Capitalistic greed is the main problem in the U.S.

[Uncensored2008]

FIRST the Supreme Court does not have the power to determine what is and what is not Constitutional. So let's not pretend Marbury v. Madison is part of COTUS, it was a court decision no different than Heller, Roe, or Bush v . Gore.

I'm pleasantly surprised that you grasp that the SCOTUS is not superior to the Constitution.

VERY few leftists do - Hillary sure the fuck doesn't.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The price of the Epipen just went up 500%. It costs a dollar to make, and big pharma is charging $500.00 to save a child's life.

The cost of all drugs in the U.S. are ten times more than any other country.

Health insurance is high because of greed. Doctors and hospitals are some of the greediest.

And it's not just big pharma, it's big oil too. When oil was $140.00 a barrel, gas cost $4.00 a gallon. Now oil is three times less at $47.00 a barrel, and we still pay over $2,20 a gallon.

But the real big greed is the military industrial contractors. $600.00 for toilet seats.....$500.00 for coffee makers....and that's just the cheap stuff.

Greed is why we have a $17 trillion national debt.

Greed is why most crimes are committed. Most in prison are there because of greed.

Lawyers are greedy. NO money, you're guilty.

Politicians work less than six months a year for over $200,000.00 plus healthcare, paid vacations, free transportation, and full retirement after four years.

Remember all you 20, 30 & 40 somethings, you're gonna be old in the blink of an eye....and you're gonna pay through the wazoo. Promise.

The issue is morality. The country has been stripped of its Judeo-Christian heritage and replaced with Marxism that only focuses on materialism. Your post is proof of that.

A society that is free must be moral, otherwise, they will use their freedom for amoral behavior and the said freedoms will be stripped away.

That is why the population in the US once enjoyed a free market and helped those in need when they were needed by their own free will, but now they must be made to pay more for the government to do it for them. It is also why Americans once enjoyed the right to bear arms, but ever since the 1960's gun violence had skyrocketed to the point that Hillary is on the verge of confiscating all your weapons.

The key to destroying freedom and creating a police state is the destruction of the moral fiber of society. People will literally be begging for a police state someday.

How does a nation enforce Morality, and what is you definition of a moral act?

A free society must have laws, for to be totally free is to be vulnerable - no man is an island. (No one is self-sufficient; everyone relies on others. This saying comes from a sermon by the seventeenth-century English author John Donne who also authored this: Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee).

Is the PPACA a moral act of government, or theft of one's earning by a tyrannical government?

 

[Hum Dinger]

You can't pass 100% of the responsibility to the government. We all have individual responsibilities and as citizens and business owners to follow the law and promote a healthy society. The better we do the less the government will need to intervene.

Again, you put in terms that are too subjective and allow people to make those decisions based on politics rather than the meaning of the word.

In a world where everyone was pure goodness, we could have less government. Unfortunately, most people are rotten which is why we need government regulation.

It only takes one Al Capone to force all business people into using gangster tactics.

Hey, maybe another couple of thousand of years on evolution, we won't need government.

It's never going to be all or nothing. We have a system that should provide law, order, accountability and oversight so that our public is protected. The degree in which the government is involved should be dictated by the actions of its people and businesses. The more corrupt we are the more involve the gov will become... Lessening regulation is a much better case to make after a track history of responsible commerce. We haven't done a great job in recent years.... Look at 2008.
Government was also part of that problem so both sides are in need of overhaul and increased accountability

You are hopeless. The constitution is a wonderful thing and lays the foundation for how we govern...

I'm not the one that thinks the government should do things for which the Constitution grants is absolutely no power. You are then try to justify them doing so. Your words here and your words before don't match.

You're gonna have to be more specific than that if you want to make a point

The specific examples aren't important. That you believe the government can do THINGS outside it's Constitutional authority is the relevant part. It can be ANYTHING you support for which the government has no power to do.

First, we have the Supreme Court to determine what is and is not within the Constitutional powers of the Government. Second, the Constitution can be amended.

FIRST the Supreme Court does not have the power to determine what is and what is not Constitutional. So let's not pretend Marbury v. Madison is part of COTUS, it was a court decision no different than Heller, Roe, or Bush v . Gore.

The SCOTUS has been determining Constitutionality since it's inception. The fact is that only SCOTUS can determine Constitutionality.

I know that you believe that only YOU have the power to determine Constitutionality, but the other 320 million Americans aren't going to go for that.

Sorry!

 

[Conservative65]

Give back the money. If Clinton doesn't like what the company did, prove it by returning the donation in full.

Is that what charities do? Vet the donors and return the money if they have differences with the donor? Who else does this? I've never heard of it before

Giuliani rejects $10 million from Saudi prince
October 12, 2001 Posted: 3:14 AM EDT (0714 GMT)
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Mayor Rudy Giuliani said Thursday the city would not accept a $10 million donation for disaster relief from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal after the prince suggested U.S. policies in the Middle East contributed to the September 11 attacks.

Good for him!

You asked "is that what charities do" to my suggestion and were provided with examples of them doing it despite saying you've never heard of it. What that means is Hillary has two options so as not to provide another example of being a hypocrite. She can give it back since she doesn't like what Mylan is doing or STFU. If she chooses to give it back, say all she wants. If she chooses to keep it, STFU.

That's one way to go about it... Not what I would do, if I got money donated to my charity I'd use that money for the good that my charity is doing... I'm not running for president either so there is a higher standard and public perception that needs to be considered. So who they accept funds from is a valid argument. There is also the question on whether only Hilllary has the individual power in the organization to decide who they take funds from and if they give funds back because of her campaign. The Foundation may be bigger than just one persons personal interests.

What about you? Do you pick and chose which customers you take money from? If you had a charity would you return money to a business that did something you disagree with?

That's the only non-hypocritical way to go about it.

It's called the CLINTON Foundation.

Running or not, integrity doesn't change based on the situation.

Absolutely would and have. Been part of a governing board where the decision was made to return a donation to an individual because the money the individual was providing was made doing things that went against what the organization didn't support. It's called practicing what you preach.

 

[initforme]

If we want the govt out of it thats fine with me. The company is early slimy and greedy with that type of a markup. They have to live with themselves the selfish jerks. And dont blame regulations.

 

[Conservative65]

Again, you put in terms that are too subjective and allow people to make those decisions based on politics rather than the meaning of the word.

In a world where everyone was pure goodness, we could have less government. Unfortunately, most people are rotten which is why we need government regulation.

It only takes one Al Capone to force all business people into using gangster tactics.

Hey, maybe another couple of thousand of years on evolution, we won't need government.

It's never going to be all or nothing. We have a system that should provide law, order, accountability and oversight so that our public is protected. The degree in which the government is involved should be dictated by the actions of its people and businesses. The more corrupt we are the more involve the gov will become... Lessening regulation is a much better case to make after a track history of responsible commerce. We haven't done a great job in recent years.... Look at 2008.
Government was also part of that problem so both sides are in need of overhaul and increased accountability

I'm not the one that thinks the government should do things for which the Constitution grants is absolutely no power. You are then try to justify them doing so. Your words here and your words before don't match.

You're gonna have to be more specific than that if you want to make a point

The specific examples aren't important. That you believe the government can do THINGS outside it's Constitutional authority is the relevant part. It can be ANYTHING you support for which the government has no power to do.

First, we have the Supreme Court to determine what is and is not within the Constitutional powers of the Government. Second, the Constitution can be amended.

FIRST the Supreme Court does not have the power to determine what is and what is not Constitutional. So let's not pretend Marbury v. Madison is part of COTUS, it was a court decision no different than Heller, Roe, or Bush v . Gore.

The SCOTUS has been determining Constitutionality since it's inception. The fact is that only SCOTUS can determine Constitutionality.

I know that you believe that only YOU have the power to determine Constitutionality, but the other 320 million Americans aren't going to go for that.

Sorry!

Do you know who gave the Court the power to do what they do? Hint: It wasn't the Constitution.

Do you support the Citizens' United decisions related to campaign finance?

 

[Wry Catcher]

FIRST the Supreme Court does not have the power to determine what is and what is not Constitutional. So let's not pretend Marbury v. Madison is part of COTUS, it was a court decision no different than Heller, Roe, or Bush v . Gore.

I'm pleasantly surprised that you grasp that the SCOTUS is not superior to the Constitution.

VERY few leftists do - Hillary sure the fuck doesn't.

I grasp the idea, but 200+ years of jurisprudence suggests the legal system is set in stone, what began with John Marshall is here to stay. At least until the plutocrats take total control, at which time we will go back into the future, to an era of the Divine Right of the Master's of the Universe.

 

[Conservative65]

Its nice that you have such faith in companies and consumers but your scenario is just not reality. Look at history and look at other countries that have no regulations. You use electronics as an example? How about you review something that is an actual risk or threat to life and health... Medicine, Food, Transportation, Energy etc.

We aren't talking about protecting people from a malfunctioning iPhone, we are talking about human lives.

Look at examples, like:

Contaminated Medicine that has resulted in many deaths around the world:
List of medicine contamination incidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That can't be! You have your beloved government to protect you.

Polluted food and water sources causing Typhoid fever and other illnesses resulting in death and illness:
The 10 Deadliest Outbreaks in U.S. History -- Revisited | Food Safety News

The effect that the seatbelt law has had on save human life in auto accidents:
Policy Impact: Seat Belts | Motor Vehicle Safety | CDC Injury Center

The nuclear weapons plant in Colorado that illegally dumped and polluted the surrounding land with radio active waste:
Rocky Flats Plant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But GOVERNMENT is that answer to all questions, how is it possible that adulterated food and drugs exist with our crack FDA on the case?

Oh and moron, U/L deals with electric stoves, pool pumps, electric heaters, etc. Stuff that will kill you dead in an instant if it malfunctions.

Unlike your beloved government - U/L has a sterling record. As does the IEEE who designed the grid that carries 480 volt power to you apartment and the government agency you're employed with.

Another cop out answer... I've said multiple times that the government owns a big part of the problem. But you keep painting me with that ignorant partisan brush... I'm about done with you

Since gov is supposed to control capitalism so the free market greed style of capitalism doesnt take over the world...the gov is 100% of the problem. Capitalism is just doing what unchecked unregulated free market capitalism does...ruins economies, lives and countries.

You can't pass 100% of the responsibility to the government. We all have individual responsibilities and as citizens and business owners to follow the law and promote a healthy society. The better we do the less the government will need to intervene.

Unless the government has the delegated authority to do so, they should not intervene at all regardless of how much you think they should.

 

[Conservative65]

Now that the FDA requires pharmaceutical companies to fund their own testing process that takes years, they are out billions of dollars by the time the product hits the shelves. How do they make that up except to charge high prices? These companies are not charities and charities don't make life saving drugs.

Spoken like a true fascist, corporations are people too, but do they pay taxes as do you and I, not hardly.

I don't pay taxes either. I'm a truck driver who deducts per diam and I got 4 little tax credits at home. (3 boys, 1 girl ages 2-13) Sorry to undermine your argument.

Are you an O/O of a 18 wheeler semi tractor? My son drives for UPS, he is in the Teamsters Union and has great benefits and is home every night. He has a double major, Math and compurter tech, but both jobs he had before had no benefits, he was an independent contractor. He left, went to work for UPS and enjoys the work, no longer needs to pay for a gym membership and has no need to worry about job security.

Jesus Christ is so good. His kindness and mercy towards you should be leading you to repentance rather than launching a personal signature campaign against His people, Wry. Don't you think?

I do think, I think my signature line aptly describes the Antichrist.

Then you should find a Bible and read it if you do.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Capitalism is what prospers a society therein giving it freedom to flourish.

Communism is what destroys a society by crushing capitalism, freedom of Christians, freedom to flourish because without complete iron fisted control of a society - Communism cannot survive.

Which is why Communism and Capitalism cannot co-exist.
The Communists have to turn America into a 3rd world nation in order to bring her to her knees and control her every move. That is the direction Communists want to take America.

That is the motive behind those who speak against Capitalism. They seek to destroy it so that they can destroy your way of life (freedom).

You have no understanding of the words you use.

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 21:12-13 - New International Version - UK

Matthew 21:12 Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves.

Why Did Jesus Drive the Money Changers From the Temple?

Q. What can we infer from Jesus?

A. Jesus was the first regulator of Capitalism.

Jesus? Really? What mechanism of government did he control to accomplish this?

 

[Conservative65]

You can't pass 100% of the responsibility to the government. We all have individual responsibilities and as citizens and business owners to follow the law and promote a healthy society. The better we do the less the government will need to intervene.

Again, you put in terms that are too subjective and allow people to make those decisions based on politics rather than the meaning of the word.

In a world where everyone was pure goodness, we could have less government. Unfortunately, most people are rotten which is why we need government regulation.

It only takes one Al Capone to force all business people into using gangster tactics.

Hey, maybe another couple of thousand of years on evolution, we won't need government.

It's never going to be all or nothing. We have a system that should provide law, order, accountability and oversight so that our public is protected. The degree in which the government is involved should be dictated by the actions of its people and businesses. The more corrupt we are the more involve the gov will become... Lessening regulation is a much better case to make after a track history of responsible commerce. We haven't done a great job in recent years.... Look at 2008.
Government was also part of that problem so both sides are in need of overhaul and increased accountability

You are hopeless. The constitution is a wonderful thing and lays the foundation for how we govern...

I'm not the one that thinks the government should do things for which the Constitution grants is absolutely no power. You are then try to justify them doing so. Your words here and your words before don't match.

You're gonna have to be more specific than that if you want to make a point

The specific examples aren't important. That you believe the government can do THINGS outside it's Constitutional authority is the relevant part. It can be ANYTHING you support for which the government has no power to do.

First, we have the Supreme Court to determine what is and is not within the Constitutional powers of the Government. Second, the Constitution can be amended.

FIRST the Supreme Court does not have the power to determine what is and what is not Constitutional. So let's not pretend Marbury v. Madison is part of COTUS, it was a court decision no different than Heller, Roe, or Bush v . Gore.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say they do.

Actually, Marbury v. Madison (1803) was quite different than the rest. The Court gave ITSELF the authority to do what the Constitution says it doesn't have the power to do. Those others cases were decided using a power the Court gave ITSELF without which they wouldn't have been able to decide them.

 

[Conservative65]

The price of the Epipen just went up 500%. It costs a dollar to make, and big pharma is charging $500.00 to save a child's life.

The cost of all drugs in the U.S. are ten times more than any other country.

Health insurance is high because of greed. Doctors and hospitals are some of the greediest.

And it's not just big pharma, it's big oil too. When oil was $140.00 a barrel, gas cost $4.00 a gallon. Now oil is three times less at $47.00 a barrel, and we still pay over $2,20 a gallon.

But the real big greed is the military industrial contractors. $600.00 for toilet seats.....$500.00 for coffee makers....and that's just the cheap stuff.

Greed is why we have a $17 trillion national debt.

Greed is why most crimes are committed. Most in prison are there because of greed.

Lawyers are greedy. NO money, you're guilty.

Politicians work less than six months a year for over $200,000.00 plus healthcare, paid vacations, free transportation, and full retirement after four years.

Remember all you 20, 30 & 40 somethings, you're gonna be old in the blink of an eye....and you're gonna pay through the wazoo. Promise.

The issue is morality. The country has been stripped of its Judeo-Christian heritage and replaced with Marxism that only focuses on materialism. Your post is proof of that.

A society that is free must be moral, otherwise, they will use their freedom for amoral behavior and the said freedoms will be stripped away.

That is why the population in the US once enjoyed a free market and helped those in need when they were needed by their own free will, but now they must be made to pay more for the government to do it for them. It is also why Americans once enjoyed the right to bear arms, but ever since the 1960's gun violence had skyrocketed to the point that Hillary is on the verge of confiscating all your weapons.

The key to destroying freedom and creating a police state is the destruction of the moral fiber of society. People will literally be begging for a police state someday.

You have a rather starry eyed and childish view of America's history:

First, there was NEVER a time when Americans helped those in need. A very large percentage of Americans lived in absolute poverty before 1960.

Second, gun control dates back to the 1800s in America. In fact, the legal reason for the gun fight at the O.K. corral was gun control. It was against the law for people to carry guns in Tombstone. The gun fight started when Wyatt Earp tried to disarm the Clanton gang.

Please try to grow up!

Never a time? Bullshit. What it amounts to is you don't like that people didn't give as much as you think they should give of their money.

Clanton GANG?

Please try to stop being a dumbass.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You have a rather starry eyed and childish view of America's history:

First, there was NEVER a time when Americans helped those in need. A very large percentage of Americans lived in absolute poverty before 1960.

Second, gun control dates back to the 1800s in America. In fact, the legal reason for the gun fight at the O.K. corral was gun control. It was against the law for people to carry guns in Tombstone. The gun fight started when Wyatt Earp tried to disarm the Clanton gang.

Please try to grow up!

Comrade. while Earp was acquitted on the charge of murder for shooting William Clanton, Frank and Thomas McLaury, what did Judge Spicer rule in regards to the legality of disarming law abiding men with no mischief apparent?

Oh that's right, that it was unconstitutional and an affront to the spirit of liberty and would endanger that chance of Arizona to be admitted to the union.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Again, you put in terms that are too subjective and allow people to make those decisions based on politics rather than the meaning of the word.

In a world where everyone was pure goodness, we could have less government. Unfortunately, most people are rotten which is why we need government regulation.

It only takes one Al Capone to force all business people into using gangster tactics.

Hey, maybe another couple of thousand of years on evolution, we won't need government.

It's never going to be all or nothing. We have a system that should provide law, order, accountability and oversight so that our public is protected. The degree in which the government is involved should be dictated by the actions of its people and businesses. The more corrupt we are the more involve the gov will become... Lessening regulation is a much better case to make after a track history of responsible commerce. We haven't done a great job in recent years.... Look at 2008.
Government was also part of that problem so both sides are in need of overhaul and increased accountability

I'm not the one that thinks the government should do things for which the Constitution grants is absolutely no power. You are then try to justify them doing so. Your words here and your words before don't match.

You're gonna have to be more specific than that if you want to make a point

The specific examples aren't important. That you believe the government can do THINGS outside it's Constitutional authority is the relevant part. It can be ANYTHING you support for which the government has no power to do.

First, we have the Supreme Court to determine what is and is not within the Constitutional powers of the Government. Second, the Constitution can be amended.

FIRST the Supreme Court does not have the power to determine what is and what is not Constitutional. So let's not pretend Marbury v. Madison is part of COTUS, it was a court decision no different than Heller, Roe, or Bush v . Gore.

The SCOTUS has been determining Constitutionality since it's inception. The fact is that only SCOTUS can determine Constitutionality.

I know that you believe that only YOU have the power to determine Constitutionality, but the other 320 million Americans aren't going to go for that.

Sorry!

Wow, you tried to build a straw man and only made an ass out of your self.

I never stated I have the power to determine constitutionality.

In 1804 the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison was decided by the Marshall Court. John Marshall was not the first Chief Justice of the US under COTUS.

History and Government—Supreme Court—Cases
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Historical Background
The Constitution called for the creation of a federal government with the following three branches, or parts: legislative, executive, and judiciary. Article I created Congress, the legislative, or lawmaking, body. Article II established the office of the President, who executes, or carries out, the laws. Article III created the federal court system consisting of one Supreme Court and other lower courts.

As with most aspects of the U.S. Constitution, the meaning of Article III was left open to interpretation. In 1789, shortly after the Constitution was ratified, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which established the federal court system. Congress created a Supreme Court, three circuit courts, and 13 district courts. There was one district court for each of the 13 states.

The Constitution did not specify the number of justices that could be appointed to the Supreme Court. Through the Judiciary Act, though, Congress provided for a Chief Justice and five Associate Justices. However, the Constitution and Congress left the scope of the Court's power undefined. These powers would gradually be defined through the Court's interpretation of the Constitution in particular cases.

The earliest Chief Justices had very little impact on the direction of the Supreme Court. But John Marshall, who served from 1801 to 1835, influenced the action of the Supreme Court in ways still felt in the United States today. Early in Marshall's term as Chief Justice, a seemingly insignificant case came before the Supreme Court. However, that case, Marbury v. Madison, became one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in United States history.

Read More: Marbury v. Madison (1803)

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say they do.

Actually, Marbury v. Madison (1803) was quite different than the rest. The Court gave ITSELF the authority to do what the Constitution says it doesn't have the power to do. Those others cases were decided using a power the Court gave ITSELF without which they wouldn't have been able to decide them.

While it's true that there is not a Constitutional basis for judicial review, it is also true that Marbury usurped the power to adjudicate the constitutionality of new law passed by the legislature. It does not empower the court to determine the application of the Constitution itself, something Ginsburg, Kagan, Obama, and Clinton fail to grasp. The court can determine if a law is Constitutional under judicial review, but does not have the authority to limit or modify the scope or application of the Constitution and amendments therein.

The problem is of course that the left, the Khmer Rouge democrats, have utterly no respect for our Constitution or our laws. The left respects only the barrel of a gun.

 

[Conservative65]

It's never going to be all or nothing. We have a system that should provide law, order, accountability and oversight so that our public is protected. The degree in which the government is involved should be dictated by the actions of its people and businesses. The more corrupt we are the more involve the gov will become... Lessening regulation is a much better case to make after a track history of responsible commerce. We haven't done a great job in recent years.... Look at 2008.
Government was also part of that problem so both sides are in need of overhaul and increased accountability

You're gonna have to be more specific than that if you want to make a point

The specific examples aren't important. That you believe the government can do THINGS outside it's Constitutional authority is the relevant part. It can be ANYTHING you support for which the government has no power to do.

First, we have the Supreme Court to determine what is and is not within the Constitutional powers of the Government. Second, the Constitution can be amended.

FIRST the Supreme Court does not have the power to determine what is and what is not Constitutional. So let's not pretend Marbury v. Madison is part of COTUS, it was a court decision no different than Heller, Roe, or Bush v . Gore.

The SCOTUS has been determining Constitutionality since it's inception. The fact is that only SCOTUS can determine Constitutionality.

I know that you believe that only YOU have the power to determine Constitutionality, but the other 320 million Americans aren't going to go for that.

Sorry!

Wow, you tried to build a straw man and only made an ass out of your self.

I never stated I have the power to determine constitutionality.

In 1804 the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison was decided by the Marshall Court. John Marshall was not the first Chief Justice of the US under COTUS.

History and Government—Supreme Court—Cases
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Historical Background
The Constitution called for the creation of a federal government with the following three branches, or parts: legislative, executive, and judiciary. Article I created Congress, the legislative, or lawmaking, body. Article II established the office of the President, who executes, or carries out, the laws. Article III created the federal court system consisting of one Supreme Court and other lower courts.

As with most aspects of the U.S. Constitution, the meaning of Article III was left open to interpretation. In 1789, shortly after the Constitution was ratified, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which established the federal court system. Congress created a Supreme Court, three circuit courts, and 13 district courts. There was one district court for each of the 13 states.

The Constitution did not specify the number of justices that could be appointed to the Supreme Court. Through the Judiciary Act, though, Congress provided for a Chief Justice and five Associate Justices. However, the Constitution and Congress left the scope of the Court's power undefined. These powers would gradually be defined through the Court's interpretation of the Constitution in particular cases.

The earliest Chief Justices had very little impact on the direction of the Supreme Court. But John Marshall, who served from 1801 to 1835, influenced the action of the Supreme Court in ways still felt in the United States today. Early in Marshall's term as Chief Justice, a seemingly insignificant case came before the Supreme Court. However, that case, Marbury v. Madison, became one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in United States history.

Read More: Marbury v. Madison (1803)

I never said you did.

 

[Conservative65]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say they do.

Actually, Marbury v. Madison (1803) was quite different than the rest. The Court gave ITSELF the authority to do what the Constitution says it doesn't have the power to do. Those others cases were decided using a power the Court gave ITSELF without which they wouldn't have been able to decide them.

While it's true that there is not a Constitutional basis for judicial review, it is also true that Marbury usurped the power to adjudicate that constitutionality of new law passed by the legislature. It does not empower the court to determine the application of the Constitution itself, something Ginsburg, Kagan, Obama, and Clinton fail to grasp.

The problem is of course that the left, the Khmer Rouge democrats, have utterly no respect for our Constitution or our laws. The left respects only the barrel of a gun.

That's why I said the Court gave the power to ITSELF for judicial review. The decision was two fold. It ruled a law that was unconstitutional so while, at the same time, saying we, the Court, have the power to do it again.

What's going to change the Supreme Court doing what they do despite no Constitutional authority to do so? Are they going to revisit Marbury and say John Marshall was wrong and we'll give up that ability?

 

[Divine Wind]

You have no understanding of the words you use.

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 21:12-13 - New International Version - UK

Matthew 21:12 Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves.

Why Did Jesus Drive the Money Changers From the Temple?

Q. What can we infer from Jesus?

A. Jesus was the first regulator of Capitalism.

Sane, non-partisans fully understand there is a wide difference between regulated capitalism and the socialist state the far Left is seeking to install.

Psychologically and sociologically, socialism doesn't work in a world of limited resources. Greed exists as part of the human condition, not as part of an economic system. This is why every socialist system above the level of a tribe or village has failed. People can dream about a Star Trek Federation society based on "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", but that won't work until the human race develops fully renewable "free" energy. Until then, a capitalistic republic is the best form of human society on the national level.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Its nice that you have such faith in companies and consumers but your scenario is just not reality. Look at history and look at other countries that have no regulations. You use electronics as an example? How about you review something that is an actual risk or threat to life and health... Medicine, Food, Transportation, Energy etc.

We aren't talking about protecting people from a malfunctioning iPhone, we are talking about human lives.

Look at examples, like:

Contaminated Medicine that has resulted in many deaths around the world:
List of medicine contamination incidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That can't be! You have your beloved government to protect you.

Polluted food and water sources causing Typhoid fever and other illnesses resulting in death and illness:
The 10 Deadliest Outbreaks in U.S. History -- Revisited | Food Safety News

The effect that the seatbelt law has had on save human life in auto accidents:
Policy Impact: Seat Belts | Motor Vehicle Safety | CDC Injury Center

The nuclear weapons plant in Colorado that illegally dumped and polluted the surrounding land with radio active waste:
Rocky Flats Plant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But GOVERNMENT is that answer to all questions, how is it possible that adulterated food and drugs exist with our crack FDA on the case?

Oh and moron, U/L deals with electric stoves, pool pumps, electric heaters, etc. Stuff that will kill you dead in an instant if it malfunctions.

Unlike your beloved government - U/L has a sterling record. As does the IEEE who designed the grid that carries 480 volt power to you apartment and the government agency you're employed with.

Another cop out answer... I've said multiple times that the government owns a big part of the problem. But you keep painting me with that ignorant partisan brush... I'm about done with you

Since gov is supposed to control capitalism so the free market greed style of capitalism doesnt take over the world...the gov is 100% of the problem. Capitalism is just doing what unchecked unregulated free market capitalism does...ruins economies, lives and countries.

You can't pass 100% of the responsibility to the government. We all have individual responsibilities and as citizens and business owners to follow the law and promote a healthy society. The better we do the less the government will need to intervene.

Unless the government has the delegated authority to do so, they should not intervene at all regardless of how much you think they should.

So when floods, fires, hurricanes, earthquakes overwhelm a state, it is your callous opinion that the Federal Govenment should not help?

In 1906 an Earthquake and fire struck the SF Bay Area, leaving tens of thousands homeless. In three days the US Army delivered every tent they had to the Bay Area to house the displaced. In your ideological opinion, as a callous conservative, you feel this act of kindness was illegal, immoral and unnecessary. Is that about right?

It's no wonder pragmatic, educated and caring Americans disagree with you, and the first time you experience such a targic event, you will demand the government do something. There are no conservatives stuck in a collapsed building.

 

[Conservative65]

That can't be! You have your beloved government to protect you.

But GOVERNMENT is that answer to all questions, how is it possible that adulterated food and drugs exist with our crack FDA on the case?

Oh and moron, U/L deals with electric stoves, pool pumps, electric heaters, etc. Stuff that will kill you dead in an instant if it malfunctions.

Unlike your beloved government - U/L has a sterling record. As does the IEEE who designed the grid that carries 480 volt power to you apartment and the government agency you're employed with.

Another cop out answer... I've said multiple times that the government owns a big part of the problem. But you keep painting me with that ignorant partisan brush... I'm about done with you

Since gov is supposed to control capitalism so the free market greed style of capitalism doesnt take over the world...the gov is 100% of the problem. Capitalism is just doing what unchecked unregulated free market capitalism does...ruins economies, lives and countries.

You can't pass 100% of the responsibility to the government. We all have individual responsibilities and as citizens and business owners to follow the law and promote a healthy society. The better we do the less the government will need to intervene.

Unless the government has the delegated authority to do so, they should not intervene at all regardless of how much you think they should.

So when floods, fires, hurricanes, earthquakes overwhelm a state, it is your callous opinion that the Federal Govenment should not help?

In 1906 an Earthquake and fire struck the SF Bay Area, leaving tens of thousands homeless. In three days the US Army delivered every tent they had to the Bay Area to house the displaced. In your ideological opinion, as a callous conservative, you feel this act of kindness was illegal, immoral and unnecessary. Is that about right?

It's no wonder pragmatic, educated and caring Americans disagree with you, and the first time you experience such a targic event, you will demand the government do something. There are no conservatives stuck in a collapsed building.

Why shouldn't the State do it based on the 10th Amendment? Why do you oppose going by the Constitution?

What's callous about going by what the Constitution says?

I will demand the government do something? Do you say that as a prediction or fact? I bet you think if I lost my job I'd use social welfare, too?