What should be against the law

[Stillriledup]

...but currently is legal?

Serious replies as well as comedic replies encouraged. :D

[lamboguy]

lottery's and casino gambling

[upthecreek]

Brittany Eurton & Christina Blacker on TVG @ the same time --2 squeaky voices talking @ the same time

[upthecreek]

I thought of another one--@ the super market waiting til the checker is done ringing up your groceries and then writing a check!

[maddog42]

Taking 100 items to the 20 items or less register.

[Nutz and Boltz]

Cigarette production..


http://www.ew.com/sites/default/files/i/2015/03/31/x-files-smoking-man.jpg

[Nutz and Boltz]

How about things that are illegal , but should be legalized?


Like...soliciting a prostitute. :D

[pandy]

Preachers who make millions but don't pay any taxes, should be illegal.

[barahona44]

Handicapping while standing at the self betting machines and others are waiting.Death penalty if an individual misses a big payout :)

[MutuelClerk]

Political polling.

[onefast99]

changing the price of gas while you are in line filling up, yes I know it has been going down for quite sometime but for how many years did it go the other way! :bang:

[Tom]

Political parties
Lobbyists

[AndyC]

Preachers who make millions but don't pay any taxes, should be illegal.

Where would you get an idea like that? There is a parsonage allowance that shelters some income but certainly not millions.

[MONEY]

Paying commission to employees at auto repair shops.

[ManU918]

Kids on planes with out a muzzle
White drivers over the age of 65
Black and Asian drivers of all ages

[thaskalos]

No cigarettes

No booze in pocket-sized bottles

No lotteries

No Federal Reserve

No wars unless the politicians' sons and daughters are the first to get drafted

[Rookies]

Drive Throughs

ABSOLUTELY THIS:

"No wars unless the politicians' sons and daughters are the first to get drafted- and serve"

[johnhannibalsmith]

Use of the expression "going forward".

[Tom]

Drive Throughs

ABSOLUTELY THIS:

"No wars unless the politicians' sons and daughters are the first to get drafted- and serve"

Why would we draft anyone when we have the best military in history, 100% volunteers?

You guys that dwell on this idea of drafting - please STOP dishonoring our troops by making their choice to serve their country into some cheap political garbage.

[Tom]

Use of the expression "going forward".

Yes, time to draw line in the sand on that one.
At the end of the day, it is really annoying.
Let's drive a stake in that one.

[Greyfox]

Street Sounds in Radio Commercials

I'm driving along and I hear a siren and look to pull over.
It's a siren in a radio ad.
Similarly, some commercials use car horns, so I look around and once again it's a bloody ad.

[Tom]

Street Sounds in Radio Commercials

I'm driving along and I hear a siren and look to pull over.
It's a siren in a radio ad.
Similarly, some commercials use car horns, so I look around and once again it's a bloody ad.

YES!
THAT is annoying as all get out.

[PaceAdvantage]

Drive Throughs

ABSOLUTELY THIS:

"No wars unless the politicians' sons and daughters are the first to get drafted- and serve"How absolutely ridiculous.

[thaskalos]

Why would we draft anyone when we have the best military in history, 100% volunteers?

You guys that dwell on this idea of drafting - please STOP dishonoring our troops by making their choice to serve their country into some cheap political garbage.
I was not intending to dishonor those who voluntarily put themselves in grave danger for the benefit of our country...nor was I recommending the draft. I was just saying that those politicians who get us involved in these unnecessary "wars" would think twice if members of their own families occupied spots on the front line of the battlefield.

[Marshall Bennett]

Lottery and scratch-offs. Biggest ripoff form of gambling, and effects those most who can afford it the least. :ThmbDown:

[Tom]

I know where you're coming from, Gus. I agree in theory, too.
I just think one of the greatest things about this country is that we have the best of all time out there looking out for us, and not a one of them has to be
there. They chose to be there.

I find that extremely humbling.

[Tor Ekman]

Certain women wearing yoga pants . . . it's a privilege, not a right

[pandy]

I noticed that two people mentioned lotteries. The lottery here in PA. supports senior citizen housing, such as HUD apartment buildings, which are rent controlled and quite nice. Lotteries, if run properly, seem to me to be a better way to raise money than taxes. I'd like to see a national lottery once a week but with better odds and all of the profits go directly into the social security fund.

My idea for a lottery, 35% takeout, the other 65% is paid of in $1 million dollar tax free winnings, and 5 numbers (out of 48) are continuously drawn until all of the 65% is paid out. So, for instance, if there was a billion dollars in the pool, there would be 650 one million dollar winners and the state would get $350 million. The 650 new millionaires would provide a nice boost to the economy.

[thaskalos]

I just think one of the greatest things about this country is that we have the best of all time out there looking out for us, and not a one of them has to be
there. They chose to be there.

I find that extremely humbling.

True heroes...all of them. To lay your life down for another is the truest test of heroism.

[thaskalos]

I noticed that two people mentioned lotteries. The lottery here in PA. supports senior citizen housing, such as HUD apartment buildings, which are rent controlled and quite nice. Lotteries, if run properly, seem to me to be a better way to raise money than taxes.

Yes...yes...the theory behind the lottery always sounds good. In Illinois...the lottery profits were supposed to support the much -maligned school system. Well, the lottery became a thriving success...while the schools are still in dilapidated condition, the teachers are still threatening to strike, and the students remain as dumb as ever. And this after large property-tax increases were implemented for the benefit of "education".

And, to add insult to injury...it was recently discovered that the lottery money wasn't even kept intact so the winners could get paid. What happened to that money still remains a mystery.

[Saratoga_Mike]

How absolutely ridiculous.

Reporter: How can you watch the killing in Bosnia and not want to use America's might to try to end that kind of suffering?

GEORGE HW BUSH: I vowed something, because I learned something from Vietnam: I am not going to commit US forces until I know what the mission is, until the military tell me that it can be completed, until I know how they can come out. We are helping. American airplanes are helping today on humanitarian relief for Sarajevo. But when you go to put somebody else's son or daughter into war, I think you've got to be a little bit careful, and you have to be sure that there's a military plan that can do this. You have ancient ethnic rivalries that have cropped up as Yugoslavia dissolves. It isn't going to be solved by sending in the 82d Airborne, and I'm not going to do that."

Sounds like the first President Bush thought in the terms suggested by the poster. I know it isn't an exact parallel, so no need for your famous parsing of sentences. I'd say your ridiculous meter is off lately. As always, please have the last word on this matter.

[zico20]

I was not intending to dishonor those who voluntarily put themselves in grave danger for the benefit of our country...nor was I recommending the draft. I was just saying that those politicians who get us involved in these unnecessary "wars" would think twice if members of their own families occupied spots on the front line of the battlefield.

Who determines what wars are necessary and which ones are not. That is the million dollar question. Everyone has their own opinions. Take the Afghanistan war. Some liberals thought that was unnecessary, even though that government supported a terrorist group that killed 3000 Americans.

[zico20]

Yes...yes...the theory behind the lottery always sounds good. In Illinois...the lottery profits were supposed to support the much -maligned school system. Well, the lottery became a thriving success...while the schools are still in dilapidated condition, the teachers are still threatening to strike, and the students remain as dumb as ever. And this after large property-tax increases were implemented for the benefit of "education".

And, to add insult to injury...it was recently discovered that the lottery money wasn't even kept intact so the winners could get paid. What happened to that money still remains a mystery.

Maybe all that Illinois lottery money was going to that underfunded pension system that the Democrats got themselves into. Education money for the kids takes a back seat to the union boys.

[azeri98]

Either pot should be legal or booze illegal, I have never seen a person who was high on pot get into a fight or beat his girlfriend or wife. In my eyes alcohol is much more dangerous to society than booze, and no I am not a pothead. you will never meet who is high on weed that is aggressive.

[mostpost]

Who determines what wars are necessary and which ones are not. That is the million dollar question. Everyone has their own opinions. Take the Afghanistan war. Some liberals thought that was unnecessary, even though that government supported a terrorist group that killed 3000 Americans.
I think most liberals supported the war in Afghanistan, because there was a clear connection between the 9-11 attackers and Afghanistan. The objections were to the Iraq war where there was no connection. Also the objection was to taking the troops out of Afghanistan before the job was finished.

[zico20]

I think most liberals supported the war in Afghanistan, because there was a clear connection between the 9-11 attackers and Afghanistan. The objections were to the Iraq war where there was no connection. Also the objection was to taking the troops out of Afghanistan before the job was finished.

You are correct, however, I hear liberals say all the time "Bush got us involved in two wars that cost us hundreds of billions of dollars." Well, they should be saying one war, not two. I guess their memory isn't that great or they are purposely misleading people.

[mostpost]

Maybe all that Illinois lottery money was going to that underfunded pension system that the Democrats got themselves into. Education money for the kids takes a back seat to the union boys.
Congratulations on getting it exactly backwards. Illinois did not make required payments to the pension system because it used that money to pay other bills. The great recession caused a huge drop in revenue both nationally and in the states. In order to pay current bills, Illinois shortchanged the pension fund. So not only did Illinois not take money from education and give it to the union boys, it did the opposite. The problem was that thanks to Mr. Bush's recession, there still was not enough money.

The idea that lottery money is earmarked for education is only true technically. Lottery money does go to education, but that just means other money can be taken from education and spent on other things. Other things not including the pension fund. Also, all the profit from lottery sales is less than 4% of Illinois' annual education budget. By education budget, I mean all the money spent k-12, locally and statewide.

[OntheRail]

The sales of cold alcoholic carryout beverages should be outlawed. Anyone caught DWD would forfeit vehicle as the act would be premeditated. It would also cut down on underage drinking.. as finding a place to chill it would be harder. And this should play well with the global warming crowd as well. By outlawing it.. it would save megawatts of electricity and tons of harmful emissions.

[zico20]

Congratulations on getting it exactly backwards. Illinois did not make required payments to the pension system because it used that money to pay other bills. The great recession caused a huge drop in revenue both nationally and in the states. In order to pay current bills, Illinois shortchanged the pension fund. So not only did Illinois not take money from education and give it to the union boys, it did the opposite. The problem was that thanks to Mr. Bush's recession, there still was not enough money.

The idea that lottery money is earmarked for education is only true technically. Lottery money does go to education, but that just means other money can be taken from education and spent on other things. Other things not including the pension fund. Also, all the profit from lottery sales is less than 4% of Illinois' annual education budget. By education budget, I mean all the money spent k-12, locally and statewide.

Are you trying to blame Bush for the Illinois pension problems. I guess you liberals will never stop blaming Bush for everything. Also, why don't all the other 49 states have massive pension problems since it all stems from Bush? Can you answer that for me. If the Illinois pension was properly run, plus the state in general, the lottery money would have gone where it was intended to.

[PhantomOnTour]

Turning every non sports thread on this site into the same tired ass old political argument over and over again, pitting the same combatants against one another, saying the same tired old crap to one another...again and again and again :bang: :bang: :bang:

[andtheyreoff]

Stillriledup posting.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

1. For anyone who is a net-negative taxpayer to be allowed to vote.
(sorry, no housewives, stay-at-home dads, social security and other welfare recipients, etc. can vote. Government employees cannot vote for offices at the level of government for which they are employed).

2. For women and gays to be in the military. (nothing against women or gays, but disruptive to unit morale)

3. For government to pass a law without metrics to evaluate its effectiveness. (self explanatory - Obummercare would be repealed by now)

4. To pass on the right ($1000 fine)

5. To fail to yield right of way (blocking left lane - $5000 fine)

6. Not to see a dentist annually.

[Tall One]

The sales of cold alcoholic carryout beverages should be outlawed. Anyone caught DWD would forfeit vehicle as the act would be premeditated. It would also cut down on underage drinking.. as finding a place to chill it would be harder. And this should play well with the global warming crowd as well. By outlawing it.. it would save megawatts of electricity and tons of harmful emissions.


Oxford, Mississippi doesn't sell cold beer..at least they didn't in '05. You had to buy a bag of ice, but, booze was sold at a different location..ABC Store I believe it was called.

-Agree with the marijuana post above.

[mostpost]

1. For anyone who is a net-negative taxpayer to be allowed to vote.
(sorry, no housewives, stay-at-home dads, social security and other welfare recipients, etc. can vote. Government employees cannot vote for offices at the level of government for which they are employed).
Laws effect everyone, not just those who pay the most taxes. As long as you are taking away that most basic right, why not take away other rights? A separate school system for net negative taxpayers. They should ride in the back of the bus. And they certainly should not live in your neighborhood.

2. For women and gays to be in the military. (nothing against women or gays, but disruptive to unit morale)
Misogyny and homophobia in one disgusting sentence.

3. For government to pass a law without metrics to evaluate its effectiveness. (self explanatory - Obummercare would be repealed by now)
Who decides what those metrics are? And who decides if and when those metrics have been satisfied? Despite your silly suggestion, Obamacare has been a success on many metrics. % of uninsured has dropped from 19% to 10%. Insurance rates are still rising but at the slowest rate in decades. Women no longer pay more for insurance than men. If you get sick or if you have a preexisting condition, you no longer lose your insurance.

4. To pass on the right ($1000 fine)
This is just dumb. I assume you are talking about a four lane (or more) highway. Obviously it would not be a good idea to pass on the shoulder. Otherwise, it makes no sense to continually switch lanes.

5. To fail to yield right of way (blocking left lane - $5000 fine)
How would you enforce this-or number 4? The ideal scenario would be to have the slower traffic on the right and the faster on the left. But the world is not ideal and people aren't machines. $5,000 fines will not change that.

6. Not to see a dentist annually.
Finally, you wrote something that makes sense. So we need to establish a constabulary which can go into your house and drag you to the dentist when needed.

[mostpost]

Are you trying to blame Bush for the Illinois pension problems. I guess you liberals will never stop blaming Bush for everything. Also, why don't all the other 49 states have massive pension problems since it all stems from Bush? Can you answer that for me. If the Illinois pension was properly run, plus the state in general, the lottery money would have gone where it was intended to.
A lot of states have pension problems, in fact there are very few with nearly fully funded pension funds. According to the American Thinker, these are the ten states with the worst pension funds. Illinois, Connecticut, Kentucky, Kansas, Alaska, New Hampshire, Mississippi, Louisiana, Hawaii, Massachusetts. Add to that, New Jersey, which did not make the American Thinker list, but has funded only 37% of its pension obligations and you have almost one fourth of the states in serious pension trouble. Indiana has major pension funding deficiencies.

So, now that I think about it, Bush is to blame for everything. That's not picking on him; that is a fact.

The great recession affected pensions in two ways-at least. First, it caused a drop off in revenue, which meant states started raiding there pension funds or stopped contributing to them-or both. Second, much of the pension money was invested in the stock market. We all know what happened to the stock market.

[Dahoss2002]

Lawyers

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder
1. For anyone who is a net-negative taxpayer to be allowed to vote.
(sorry, no housewives, stay-at-home dads, social security and other welfare recipients, etc. can vote. Government employees cannot vote for offices at the level of government for which they are employed).
Laws effect everyone, not just those who pay the most taxes. As long as you are taking away that most basic right, why not take away other rights? A separate school system for net negative taxpayers. They should ride in the back of the bus. And they certainly should not live in your neighborhood.
This is a simple concept Mostie - there's a conflict of interest for voters who want to feed at the trough of government benefits - with everything to gain, and nothing to lose, it's turned our election process into a vote-buying ponzi scheme - and contributes to the $19T deficit. Of course, being the good little Marxist that you are, you try to twist it and turn it into a threat against other rights, not just voting eligibility.

Here's an example of why voting eligibility needs to be addressed, as these boneheads like the idea of Karl Marx joining Hillary's ticket, and are eager to sign their approval:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPob5-_EAmc


2. For women and gays to be in the military. (nothing against women or gays, but disruptive to unit morale)
Misogyny and homophobia in one disgusting sentence.
Apparently you can't read for content. Had you served in the military, you'd understand this <again> rather simple concept. But let's not allow lack of experience to stand in the way of rose-colored ignorance.

3. For government to pass a law without metrics to evaluate its effectiveness. (self explanatory - Obummercare would be repealed by now)
Who decides what those metrics are? And who decides if and when those metrics have been satisfied? Despite your silly suggestion, Obamacare has been a success on many metrics. % of uninsured has dropped from 19% to 10%. Insurance rates are still rising but at the slowest rate in decades. Women no longer pay more for insurance than men. If you get sick or if you have a preexisting condition, you no longer lose your insurance.
Obamacare, economically, has been a complete - total - no argument about it, unmitigated disaster. You really need to give up defending it. The claims you make as to it's success, which even if they were true, do not offset the approx $1.5T negative impact on the economy. If you were capable of connecting the dots, you would also understand the immense power the law is giving government. Or perhaps you haven't received your notice for a mandatory health screening this year like many of us have? You poo-poo concerns about death panels, but you'll soon see the error in judgement on that angle. It won't be a star of David patch, but rather a little hospital cross with a blue circle through it (or something similar) that the "sub-healthy" will be required to wear.....

4. To pass on the right ($1000 fine)
This is just dumb. I assume you are talking about a four lane (or more) highway. Obviously it would not be a good idea to pass on the shoulder. Otherwise, it makes no sense to continually switch lanes.
Drive down the autobahn for a while and get back to me on how traffic flow on a U.S. interstate compares to Germany, where it's a stiff fine to pass on the right, and being in the left lane and traveling less than 150 MPH ensures you're going to have lights blinked and horns honking at you shortly. Much more efficient results there.


5. To fail to yield right of way (blocking left lane - $5000 fine)
How would you enforce this-or number 4? The ideal scenario would be to have the slower traffic on the right and the faster on the left. But the world is not ideal and people aren't machines. $5,000 fines will not change that.
This goes hand-in-hand with #4. Get out a little more, and see how it works in other countries.


6. Not to see a dentist annually.

[mostpost]

This is a simple concept Mostie - there's a conflict of interest for voters who want to feed at the trough of government benefits - with everything to gain, and nothing to lose, it's turned our election process into a vote-buying ponzi scheme - and contributes to the $19T deficit. Of course, being the good little Marxist that you are, you try to twist it and turn it into a threat against other rights, not just voting eligibility.

Here's an example of why voting eligibility needs to be addressed, as these boneheads like the idea of Karl Marx joining Hillary's ticket, and are eager to sign their approval:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPob5-_EAmc

Here is an even more simple concept. The right to vote means the right to vote. It means you can vote if you are a woman. It means you can vote if you are a black man. It means you can vote if you are poor. It is not something that you buy. It is not something that you sell.

Except for two weeks just out of college, I have never received unemployment benefits. I have never been on food stamps. Never taken the child tax credit. But I have always voted Democratic because I believe that we should take care of our people. I do not believe that the people who benefit from those programs vote democratic because of those programs. They vote Democratic because the Democratic Party advocates policies that benefit them when they are working. They also have a better chance of having a job under the Democrats.

Your video is worthless. Can you prove to me that Dice did not edit out hundreds who saw through his little charade. Can you prove that the people he did interview were not actors either paid by him or in cahoots with him.

[mostpost]

Apparently you can't read for content. Had you served in the military, you'd understand this <again> rather simple concept. But let's not allow lack of experience to stand in the way of rose-colored ignorance.
I did serve in the military; a fact which I have mentioned several times. Did you? If you did then the chances are you served with some gay men. You just did not know it. You can't abridge someone's rights just because they make you uncomfortable.

[Tom]

Here is an even more simple concept. The right to keep and bear arms means the right to keep and bear arms. It means you can keep and bear arms if you are a woman. It means you can keep and bear arms if you are a black man. It means you can keep and bear arms if you are poor. It is not something that you buy. It is not something that you sell.

FTFY......

[mostpost]

Obamacare, economically, has been a complete - total - no argument about it, unmitigated disaster. You really need to give up defending it. The claims you make as to it's success, which even if they were true, do not offset the approx $1.5T negative impact on the economy. If you were capable of connecting the dots, you would also understand the immense power the law is giving government. Or perhaps you haven't received your notice for a mandatory health screening this year like many of us have? You poo-poo concerns about death panels, but you'll soon see the error in judgement on that angle. It won't be a star of David patch, but rather a little hospital cross with a blue circle through it (or something similar) that the "sub-healthy" will be required to wear.....

The claims I made are completely true, and completely provable. I have no idea where you come up with that $1.5T hit on the economy, unless you are referring to the cost of the subsidies over the next ten years. The thing is, those subsidies are paid for-do not add one cent to the deficit.
In June of 2015 the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of the cost of Repealing the Affordable Care Act.
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/50252-Effects_of_ACA_Repeal.pdf

In the period from 2016-2025:
Eliminating exchange subsidies and grants would save............$712B
Eliminating risk adjustments and reinsurance would save........$158B
Eliminating Medicaid and CHIP payments would save..............$824B
Other savings........................................... ...........................$6B
Total Savings........................................... .......................$1,700B

That's pretty darned impressive, until you start looking at other effects of repeal.
Repealing the ACA would result in additional, new expenses.
Medicare.......................................... ................................$802B
Medicaid.......................................... ...................................$66B
Other............................................. .....................................$10B
Total New Expenses.......................................... ...................$879B

Subtract the expenses from the savings and you savings of.........$821B.

But we have not yet looked at the effects of a repeal of the ACA on revenue.
So, here it is.
First on the coverage provisions.

Revenue from Exchange Premium credits would increase.............$109B
Collections from Risk Adjustment and reinsurance would decrese...-157B
Small employer tax credit would increase.................................$10B
Penalty payments by uninsured people.....................................-$43B
Penalty Payments by employers......................................... .....-$167B
Excise tax............................................... .............................-$87B
Other............................................. .....................................-$204B

Then there is the revenue loss on other provisions of the ACA
High Income surtax............................................ .................-$346B
Fees.............................................. ...................................-$196B
Other............................................. ...................................-$89B
Total............................................. ....................................-$631B
Total lost revenue........................................... ....................$1,174B
Total savings........................................... .............................$821B
Total amount added to the deficit over 10 years by repealing the ACA $353B

These figures come from Table 4 on page 11 of the above linked report.

[mostpost]

Or perhaps you haven't received your notice for a mandatory health screening this year like many of us have?
I have not, and neither have you. There is no provision in the ACA for mandatory health screenings. If you think you have received such a notice, read it again. Better yet, post it here so we can see what it really says. And who it is really from.

Everyone knows that private insurers are now required to pay for certain preventive and diagnostic services-such as an annual physical-with no out of pocket costs from the insured. There is no requirement that the insured take advantage of this.

[Mandrake]

The metric system.

[therussmeister]

Use of the expression "going forward".
Also the expressions "At the end of the day", "I could care less" ("I couldn't care less" strongly encouraged.), and "should of" (" should have" strongly encouraged.)

Also made illegal: Soda pop for children, football and other contact sports for people under the age of 21.

[Mandrake]

Horse and buggy rides.
Kids shoveling snow.

Oops, I'm in NYC, they are illegal.

[azeri98]

The metric system.
Why? You don't use it anyway, everybody else does.

[Actor]

Either pot should be legal or booze illegal, ...We tried making booze illegal. There was even a Constitutional amendment. It didn't work. :rolleyes:

[Actor]

Why? You don't use it anyway, everybody else does.One of the Mars probes crashed because the engineers did their calculations in metric but the contractor used English units (or vice versa). Millions of dollars down the tube on that one.

I've heard that the U.S. had plans to convert to metric in the 1940s but it was scrapped because the War Department had concerns over the effect of having two systems in place at the same time during the war.

Only three countries do not use the metric system today: the United States, Liberia, and Myanmar(formerly Burma).

[Actor]

How about things that are illegal , but should be legalized?


Like...soliciting a prostitute. :DYou should be allowed to skinny dip on any beach that is public property. :cool:

[Actor]

...but currently is legal?

Serious replies as well as comedic replies encouraged. :DLittle bitty states like Iowa and New Hampshire having caucuses and primaries early in the year and thus having an influence in the selection of the President that is all out of proportion to their population.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Here is an even more simple concept. The right to vote means the right to vote. It means you can vote if you are a woman. It means you can vote if you are a black man. It means you can vote if you are poor. It is not something that you buy. It is not something that you sell.

Except for two weeks just out of college, I have never received unemployment benefits. I have never been on food stamps. Never taken the child tax credit. But I have always voted Democratic because I believe that we should take care of our people. I do not believe that the people who benefit from those programs vote democratic because of those programs. They vote Democratic because the Democratic Party advocates policies that benefit them when they are working. They also have a better chance of having a job under the Democrats.

Your video is worthless. Can you prove to me that Dice did not edit out hundreds who saw through his little charade. Can you prove that the people he did interview were not actors either paid by him or in cahoots with him.

The "right" to vote is not provided for in the constitution. It is not a right, as in the right to free speech. It does not apply to 17 year olds or younger, nor does it apply to illegal aliens or aliens from another planet or dead people - except of course when the democrats are stuffing the ballot box. Restricting the eligibilty to vote is nothing new - and makes sense if we want to see positive change in this country. Weeding out the ignorant and the leeches makes sense. From your point of view, business as usual, only makes the problem worse is much of the reason how we got to where we are today.

Your policy of voting democrat is rather flawed, as it would be if you voted Republican every year. If you think Hillary cares about you as a person, you are quite blind to how a sociopath operates in politics. Bernie, on the other hand, and perhaps a handful of politicians on boths sides of the aisle do seem to have some level of compassion. But that can be displayed in many ways.

Of course I cannot prove the video is "staged" any more than any other on Youtube. But it doesn't take advanced analytics to understand the average voter is woefully underqualified to be a good citizen, and therefore as not earned the "right" to vote.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

I did serve in the military; a fact which I have mentioned several times. Did you? If you did then the chances are you served with some gay men. You just did not know it. You can't abridge someone's rights just because they make you uncomfortable.

Yes, I did serve four years as an officer in the Air Force. My apologies for not realizing you also served. Based on your political views, you must have felt like a fish out of water, but that doesn't take away (of course) if you served in good faith and received an honorable discharge.

Back in the early 1980s, it was before "don't ask, don't tell". I knew a couple of Airmen that were kicked out for being gay. Being around them, and around other gays in college did make me feel a bit uncomfortable (which is no longer the case), but that's not the reason I don't believe they should serve, along with women.

Again, the reason is simple. 90+ percent of those serving are straight males, or at least they were back in the 1980s. I assume the number is still very high. When a female would be introduced into the mix, then fraternization issues would often arise - males have one predominant thought on their minds once the needs of food, shelter and clothing are met. I saw this many times in four years, often resulting in harassment complaints, lower morale, conflict between peers, and disruption to the mission. It was rarely, if ever, the fault of the woman. To reconsile the problem, a transfer was often made, usually before the normal "tour" was complete, sometimes involving both parties. Many companies have rules against nepotism - to avoid these kinds of problems. In the military, unlike many civilian jobs, your lives are on the line and require complete focus to the mission. Until the military can screen applicants and remove the ones who are unable to cope in a coed setting, I say go with the percentages and simplify the environment.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

The claims I made are completely true, and completely provable. I have no idea where you come up with that $1.5T hit on the economy, unless you are referring to the cost of the subsidies over the next ten years. The thing is, those subsidies are paid for-do not add one cent to the deficit.
In June of 2015 the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of the cost of Repealing the Affordable Care Act.
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/50252-Effects_of_ACA_Repeal.pdf

In the period from 2016-2025:
Eliminating exchange subsidies and grants would save............$712B
Eliminating risk adjustments and reinsurance would save........$158B
Eliminating Medicaid and CHIP payments would save..............$824B
Other savings........................................... ...........................$6B
Total Savings........................................... .......................$1,700B

That's pretty darned impressive, until you start looking at other effects of repeal.
Repealing the ACA would result in additional, new expenses.
Medicare.......................................... ................................$802B
Medicaid.......................................... ...................................$66B
Other............................................. .....................................$10B
Total New Expenses.......................................... ...................$879B

Subtract the expenses from the savings and you savings of.........$821B.

But we have not yet looked at the effects of a repeal of the ACA on revenue.
So, here it is.
First on the coverage provisions.

Revenue from Exchange Premium credits would increase.............$109B
Collections from Risk Adjustment and reinsurance would decrese...-157B
Small employer tax credit would increase.................................$10B
Penalty payments by uninsured people.....................................-$43B
Penalty Payments by employers......................................... .....-$167B
Excise tax............................................... .............................-$87B
Other............................................. .....................................-$204B

Then there is the revenue loss on other provisions of the ACA
High Income surtax............................................ .................-$346B
Fees.............................................. ...................................-$196B
Other............................................. ...................................-$89B
Total............................................. ....................................-$631B
Total lost revenue........................................... ....................$1,174B
Total savings........................................... .............................$821B
Total amount added to the deficit over 10 years by repealing the ACA $353B

These figures come from Table 4 on page 11 of the above linked report.

C'mon Mostie. You know these "projections" are not any more accurate than the ones in 2010, in which each family was going to "save" $2500. Instead, each family of four now spends almost $5000 more in health care, either with higher premiums, reduced coverage, higher deductibles - or all three.

You'd hardly expect one bureacracy in government to not provide data supporting the establishment of another giant bureacracy? Really?

As a side note, the $1.5T number is yet another average of various projections, from lost jobs and lost benefits, that I've seen published. All of them should be taken with a grain of salt - but overall the negative impact is huge. One of my customers, MODA Health in Oregon, is buckling under the weight of the individual health policies, and has been ordered to sign up no more people for now. How much will that cost to clean all that up? Coming from the state whose exchange web site was one of the worst in the country.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

I have not, and neither have you. There is no provision in the ACA for mandatory health screenings. If you think you have received such a notice, read it again. Better yet, post it here so we can see what it really says. And who it is really from.

Everyone knows that private insurers are now required to pay for certain preventive and diagnostic services-such as an annual physical-with no out of pocket costs from the insured. There is no requirement that the insured take advantage of this.

Ah, we shall see. I received an email from HR indicating that ALL employees must undergo a health screening at the various offices throughout the country or at a local health facility if we work remotely. At a minimum, there's no doubt in my mind that height, weight, blood pressure and a survey will be part of this. I definitely recall the screening must be completed by June 30th.

Unfortunately, I deleted this email and it's been deleted from my trash already. I will be happy to post what the requirements are (as I recall it was MANDATORY and the ACA was referenced), and if I'm wrong I'll man up and post it anyway.

As a side note, the company is offering a discount on FIT devices, and now we get a weekly email with healthy recipes and other health tips - I don't have a problem with that, though I've heard a couple of people complain about more spam (which, of course, is not so health).

[Mandrake]

Why? You don't use it anyway, everybody else does.

It ruined the ratchet set, nuts and bolts, and liquor bottles.

[Tom]

Turning every non sports thread on this site into the same tired ass old political argument over and over again, pitting the same combatants against one another, saying the same tired old crap to one another...again and again and again :bang: :bang: :bang:

Sports threads that ignore politics!

[mostpost]

The "right" to vote is not provided for in the constitution. It is not a right, as in the right to free speech. It does not apply to 17 year olds or younger, nor does it apply to illegal aliens or aliens from another planet or dead people - except of course when the democrats are stuffing the ballot box. Restricting the eligibilty to vote is nothing new - and makes sense if we want to see positive change in this country. Weeding out the ignorant and the leeches makes sense. From your point of view, business as usual, only makes the problem worse is much of the reason how we got to where we are today.
Ah, but it is-five times.
The Fourteenth Amendment; Section 2: when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
In other words if a state does not allow some of its male citizens to vote, it will be punished by having its representation in Congress reduced.

15th Amendment; Section 1:Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

19th amendment: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

24th Amendment: Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Well, look at that. This pretty much makes your idea unconstitutional.

26th Amendment: Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Finally, there is this
9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Put another way, this means that rights do exist outside of the Constitution and those rights are as legitimates as any specifically delineated in the United States Constitution.

[mostpost]

C'mon Mostie. You know these "projections" are not any more accurate than the ones in 2010, in which each family was going to "save" $2500. Instead, each family of four now spends almost $5000 more in health care, either with higher premiums, reduced coverage, higher deductibles - or all three.
There was never any CBO projection in 2010 which stated that a family would save $2500 as a result of the ACA. That projection was made in 2007 by Barack Obama at a campaign rally. It was obviously wrong, but it had nothing to do with the ACA which was not even conceived at that time.
You'd hardly expect one bureacracy in government to not provide data supporting the establishment of another giant bureacracy? Really?
I would expect them to go where the numbers take them. The CBO works for Congress. It would be much more plausible to think they would submit a report favorable to the views of the Majority Party (Republicans) than to think there is some secret alliance between government departments.

As a side note, the $1.5T number is yet another average of various projections, from lost jobs and lost benefits, that I've seen published. All of them should be taken with a grain of salt - but overall the negative impact is huge. One of my customers, MODA Health in Oregon, is buckling under the weight of the individual health policies, and has been ordered to sign up no more people for now. How much will that cost to clean all that up? Coming from the state whose exchange web site was one of the worst in the country.
Here is the problem with MODA Health and it is partly their doing and partly Republicans in Congress. MODA priced its policies very low in an attempt to sell more. It failed to take into account that many of those who were buying the policies had not seen a doctor in years and may have been less healthy than the average person. When those people had larger than anticipated medical expenses, MODA experienced losses. That was not the fault of the ACA. That was the fault of Moda for not setting its premium rates properly.

In the meantime, the ACA set up a reinsurance plan to protect companies against losses such as MODA experienced. According to the parameters of that plan, MODA should have received $90,000.000. But that money had to be appropriated by Congress. The House of Representatives (controlled by Republicans) only appropriated $11,000,000.

[mostpost]

Ah, we shall see. I received an email from HR indicating that ALL employees must undergo a health screening at the various offices throughout the country or at a local health facility if we work remotely. At a minimum, there's no doubt in my mind that height, weight, blood pressure and a survey will be part of this. I definitely recall the screening must be completed by June 30th.

Unfortunately, I deleted this email and it's been deleted from my trash already. I will be happy to post what the requirements are (as I recall it was MANDATORY and the ACA was referenced), and if I'm wrong I'll man up and post it anyway.

As a side note, the company is offering a discount on FIT devices, and now we get a weekly email with healthy recipes and other health tips - I don't have a problem with that, though I've heard a couple of people complain about more spam (which, of course, is not so health).
A health screening mandated by a private company is not a health screening mandated by the Affordable Care Act. Obviously I do not have your email-hell, you don't even have it-but my guess is that the reference to ACA was that ACA requires private insurers to pay for such services completely.

[davew]

politicians and cops breaking the law


they should make mandatory sentences guidelines be doubled for politicians and cops (and take away their retirement benefits)

[NorCalGreg]

A health screening mandated by a private company is not a health screening mandated by the Affordable Care Act. Obviously I do not have your email-hell, you don't even have it-but my guess is that the reference to ACA was that ACA requires private insurers to pay for such services completely.


*YAWN*...........once again, what started out as a light, fun thread has turned into a political borefest. :ThmbDown:

If we can get back to (what I thought) was the original thread....

I listen to the radio alot, and do you all remember when a station played a tune...they told the listener who it was by, and the name of the song?
Dammit they don't do that anymore!
There oughtta be a law, play a song--tell us who sang it. It's just common sense---that's what separates us from the animals.

please continue.........

[Mandrake]

*YAWN*...........once again, what started out as a light, fun thread has turned into a political borefest. :ThmbDown:

If we can get back to (what I thought) was the original thread....

I listen to the radio alot, and do you all remember when a station played a tune...they told the listener who it was by, and the name of the song?
Dammit they don't do that anymore!
There oughtta be a law, play a song--tell us who sang it. It's just common sense---that's what separates us from the animals.

please continue.........

Cars these days tell you what is playing on the display, they have apps where you hold your phone up to the song and it tells you what it is. Welcome to 2016.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Cooking, and routinely burning, Garlic Bread in multi-apartment buildings. Going through it again right now, air through the hall and under the doors.

[Mandrake]

Healthy people who take elevators up 1 floor instead of walking a flight of stairs.

[pandy]

politicians and cops breaking the law


they should make mandatory sentences guidelines be doubled for politicians and cops (and take away their retirement benefits)

Totally agree. Sentencing for law enforcement and politicians should be severe.

[MutuelClerk]

Lead in water.

[therussmeister]

Healthy people who take elevators up 1 floor instead of walking a flight of stairs.
Or healthy people who stand on the escalator. Problem is, you can't always tell who's healthy just by looking at them.

[Marshall Bennett]

Or healthy people who stand on the escalator. Problem is, you can't always tell who's healthy just by looking at them.
Bump em, give em a nudge. :)

[Fager Fan]

Reporter: How can you watch the killing in Bosnia and not want to use America's might to try to end that kind of suffering?

GEORGE HW BUSH: I vowed something, because I learned something from Vietnam: I am not going to commit US forces until I know what the mission is, until the military tell me that it can be completed, until I know how they can come out. We are helping. American airplanes are helping today on humanitarian relief for Sarajevo. But when you go to put somebody else's son or daughter into war, I think you've got to be a little bit careful, and you have to be sure that there's a military plan that can do this. You have ancient ethnic rivalries that have cropped up as Yugoslavia dissolves. It isn't going to be solved by sending in the 82d Airborne, and I'm not going to do that."

Sounds like the first President Bush thought in the terms suggested by the poster. I know it isn't an exact parallel, so no need for your famous parsing of sentences. I'd say your ridiculous meter is off lately. As always, please have the last word on this matter.

He was right that it was ridiculous. If the person said that the President must consider war as if his own son or daughter was fighting, then it wouldn't have been ridiculous. But as it was written, it was. So now we're going to limit our Presidents to those who have military age sons (usually) who are in active duty military? And when that President has to engage in war, he has to make sure this particular military member - his son - is on the front lines?

[Fager Fan]

Or healthy people who stand on the escalator.

I assume you're joking.

If you always walk up the escalator, then I'm guessing your blood-pressure is through the roof. Chill a little.

[TJDave]

Disguising pets as guide dogs to sneak them into restaurants.

[Tom]

Tax on beer.

[fast4522]

Presidents who lie on television, getting caught should strip them of everything upon leaving office.

[MutuelClerk]

Spending ten minutes trying to find a two dollar golf ball.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

A health screening mandated by a private company is not a health screening mandated by the Affordable Care Act. Obviously I do not have your email-hell, you don't even have it-but my guess is that the reference to ACA was that ACA requires private insurers to pay for such services completely.

I found out more about this, and got the FAQ doc on it. If the screening is not completed by June 30th, my premium goes up $50/month. In other words, it's $600 per year to "prove" you've had the screening if I chose not to participate - basically, mandatory. It's not directly from the ACA, but from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas. These biometric health screenings are described as a "benefit", and now a mandatory benefit. Since I've had health insurance from BCBS most of the last 30 years since I left the military and have never been required to complete an annual checkup, you can't convince me that this isn't an indirect effect of the ACA.

Here's what's included:

"What does the health screening include?
The biometric screening will include a finger prick blood test for CHOL, HDL, LDL, TRIG, GLU, A1C, AST, and ALT. It will also include height, weight, abdominal circumference and blood pressure."

And furthermore, you can't convince me that these data won't be used by death panels in the near future. I can just see the rejection letters now:

"We regret to inform you that our review of your condition and medical history that further treatment is declined. Your condition has been determined to be terminal, and not within the State's guidelines for responsbile health care spending. Your benefits for end-of-life preparations will be approved within the $250 limit. Thank you for your cooperation."

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Ah, but it is-five times.
The Fourteenth Amendment; Section 2: when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
In other words if a state does not allow some of its male citizens to vote, it will be punished by having its representation in Congress reduced.

15th Amendment; Section 1:Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

19th amendment: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

24th Amendment: Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Well, look at that. This pretty much makes your idea unconstitutional.

26th Amendment: Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Finally, there is this
9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Put another way, this means that rights do exist outside of the Constitution and those rights are as legitimates as any specifically delineated in the United States Constitution.

I guess I wasn't too clear on this - the original constitution did not protect the "right" to vote, and the five amendments quoted had to come into being to redefine the limitations. It's not in the same category as the rights of free speech (and thought).

There's no reason we can't have have a 28th amendment that repeals 24th and replaces it with one that provides for being a positive net taxpayer before being allowed to vote.

[zico20]

I found out more about this, and got the FAQ doc on it. If the screening is not completed by June 30th, my premium goes up $50/month. In other words, it's $600 per year to "prove" you've had the screening if I chose not to participate - basically, mandatory. It's not directly from the ACA, but from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas. These biometric health screenings are described as a "benefit", and now a mandatory benefit. Since I've had health insurance from BCBS most of the last 30 years since I left the military and have never been required to complete an annual checkup, you can't convince me that this isn't an indirect effect of the ACA.

Here's what's included:

"What does the health screening include?
The biometric screening will include a finger prick blood test for CHOL, HDL, LDL, TRIG, GLU, A1C, AST, and ALT. It will also include height, weight, abdominal circumference and blood pressure."

And furthermore, you can't convince me that these data won't be used by death panels in the near future. I can just see the rejection letters now:

"We regret to inform you that our review of your condition and medical history that further treatment is declined. Your condition has been determined to be terminal, and not within the State's guidelines for responsbile health care spending. Your benefits for end-of-life preparations will be approved within the $250 limit. Thank you for your cooperation."

Of course there will be death panels. Democrats want to control you from the second you get out of the womb. It only stands to reason that they will determine how it is all going to end for someone.

[azeri98]

More than a 15% take out on any bet.

[AndyC]

Spending ten minutes trying to find a two dollar golf ball.

What about a $4+ ProV1?

[MutuelClerk]

What about a $4+ ProV1?

If you want to pay the green fees of everyone behind you. Search away.

[Tape Reader]

What about a $4+ ProV1?

If you’re losing Pro V1s, you shouldn’t be playing them. So I’m told.

[zico20]

How about this. An organization has barrels of water spread out over the Sonoran desert to provide water for illegals to drink when they illegally come across the border. Someone shot the water barrels.

I thought we had laws in this country concerning aiding and abetting criminals.

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2016/02/12/group-6-water-stations-helping-migrants-across-us-mexico-border-shot-vandalized/?intcmp=hplnws

[OntheRail]

How about this. An organization has barrels of water spread out over the Sonoran desert to provide water for illegals to drink when they illegally come across the border. Someone shot the water barrels.

I thought we had laws in this country concerning aiding and abetting criminals.

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2016/02/12/group-6-water-stations-helping-migrants-across-us-mexico-border-shot-vandalized/?intcmp=hplnws

With Sanctuary Cities... Obama's Justice Department.

[TJDave]

How about this. An organization has barrels of water spread out over the Sonoran desert to provide water for illegals to drink when they illegally come across the border. Someone shot the water barrels.

I thought we had laws in this country concerning aiding and abetting criminals.

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2016/02/12/group-6-water-stations-helping-migrants-across-us-mexico-border-shot-vandalized/?intcmp=hplnws

You support those who would cause people to die of thirst?

FOR SHAME.

[zico20]

You support those who would cause people to die of thirst?

FOR SHAME.

It is their own damn fault. If I was going to cross a desert I would make sure I had enough water to make the journey. When stupid and weak people die off, then all you are left with is smart and strong people. Darwin's survival of the fittest at its best. Natural selection at work. :lol:

[Actor]

I was not intending to dishonor those who voluntarily put themselves in grave danger for the benefit of our country...nor was I recommending the draft. I was just saying that those politicians who get us involved in these unnecessary "wars" would think twice if members of their own families occupied spots on the front line of the battlefield.
Amen!

Not only would the politicians think twice if their own sons were on the front, so would those who voted for them, and they would write letters.

We can win the war we are in now the same way we won Vietnam. Just leave. :ThmbUp:

I favor universal military service. That way you don't have to draft anyone.