy."
>
> > > > > > > > > Justice Scalia: "Depends on what part of California you're
> > > from."
>
> > > > > > > > > Justice Stephen Breyer
>
> > > > > > > > > Breyer's jokes often follow a long question identifying the
> > > > > hardest
> > > > > > > > > issue in the case. He cares about legislative history and may
> > > > > focus on
> > > > > > > > > a striking irony in the health-care law briefs: During the
> > > debate
> > > > > over
> > > > > > > > > the legislation in Congress, Republicans insisted that the
> > > mandate
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > buy health insurance should be considered a tax, and Democrats
> > > > > > > > > countered that it shouldn't. The moment President Obama signed
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > bill, though, both sides rushed to court to claim the
> > > opposite:
> > > > > > > > > Democrats now insist that the mandate is absolutely a tax (and
> > > > > > > > > therefore authorized by the taxing clause of the
> > > Constitution),
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > Republicans are equally confident that it's not.
>
> > > > > > > > > This debate is also relevant to whether the court has the
> > > power to
> > > > > > > > > hear the case in the first place. If the mandate is a tax,
> > > > > according
> > > > > > > > > to a 1867 law, litigants may have to wait until it goes into
> > > > > effect in
> > > > > > > > > 2014 to challenge it. If Breyer can get a laugh out of the "is
> > > it
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > tax?" debate, he deserves to be promoted to funniest justice.
>
> > > > > > > > > Chief Justice John Roberts
>
> > > > > > > > > All eyes will be on Roberts to see whether he is inclined to
> > > > > interpret
> > > > > > > > > the commerce clause of the Constitution as narrowly as he did
> > > in
> > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > opinion that gave rise to one of his most memorable one-liners
> > > as
> > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > appellate judge. In 2003, Roberts dissented from a ruling
> > > holding
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > the federal government could use the Endangered Species Act to
> > > > > prevent
> > > > > > > > > development on the habitat of the arroyo toad. He said the
> > > federal
> > > > > law
> > > > > > > > > couldn't be applied to "a hapless toad that, for reasons of
> > > its
> > > > > own,
> > > > > > > > > lives its entire life in California." Verrilli will try to
> > > > > convince
> > > > > > > > > Roberts that the interstate economic effects of thousands of
> > > > > uninsured
> > > > > > > > > sick people are far greater than those of the hapless toad,
> > > all
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > while avoiding the word "toad."
>
> > > > > > > > > As the crucial swing vote, Kennedy is most frequently
> > > flattered in
> > > > > > > > > Supreme Court briefs. Some libertarians hope that he will
> > > strike
> > > > > down
> > > > > > > > > the health-care mandate by invoking the same right to privacy
> > > that
> > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > recognized when he reaffirmed Roe v. Wade in 1992. "At the
> > > heart
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence,
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,"
> > > > > Kennedy
> > > > > > > > > wrote; Scalia later ridiculed this as the "sweet mystery of
> > > life"
> > > > > > > > > passage. For Scalia and the other conservatives, Roe v. Wade
> > > is
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > root of all constitutional evil. So if Paul Clement — who will
> > > > > argue
> > > > > > > > > before the court for the health-care law's challengers — wants
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > appeal to Kennedy without alienating the other conservatives,
> > > he
> > > > > may
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment