marks2065

Billvon, you are correct that technology will advance alot over the next 20 years, but the technology is not to a point that we can achieve what the left wants right now. I say we work towards better technology but not have it forced on us until it can achieve what is wanted. the costs associated with building and repairing these new cars is astounding because of the fast change over. constantly retooling every year drives the manufacture and repair pricing up to where we cannot afford to buy the equipment and other tools needed to repair these cars.

I find a couple of reasonable justifications in the Constitution challenged with the ACA. Sorry, I was refering to the malitia act from 1792 that Kallend had posted.

No it is not ok, but someone with your education would know that the Marshal scotus' first decision was in 1791, when the formation of the scotus was just being introduced. this read will let you better understand why some laws passed back then that would not hold up today.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States Since the landmark decision of Marbury vs Madison didn't happen until 1803, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts have the duty to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress and to declare them void when they are contrary to the Constitution, you can understand why some laws were not overturned previously. But the intent of the framers (a favorite of the righties like rushmc) was clear, since they were still around to object to this law, and didn't. George Washington, father of the nation, even signed the law. I think the question is did it come before the scotus to be reviewed? in order to rule they would have needed it to be brought before them.

you are telling me they don't get social security, government aid of any kind? and have never filed a tax return?

No it is not ok, but someone with your education would know that the Marshal scotus' first decision was in 1791, when the formation of the scotus was just being introduced. this read will let you better understand why some laws passed back then that would not hold up today.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States Since the landmark decision of Marbury vs Madison didn't happen until 1803, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts have the duty to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress and to declare them void when they are contrary to the Constitution, you can understand why some laws were not overturned previously.

Birth certificates and social security numbers are not valid picture IDs. And yes, many older and rural people do not have a valid copy of their birth certificate, and may have never gotten a social security number. My 89 year old grandmother 4 years ago had trouble getting on a plane because she had no drivers license, but she did have a birth certificate and a social security card.

I know at least six people off the top of my head. not even a birth certificate or a social security number?

That's not proof it's a problem. It's proof it's possible. When Indiana enacted its voter ID law, the proponents could not come up with a single instance in state history of voter ID fraud. Not one. Yet somehow this NON PROBLEM required a solution that likely deprives a bunch of citizens of their ability to vote. How? since they already should have ID. Where is THAT written? like I asked, How will it deprive anyone of voting. who over 18 doesn't have some form of ID? name all the people you know that don't already have an ID.

That's not proof it's a problem. It's proof it's possible. When Indiana enacted its voter ID law, the proponents could not come up with a single instance in state history of voter ID fraud. Not one. Yet somehow this NON PROBLEM required a solution that likely deprives a bunch of citizens of their ability to vote. How? since they already should have ID.

Blacks voted for Kerry at a rate very close to the rate they voted for Obama. They did turn out at a greater rate for Obama. Make of that what you will. The fact that you think Obama is far left says more about you than him. He's pretty centerist. what part of Obama's agenda is centrist? the regulations, wanted tax increases, government insurance, what?

I think character and relationships have more to do with getting elected potus, but in Obama's case his relationships and character are questionable and not well known to most. Obama got elected because he wasn't Bush, he wasn't vetted by the media, and he was black. I didn't vote for him because I did not like his friends, his wifes comments, and his policies. Over 90% of the black people voted for him, that number alone means the biggest racists are those that voted for him because he was black. If Obama was running after a democratic president, or someone like Reagan he does not get elected. The far left used a bad financial time in US history to push a radical on the American people in hopes of breaking the US from it's traditional values and government.

Just that alot of green energy places are going belly up. not even the people that are preaching going green are buying green. there is not enough demand for these things or enough advanced technology to make these ventures profitable and sustainable. Oh. When you said things like: it gave me the impression that maybe you didn't read the article carefully and thought this was the government's problem. I do blame the government, If it wasn't for the billions being passed recklessly around either from loans given or the promise of a loan they would not have even started the venture. this administration has wasted billions of dollars in our tax money for green energy projects and created this Domino effect of failing companies. Well, the previous administration wasted TRILLIONS on a war started under false pretenses, and that didn't get us any more oil. So that would make it ok for this administration to waste trillions now? I don't recall much outrage from you over the $trillions wasted by Bush. Why so selective? Allthough I did agree with most of the money spent for the wars, I did not agree for the money spent on Tarp and many other things overspent on during the last 2-3 years of Bush's presidency. The last 2-3 trillion in debt spending from Bush I did speak out against at the time, maybe you forgot.

Just that alot of green energy places are going belly up. not even the people that are preaching going green are buying green. there is not enough demand for these things or enough advanced technology to make these ventures profitable and sustainable. Oh. When you said things like: it gave me the impression that maybe you didn't read the article carefully and thought this was the government's problem. I do blame the government, If it wasn't for the billions being passed recklessly around either from loans given or the promise of a loan they would not have even started the venture. this administration has wasted billions of dollars in our tax money for green energy projects and created this Domino effect of failing companies. Well, the previous administration wasted TRILLIONS on a war started under false pretenses, and that didn't get us any more oil. So that would make it ok for this administration to waste trillions now?

Just that alot of green energy places are going belly up. not even the people that are preaching going green are buying green. there is not enough demand for these things or enough advanced technology to make these ventures profitable and sustainable. Oh. When you said things like: it gave me the impression that maybe you didn't read the article carefully and thought this was the government's problem. I do blame the government, If it wasn't for the billions being passed recklessly around either from loans given or the promise of a loan they would not have even started the venture. this administration has wasted billions of dollars in our tax money for green energy projects and created this Domino effect of failing companies.

Just that alot of green energy places are going belly up. not even the people that are preaching going green are buying green. there is not enough demand for these things or enough advanced technology to make these ventures profitable and sustainable.

Any one thing does not, when you add all of them up they do

you missed stuff like thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9DacHcfIno granted this is about the ows but you can get the thought

If you want to be competitive in any industry that is labour intensive, you will have to be competitive on the cost side. Meaning significantly lower hourly rates. We can make up the pay difference with our ability to mass produce better than most, what we can not do is be hammered on every financial side.

Seriously? That was one of the main complaints of the Occupy hippies! Liberal = anything marks2065 doesn't like no they didn't complain about the price, they just wanted it for free, they wanted everything for free, or take money from the hard working to pay for it. there is a difference. Just because I don't like something doesn't make it a liberal thing. I don't like many things on the right, I think if you want to be gay be gay, if you want an abortion have one, If you do or don't want religion that is your choice just don't push it on me. I am not that far apart in the social area as most, but I am a strong conservative meaning my money is mine, your money is yours (if you want or need more improve that yourself) and the government should not take more than they have to or spend more than they have. I believe in capital punishment and abortion. That is a simplified version so your assumption is wrong.

you don't think education gets subsidized with tax dollars? I haven't seen 1 liberal complain about the cost of a college degree. that cost is rising faster than gas. 60k to 200k for a degree that will pay 30k-60k a year? incebting the graduates for life? funny how the market works - inject a bunch of tax money into universities and colleges and the cost goes up so fast that people need assistance to even pay for it - and then the cost goes up more because assistance is given and now people need more money soon - idiots that don't understand economics start insisting that college should be "free" (i.e., can't someone else pay for me?) What hurts even more is that you need a college education because the tax increases, epa regulations, unions, and other things have driven the good paying non skilled jobs overs seas leaving only the poor paying education needed jobs for the people here.

All made in China for nothing. As in next to nothing. Private space craft? Really? Is that what we are going to base the survivability of the middle class on? Golf cart Toyotas, private space craft and LED lights? Think back to when the net hit, and how it changed our lives. Now it's mature, you have world wild connectivity and a truly global market place. So no matter how smart you are, if you live in the US or the EU I can find a guy or gal who is even smarter in China who will do the very same work for 1/5th of your pay. Want to stay competitive? Are you willing to take 75% pay cut? And still have the same fixed costs? This is some very scary shit. Yes it is, that is why the government needs to stop this insane spending and reduce taxes to become competitive with the rest of the world. Will some people suffer? yes, but people have been suffering since Adam & Eve were forced out of the garden of eden. People are going to have to get cut off the government teet and start supporting themselves. It will be a very difficult transition and some will suffe but anything less than that will cause more pain in the long run. China will pass us and do you really want China taking our spot at the top?

you don't think education gets subsidized with tax dollars? I haven't seen 1 liberal complain about the cost of a college degree. that cost is rising faster than gas. 60k to 200k for a degree that will pay 30k-60k a year? incebting the graduates for life?

Will Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackison and all the rest of the "Civil Rights" Crusaders condemn Marion Barry and demand he resign? Will he get a call from our President decrying his racist statements? What would the reaction be if a white politician said something like this? Don't hold your breath. nope not one of the racists will speak about it. Most are used to Barry and accept it because if you say anything you are the racist

70% of total profit. I am not screaming about the profits oil companies are making. I think there might be some price collusion going on in my local market, but it is very hard to prove. Would like to see an example of a college making more profit than Exxon though. Yes, from the oil company perspective that is indeed what they would want. From a consumer perspective you would probably want your politicians to lobby for increased refinery capacity. I didn't say a college made more profit just a higher percentage of profit per dollar. I need to be over %5 profit just to keep up with changes in the auto industy, the oil industry needs billions to invest into future endevors, they can't do that if you reduce their profits to millions.

Cheaper? How can $10 in electricity be more expensive than housing an inmate at 50k a year be more expensive? http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cost+of+death+penalty yep I have read some of those, but why do the prisoners get all the benifits the victom never got or will get? no free health care, tv, schooling, clothes, dental, vision, weight room, and the rest. they need food and 3 walls with a set of bars on the 4th side. All the free stuff is why it costs so much to house and try these criminals. Who cares if they kill themselves ? no need for 24 hour guards. who cares if they want tv? not me. the only thing they have a right to is a fair trial. how about we give some of their comforts to the victoms and their families while they adjust to the loss of a loved one or the devistation brought unto their lives.