One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Home | Political Digest | Active Topics | Newest Pictures | Search | Login | Register | Help
Posts for: Morgan
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 356 next>>
Mar 22, 2018 15:28:14   #
Loki wrote:
I never said that they were not entitled to due process. This question has been addressed by the SCOTUS. I merely commented that they are already guilty of at least one crime it they are standing on US soil.

I see...but you were very accusatory of "liberals not understanding" I think they do. People have been misidentified all the time, and if you're a Muslim you'll be behind the eight ball before anything starts. I'm not a Muslim sympathizer, but I've known good people who are Muslims many years before 9/11, and since that experience, I can imagine others like them.

Illegals should be hauled back ASAP, of any nationality. I agree with you in as far as to excuse them makes it unfair to the people who do and promotes continuing the criminal behaviour.
Mar 22, 2018 15:14:55   #
Liberty Tree wrote:
Where does it say that?

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection guarantees extend to all"persons." The rights attaching to criminal trials, including the right to a public trial, a trial by jury, the assistance of a lawyer, and the right to confront adverse witnesses, all apply to "the accused." And both the First Amendment's protections of political and religious freedoms and the Fourth Amendment's protection of privacy and liberty apply to "the people".

HeinOnline -- 25 T. Jefferson L. Rev. 370 2002-2003
Mar 22, 2018 14:57:51   #
Loki wrote:
If they are here illegally, they are already committing a crime. Why can you Liberals never seem to grasp this basic concept? With around one million Mexican nationals waiting patiently to become US citizens the legal way, respecting of our laws, why do Liberal Hobbit Dancers insist on defending and kissing the ass of every wetback in this country?

I'm liberal according to who the far right? But ok it doesn't matter and I grab the concept just fine.
Yes, they are committing a crime, which is addressed one way, being accused of another crime is an unrelated issue which is handled separately, it is a separate issue. Can you grab this concept?

What about a foreigner visiting our country and is picked out by someone as a thief and is wrongly accused by someone's wrong description? You believe he is automatically guilty and thrown out of the country or worse jailed for an unknown length of time?

This is a very broad term under crime, I believe the crime should be defined whether or not it was a terrorist act, as they are handled differently.
Our Constitution does not differentiate between citizen and non-citizen under the protective rights of due process.

Foreign nationals are generally entitled to the equal protection of the laws, to political freedoms of speech and association, and to due process requirements of fair procedure where their lives, liberty, or property are at stake. When non-citizens, no matter what their status, are tried for crimes, they are entitled to all of the rights that attach to the criminal process, without any distinction based on their nationality.

HeinOnline -- 25 T. Jefferson L. Rev. 370 2002-2003
Mar 22, 2018 12:33:05   #
Super Dave wrote:
They should get "due process". But they aren't "due" much of the process the left wants to give them. The left wants to punish Americans for enforcing their laws.

Oh Dave, Dave, Dave
Mar 21, 2018 20:36:54   #
peter11937 wrote:
Due process for the crime or crimes they have committed, then, after doing their time, deported as criminal illegal aliens.

I guess that falls under guilty until proven guilty.
Mar 21, 2018 20:25:31   #
Super Dave wrote:
That's got nothing to with screwing up my healthcare plan and million of others.

nd yes, I get it entirely.

Sure it does
Mar 21, 2018 19:15:08   #
pafret wrote:
You ignored my concomitant condition of 'leave my insurance alone and you buy whatever the government is offering as medical insurance'. My insurance like many others was affordable, with copays and out of pocket deductibles that were also affordable. They are not any longer with the government's plans, which were supposed to be cheaper and better that what I had.

Your accusations of heartlessness are what are to be expected from those whose attitude is that what is mine is mine and what is yours is also mine. Do you impute some form of selfishness to me because I provided for my own health insurance by earning the money to buy it? Should I have turned my paycheck over to you to see if anyone else wanted to claim the results of my labors? Yet you believe that I should be willing to shoulder other's health problems while my own go begging because I can no longer afford to go to the doctor or the hospital -- particularly since I work for a living. Your example of a close relative is just guilt tripping; obviously I am going to take care of my family but the real question is why aren't you taking care of yours?

Going bankrupt because of health care is a hard cross to bear. I personally reached near that point with my five year old son's medical treatment for Cancer. My solution to this problem was to work two full time jobs, which I did for a period of three years. My wife had the full time, unassisted, responsibility of raising four young children and keeping our home. She and I worked our way out of the near financial disaster. This may not be a possibility fo many people but it was for me and was consistent with my personal credo of paying my own way.

We are all well aware that insurance is gambling. The insurance companies employ teams of statisticians, actuaries, to constantly figure the odds and then price their policies accordingly. They may lose in your particular case but overall they win and win big. The packages or bundles are undoubtedly like the automotive industries accessory groups, they always include several features nobody wants but are extremely profitable to the manufacturer along with the critical, must have "accessory". The government introduced distortions into the calculations by requiring excessive coverage via these groups or bundles which always include profit winners. These distortions ranged from preexisting conditions, to unneeded coverage in bundles extended to all, to absolutely bad bets such as the newly insured needing horrendously expensive treatments, which he was unable to get anyone to pay for. Most policies I have seen had prohibitions on pre-existing conditions for a period of time buit I am not familiar with all policies. It may be that some conditions are not covered forever.

The end result was that prices went up. Obama's government had entered into agreement with the insurers to cover any loses incurred, to eliminate their opposition. At the same time, the government wanted to make sure they would not have to pay out for any loses the insurance companies incurred so they compelled the extremely high out of pocket expense. Presto, everybody has health insurance. Those with catastrophic diseases or no insurance benefit immediately, everyone else pays the bill and never benefits from their so-called "Health Insurance". They give it up or do not participate because it is cheaper to pay the bill. They are saddled with fines and penalties for not participating in this wealth redistribution scheme. Of course, in your view they are selfish for not wanting to pay all of their own medical expenses and yours as well. It is wondrous to realize that we were doing that before under the gambling paradigm, what could possibly have changed?

None of this considers the destructive effect on society caused by the regulations on employers, which forced them to convert full-time jobs with benefits, to part-time employment. Nor the effect on workers who had to find additional part time jobs and have no benefits (health insurance, 501K plans etc.) at any of them. Some of the effects of this we have seen already, the real crunch will come when these workers try to retire with no savings, a likely reduced Social Security and no prospects of continuing their existence.
You ignored my concomitant condition of 'leave my ... (show quote)

Yes, Co-pay certainly still exists, being affordable is subjective to a person's income, before the ACA we were easily paying a person's annual salary, while never making a claim. Once claims come in the premium rises, not a good place for seniors.

Like I said you are the one fixated on what people are taking away from you. Who is really taking anything away from you? Taxes? We the self-employed, are the major payers, and as long as poverty grows along with the military and government jobs, (who have it paid for through taxes also) we will continue to go down this same road, taking from you and I, the tax who are the winners really, we know the answer to that don't we.

Looking at this new health plan, it seems to be designed to promote the sick and elderly to die, maybe their way of filtering out the dead wood and only have productive people exist, while not acknowledging their lifetime of service, only that their use has expired. These are the people I refer to being selfish, but if you go along with their plan then you would be compliant also.

Our healthcare has been below the world status for a long time. Although the U.S. has the most expensive health care system in the world, the nation ranks lowest in terms of efficiency, equity and outcomes. It is our tax money, a pool to be dispersed by priority. You concentrate your thoughts so much on the poor you don't see the real unbalanced distribution of money is to the wealthy, but for some reason you choose to ignore them and resent the people who have nothing, though many of them bust their buts working very hard every day, and are torn between fixing their car or paying for insurance or a doctors bill.

A good part of the money given to the ACA was from tax money from the wealthy off of their dividends, the profit they gambled on it in the market which acquired a good return. Where was the harm in a slight increase in the percentage of tax in that to help bring down healthcare costs? Which is what Obama did.

I've noticed in this new health plan, there weren't any new regulations for pharmaceutical gauging or price fixing.

I ask you are people heartless when they choose profit over peoples lives? I did not ask for anyone to pay for anyone including myself which no one does. We, like you, have worked many years and long hours, all I'm asking for is reasonably priced insurance that actually gives quality coverage. The rest you stated of what I want, are incorrect assumptions from preconceived notions, and not my opinion.

I didn't refer to you as selfish unless you were part of the elite that is for this so-called health plan, which is no health plan at all, it does nothing but put all the control back into the hands of the unreined insurance companies, and people will die because of it. Yes, I think that is heartless.

People will go uninsured, once again, and that cost will still go to us, the taxpayer, not an insurance company that would be helping to fit the bill.

Personally, I think workingclasstiff has the right idea, get rid of insurance companies, put all that money into healthcare for all. This would also put a halt to companies having to supply health insurance as you mentioned and thereby possibly freeing up more money to pay employees a decent wage.

My apologies I thought I had commented on people keeping their own insurance. That's fine more power to you if you have the extra funds. I don't see why they can't work it like the school system, one private and one public.
Mar 21, 2018 14:26:05   #
Super Dave wrote:
I never said Obamacare didn't subsidize some people's coverage.

I did say it was wrong to screw my family and millions of other Americans to do it.

We're getting more screwed with more people not carrying any insurance at all. How come you guy's don't get that?

Tell me, do you also feel screwed when the governmental elite and their Cadillac policies get coverage for many things that are usually not covered in regular policies, as plastic surgery for their wives and not battle affiliated?
Mar 21, 2018 09:22:39   #
pafret wrote:
You are describing conditions which are not the norm for the majority of the people yet you believe we should all be insured against those conditions. Further, you believe that we should all have to pay higher premiums so that those who do need those coverage items get them.

Why don't we leave the insurance coverage alone and offer governmental guaranteed insurance to cover extreme cases like yours. You need it, you buy it, with whatever subsidies are necessary. The Obamacare insurance was an income redistribution plan, not insurance. It took my money to pay your bills and I am sorry but I worked for my money and I have a right to spend it for my benefit. If you need a handout, ask and if I feel generous I will contribute my money voluntarily. If you are in this country illegally, go home to your country an use their medical programs.

Price gouging by pharmaceutical companies is a problem which has to be addressed. Insurance manipulation isn't the way to do that. Insurance companies protections in market areas need to be removed because prices do not drop except under competition. Those laws were enacted to benefit th Insurance companies, not regulate them.
You are describing conditions which are not the no... (show quote)

First off, a preexisting condition isn't considered extreme, there are all kinds of conditions from very serious to mild, but either way, people should ALL be able to be covered. A person should only have to be concerned with getting well and not if they can afford it or not or lose their home, or not. Cancer which is not my condition only an example I used, but it has now come up to 1 in 3 will get cancer, that isn't a rare condition, and those stats are ever increasing, especially with age.

What do you think "insurance" is for? It is paying for future what if's and as far as the future no one knows what can happen to them, they may fall and become crippled, get a disease, or whatever, no one knows.

I never said I believe I believe people should pay higher premiums over others, I said people picked plans they could afford and the ACA should have played out to see prices come down with enlistments. Insurance companies do things by packages like your cable company, they don't personally itemize your every specific need, yet.

What we have now is even more of a distribution plan more than ever. Only the very wealthy will be able to afford a health care that will cover everything that is needed, the rest of us will be doing without, including you unless you are very wealthy, and if you are, that is one damn selfish attitude. The dogma of I'm OK so I don't really give a damn what happens to anyone else, that's their problem. Well that problem might just go to someone like your mother if you can imagine that?

No offence but I am so sick of the" I worked for my money and you're not going to take it"attitude, grow up and look at the big picture. We've ALL worked hard for our money all of our lives and we should not have to go bankrupt to have health care. This "for Profit" health care system will never work for the people. It is a conflict of interest, do you understand that? It has to change.The US pays the most, and the people get the least.

Your quote"You need it, you buy it, with whatever subsidies are necessary." that's just what the ACA was doing!???

You are correct for many of the laws being for the insurance companies, and that won't change until the lobbyist's money stops being exchanged in Congress. Why is that not illegal? There's a law to back.
Mar 20, 2018 18:29:08   #
pafret wrote:
Why is that health insurance plans which were providing excellent affordable coverage for their client base suddenly no longer met standards? My sons insurance premiums more tha doubled in the course of two months and then his plan was withdrawn and no longer offered. There was no plan which mwet standards which gave him the same coverage and his out of pocket costs made the idea of buying insurance ludicrous. It was cheaper to pay the penalty tax and full price for medical service.. It accomplished Obama's objectives, income redistribution, take the from better off workers and give to those who do not work at all.

What are these standards that killed so many insurance plans and who can honestly say hat what they have now is cheaper and better? Other than freeloaders who get their health care without charge.
Why is that health insurance plans which were prov... (show quote)

I don't know anyone who gets their health plan without cost except for the military and government employed people. I can't answer, your questions on your personal policies I'm not an insurance agent. I know the ACA had problems, but if we had let it play out, as suggested, the more people who enrolled he more prices would come down and level off, but because it came from the left, the right had to destroy it, not allowing it be seen through. It's the equivalent of stopping a game at halftime, just because you weren't winning.
Mar 20, 2018 18:06:42   #
Super Dave wrote:
Obamacare by law required I pay for specified coverage whether I needed it or not. That's what the word "MANDATE" means.
Super Dave wrote:
No he said you had to have coverage, you looked at plans available to you by different companies and select to what you could afford.

That's the whole point of Obamacare. If it were okay to buy what I wanted and needed there would be no reason to have a mandate would there?

Super Dave wrote:
The mandate Dave was to have everyone enrol and be covered, one to bring insurance costs down and two, stop over expenditures in emergency room care being paid by the government.

I'm not telling you what the right wants you to hear. I'm telling you what people say that have been affected by Obamacare.

Have you spoken to people that have lost their health insurance policies?
Have you spoken to people that have lost their doctor's?
Have you spoken to people whose rates have gone up thousands of dollars a year and are getting less coverage?

This is what has happened to millions of Americans.

Do you care?
Super Dave wrote:
Have you spoken to the people who were unable to get any coverage due to pre-existing conditions as myself, who could not get coverage.

Or people that lost their cancer coverage during treatment, because of caps, which meant death.

How about the insurance companies would raise your premiums, and you had no choice but to bow out of coverage.

How about the people who went into debt or lost everything trying to pay for their medical care, while the insurance companies made great profits, along with pharmaceuticals and hospitals.

Do YOU care?
If not perhaps you need to start listening to what real people say instead of what the left tells you to believe.
Obamacare by law required I pay for specified cove... (show quote)

The mandate Dave was to have everyone enrol and be covered, one to bring insurance costs down and two, stop over expenditures in emergency room care being paid by the government.

Have you spoken to the people who were unable to get any coverage due to pre-existing conditions as myself, who could not get coverage?

Or people that lost their cancer coverage during treatment, because of caps, which meant death.

How about the insurance companies would raise your premiums, and you had no choice but to bow out of coverage.

How about the people who went into debt or lost everything trying to pay for their medical care, while the insurance companies made great profits, along with pharmaceuticals and hospitals.
Do YOU care?
We are going to see this all happen again, as soon as the ACA is done, Good Job to the right once again. Perhaps you should at the self-interest of the people who put together this new abominable health plan, designed and constructed basically by the insurance companies. People are going to die because of it, including babies who are born with health conditions, where will the pro-lifers be then?
Mar 20, 2018 17:42:23   #
PeterS wrote:
Honest to god I find it hard to get how they think. One of the first acts that Trump did was to undo the ban on dumping Coal tailings in our waterways - tailings which contain Mercury, Arsenic, and any number of toxins. And for what, so a dying industry can stay alive a few months longer? The logic is simply confounding. Do we not remember our air quality in the 60's? So why the eagerness to reverse everything. Does our quality of life not have a dollar value???

Not in the minds of the industrialists, which is why the government had to step the first place. Our lives to them mean absolutely nothing, we are simply collateral damage. The only thing that strikes the heart of this beast is the abstraction of money, BIG money, enough for them to say ...ouch. Otherwise, this beast will devour everything in its wake for profit.

We were making improvements for damage that's been done for decades, but the corporate scum right has us marching backwards once again, they really do hate the word "progressive". Working for the environment can create jobs, I thought that was a priority?
Mar 20, 2018 15:58:47   #
acknowledgeurma wrote:
You hypothesize, "There is data that points to voter fraud."
You also state that you have no intention of providing proof (or support) for your hypothesis (i.e., "It is not my intention to point where or to provide links").
You state your reason for not providing evidence for your hypothesis as a desire not to insult our intelligence.

I hypothesize that you have no evidence of widespread voter fraud.
In support of my hypothesis:
1) You present none.
2) The doubtful nature of your having evidence is suggested by the "if" in your statement, " if I found it, then so can you". If you had evidence, then why not say, "I found it, so can you"?

One wonders why you made your post?

A generous person might think you have heard or read about voter fraud, are worried, but haven't found enough evidence, and want to stimulate others to bring it forth.

A suspicious person might think you are a President Trump supporter who believes His assertion of widespread voter fraud, and is just expressing that belief (refusing any evidence to the contrary as fake).

An more suspicious person might think you a President Trump supporter who wants to provide distraction from less pleasant issues.

An even more suspicious person might think you a cynical person who knows there is no widespread voter fraud but promotes the idea to discredit opponents.

A paranoid knows you are a Russian who wants to discredit American democracy by casting doubt on the validity of our voting process, and thereby discredit democracy in general.

Remember, even paranoids may stumble on nefarious activities on occasion.
You hypothesize, "There is data that points t... (show quote)

Excellent...I'm clapping here
Mar 20, 2018 09:35:02   #
eagleye13 wrote:
What is your take on the Bolsheviks, Morgan?
Do you know what they paraded as?
Fighters for the working class.
Over 100 million ended up being exterminated by those defenders of the "weak".

That was a war and another topic.
Mar 20, 2018 09:25:13   #
saltwind 78 wrote:
Hardwork, Many of the people and organizations you list in your post are fine, upstanding Americans with different ideas than you. I think that Obama will go down as one of this countries better presidents. Hillary has been attacked by the right wing of the Republican party since she went into politics. She has been questioned eight or nine times by the Republican congress and they found nothing, nada, zip. Yes, she is a fighter for the things that she believes in, and takes no shit. That doesn't make her a bad American.
Others you list are a bit far left for me, but that doesn't make them traitors or criminals. Their ideas of what is good for this country are certainly different from mine, but they are entitled to their opinion.
Donald Trump is way to the right, but that is not why I oppose him to the extent that I do. His character and psychological makeup are not consistent with democratic and even decent values. He is a liar to the extent that nothing he says can be believed. He is the greatest narcissist to ever hold the office of the presidency. That means he sees the entire world in terms of, whats good for me! He may be guilty of using his high office to further his business interests. He raised the cost of a room in Trump Tower for the Secret Service that protects him.
He is a sexual predator and serial adulterer. How his wife and daughter don't run out of the White House screaming with humiliation is beyond me. He demands that his appointees be absolutely faithful to him, not the constitution. This man has now forced underlings to sign agreements not to write about his actions, once they leave federal service.
He may even be guilty of collusion with Russia to get himself elected. He certainly does not recognize Putin as the thug that he is. He admires other thuggish dictators, even to the extent of wanting to copy their criminal tactics of ruling their unfortunate countries. Just check out the Philippines.
Why haven't you included those like Bannon, an admitted racist, or Flynn an admitted criminal liar and others like them?
Hardwork, Many of the people and organizations you... (show quote)

Excellent post, well said while not offending or insulting anyone, thank you for your post and example.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 356 next>>
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use - Forum
Copyright 2012-2018 IDF International Technologies, Inc.