Bio not provided
@Puller58 True. But what I see is so much governmental subsidy that this is beginning to look like single payer in drag. Insurance looks more and more like third party administration rather than true insurance.
11 months, 2 weeks ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115570/bill-clintons-obamacare-comments-are-wrong
My 29 year old daughter is going to get insurance for the first time since she was 21 and was on our insurance. Go F yourself.
We are supposed to be a country, not a confederation of 50 loosely associated states. We tried the confederation concept prior to our present constitution and the confederation concept did not work.
Every times I see something like this, where a number of states want to opt out of what the federal law provides for the general welfare of the people, I wonder whether we are really a country or not.
Medicaid is a state single payer insurance health system and was enacted because a whole host of states don't want a federal single payer health system for their poor. Medicare is a federal single payer health system for the disabled and elderly. So the irony here is that the red states don't want to take care of their poor while the blue states do, and this time it is going to be the poor red states subsidizing the richer blue states. How dumb is that?
And again, are we a country or not? Why is it that we can be so inconsistent from one state to another and between states and the federal government in how we take care of our people and in how we criminalize conduct?
1 year ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115027/obamacare-medicaid-expansion-blue-states-are-more-generous
@Fitzhenrymac @davidgmillsatty @Bill Duke He got a sample of WTC dust (several samples actually from different locations in NYC) and tested them with a well known qualitative and qualitative chemical analysis (called XEDS) similar to the method used in testing blood. If you rely on the lab tests that you get from your doctor about your cholesterol level, you can rely on Jones' work. He and Harrit proved that the dust was loaded with nano-thermite, which is highly thermobaric.
1 year, 5 months ago on Conversation @ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34765.htm
@Bill Duke So Judy has this theory of directed energy. Is it chemical or nuclear or electromagnetic? Does she say? Even if it is electromagnetic it would produce chemical changes. Explain as best you can the chemistry of Judy Wood's directed energy theory. If you can't explain the chemistry of it, you are just another disinformationist, either intentionally or because you don't have the basic chemistry background to understand. Since you are posting I want your understanding of what she is saying. Because I can explain Jones and Harritt if you want to listen.
@Bill Duke @davidgmillsatty Look. I will make it as simple as I can. Maybe you do not understand the difference between a chemical reaction and a nuclear reaction. In a chemical reaction you take two or more elements, say hydrogen, oxygen and sulfur an combine them in a different way but you still have the same elements of hydrogen, oxygen and sulfur after the reaction takes place. In contrast, a nuclear reaction changes the elements. If it is fission, uranium may be converted to cesium and iodine, two elements about half the size of uranium. If it is fusion, then an element like hydrogen becomes the element helium. So if theses videos don't explain how one element became another element, they are wasting everyone's time. If you are telling me the videos and papers do this, then I will see what they came up with.
@Bill Duke @davidgmillsatty Sure I can read. Do you understand the scientific method? Because the scientific method is about having a hypothesis and TESTING it. I don't care what kind of nuclear bombs you think they were. Show me the isotopes that were created by them in the actual dust or debris, not in somebody's mind. If you can't, you haven't proven there were nuclear bombs.
@Bill Duke @davidgmillsatty
Nuclear weapons produce a clear nuclear signal. Radioactivity is the by-product of nuclear weaponry. There was never any radioactivity found by anyone. If Judy Wood wanted to prove there were bombs she should have taken the scientific approach which was get some dust and prove it was radioactive. She never did. She has an unproven theory. It would be easy to prove or disprove. In fact Jones tested the dust and found no radioactivity whatsoever, so he had to look for other means of causing this kind of destruction.
The scientific method is coming up with a theory and then testing it. Jones used the method and Judy Wood did not.
@KlausB @terribleteens In the Revolutionary War, we had a similar scenario. We faced the mightiest army and empire on the planet at the time. All throughout this century we have had guerrilla wars where the guerrillas have ultimately prevailed. We lost Vietnam. We will lose Iraq and Afghanistan. So history proves your concerns to be invalid.
@Bill Duke Judy is an idiot. She was posting this bogus stuff 6-8 years ago. When she was challenged by Jones about her claims of nukes and there being no radioactivity, she did nothing. Nano-thermite is quite thermobaric. It can cut due to heat and it can blow up shit. In fact, it is the latest thermobaric technology. It is quite sophisticated. We had nukes in 1945. We didn't have weaponized nano-technology until a few years before 9/11.
Why does PCR use the Federal Reserve and the Government interchangeably? The Federal Reserve is a consortium of private banks. These private banks are manipulating the gold market; the federal government is not.
1 year, 6 months ago on Conversation @ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34520.htm
@danny313 How do you decide what the final destination of the gun is? The gun may be around for centuries. This may work for perishable items but I doubt it would work for durable ones.
2 years, 8 months ago on Not Everything is “Interstate Commerce”
The problem goes also to the heart of whether we are going to have a unified country or whether we are going to be something akin to the European Union. The real problem is the size of the country itself, which is far bigger geographically and far bigger in terms of population than it was when the Constitution was passed.
But I don't think the tenth amendment can really mean much any more. So much of what we do has impacts on interstate commerce, even what purports to be intrastate commerce. In today's world, with trade as it is, almost no business is exclusively intrastate. There are so many tiny things that depend on trade with other states and with other countries down to what you send by FedEx.. And so many businesses depend on federal support directly or indirectly.
Curiously though, the question of in personam jurisdiction is quite archaic in this regard. A corporation can do all kinds of business in a state, and still avoid being haled into court there.
There is also the problem with the Supremacy Clause. States can pass all the restrictions they desire on the Federal government, but probably most of these restrictions will be struck down by the Supremacy Clause.