In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Trumps Gettysburg Speech - First 100 days

droptopdroptop Member Posts: 8,925
edited November 2016 in Politics
contract with the American People when he becomes President Of The United States.

Want to know about his plans ? Don't believe he can be coherent ? Listen to his speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJniAA4m7Bo

Comments

  • jerrywh818jerrywh818 Member Posts: 2,573 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I don't think they will ever get a term limit amendment. how would you get the congress and the senate to vote away their own jobs??
  • droptopdroptop Member Posts: 8,925
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by jerrywh818
    I don't think they will ever get a term limit amendment. how would you get the congress and the senate to vote away their own jobs??


    Because, a vote AGAINST term limits, will ASSURE they won't be reelected.

    Maybe no one cares, won't vote, no time to think of the consequence, love being ruled ? You know, all the reasons why things started going down hill about 1972.

    Maybe half the population believes the government will provide for their needs in exchange for their safety and work. These folks are knows as Serfs

    Serfs are those who occupy a plot of land and work for the lord of the manor who owns that land, and in return are entitled to protection, justice and the right to exploit certain fields within the manor to maintain their own subsistence.
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 22,937 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    No to sound like a broken record, but like a lot of Trump's issues (political ones, I am not talking about personal ones) he is suggesting that the Federal Government should do something that we the people can already control.

    90% of incumbents are re-elected. This is the people voting to elect a person of their choice. Term limits will restrict that choice. So you term limit supporters want the Federal Government to tell you that you cannot vote for someone for whom you wish to vote?

    In 1994 the sitting Speaker of the House, a 15 term Representative, was voted out of office. Somehow the people in his legislative district were able to muster the courage to dispense with a career politician; one who via his position could have brought a lot of money to his district.

    How could they do this? Were they super-human?

    No they were not. They made a choice via the ballot box to replace a representative they no longer agreed with.

    All districts can do this, and, frankly, any state can pass a term limits law if they choose to do so.

    How is granting the Federal Government the power to dictate who can and cannot run for office in a State or a Congressional district limiting that Government?

    It is just like trade tariffs. If the people want to support American industry, they will do so. Does the fact that people choose to spend less for many consumer items grant the Federal Government the power to prevent them from doing so?

    Big Government idiocy runs counter to individual liberty and to basic State and Individual Rights.

    If you want term limits, vote against the incumbent. If you want to support American industry, buy American products. Neither situation requires intervention by the Federal Government.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Mr. PerfectMr. Perfect Member Posts: 62,897 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Well said Don. I will never understand why folks continually want to give away their freedoms to the government. Without a fight, even!!
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    And fiery auto crashes
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    While sifting through my ashes
    Some will fall in love with life
    And drink it from a fountain
    That is pouring like an avalanche
    Coming down the mountain
  • droptopdroptop Member Posts: 8,925
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
    Well said Don. I will never understand why folks continually want to give away their freedoms to the government. Without a fight, even!!


    Exactly what Freedoms are being giving up w/o a fight?
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 22,937 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by droptop
    quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
    Well said Don. I will never understand why folks continually want to give away their freedoms to the government. Without a fight, even!!


    Exactly what Freedoms are being giving up w/o a fight?



    The freedom of the people to vote into office the person they want to vote into office. Also, the freedom of our children and grandchildren to vote into office the person they would wish to vote into office.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Mr. PerfectMr. Perfect Member Posts: 62,897 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by droptop
    quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
    Well said Don. I will never understand why folks continually want to give away their freedoms to the government. Without a fight, even!!


    Exactly what Freedoms are being giving up w/o a fight?

    Voting is a freedom. Don't you get that? You want choices taken from you? Get a grip man!
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    And fiery auto crashes
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    While sifting through my ashes
    Some will fall in love with life
    And drink it from a fountain
    That is pouring like an avalanche
    Coming down the mountain
  • droptopdroptop Member Posts: 8,925
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
    quote:Originally posted by droptop
    quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
    Well said Don. I will never understand why folks continually want to give away their freedoms to the government. Without a fight, even!!


    Exactly what Freedoms are being giving up w/o a fight?

    Voting is a freedom. Don't you get that? You want choices taken from you? Get a grip man!


    Voting is NOT taken away.

    There are 435 Representatives and 100 Senators in Congress who should be term limited. The President was term limited 70 years ago.

    The President (FDR) had too much power and the Presidential office was limited to two terms.

    Seems you believe in allowing Obama to run as long as he is winning. Although a win for Cliton is pretty much a win for Obama.

    Quote: The Constitutional amendment limiting the Presidents term was to prevent Presidents from establishing themselves as?de-facto?monarchs, by remaining in office for more than 2 terms. Prior to FDR, it was an unofficial understanding that no President would sit for longer than Washington did -- a sort of "gentleman's agreement".? When FDR broke this expectation, Congress acted to ensure that the expectation became law.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-U-S-pass-a-two-term-limit-on-Presidents-after-FDR

    W/O term limits the President might as well be the King and Congress Royal Princes.

    There is no "giving up our freedoms w/o a fight", only a level playing field.

    An amendment would make it very, very difficult for a few groups to amass almost unlimited power and influence USED FOR THEIR GAIN and not the people's.
  • reload999reload999 Member Posts: 3,164 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I don't think Trump is going to have a first 100 days [:(][:(]

    ...but I sure hope I am wrong!
  • cbyerlycbyerly Member Posts: 689 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    No elected official has the authority to implement any of these proposals. This government is not a rule by dictatorship. He has alienated nearly every member of this party in congress. They will never support a plan to reduce their legislative power.
  • droptopdroptop Member Posts: 8,925
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by droptop
    Originally posted by cbyerly
    No elected official has the authority to implement any of these proposals. This government is not a rule by dictatorship. He has alienated nearly every member of this party in congress. They will never support a plan to reduce their legislative power.


    Great comment about TRUMP being a dictator. There is a job with CNN in your future.

    What Trump said: On the FIRST DAY OF HIS administration he will pursue a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to impose term limits on all members of Congress. This is perfectly legal. It's the way it's done.
    Linked video above, 16:00

    Is there any other part of your comment you would change ?
  • wpageabcwpageabc Member Posts: 8,968
    edited November -1
    Agree a Constitutional amendment like the one limiting presidential terms is what is needed...

    Getting it thru the hill is the quest.
    "What is truth?'
  • Mr. PerfectMr. Perfect Member Posts: 62,897 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by droptop
    quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
    quote:Originally posted by droptop
    quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
    Well said Don. I will never understand why folks continually want to give away their freedoms to the government. Without a fight, even!!


    Exactly what Freedoms are being giving up w/o a fight?

    Voting is a freedom. Don't you get that? You want choices taken from you? Get a grip man!


    Voting is NOT taken away.

    There are 435 Representatives and 100 Senators in Congress who should be term limited. The President was term limited 70 years ago.

    The President (FDR) had too much power and the Presidential office was limited to two terms.

    Seems you believe in allowing Obama to run as long as he is winning. Although a win for Cliton is pretty much a win for Obama.

    Quote: The Constitutional amendment limiting the Presidents term was to prevent Presidents from establishing themselves as?de-facto?monarchs, by remaining in office for more than 2 terms. Prior to FDR, it was an unofficial understanding that no President would sit for longer than Washington did -- a sort of "gentleman's agreement".? When FDR broke this expectation, Congress acted to ensure that the expectation became law.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-U-S-pass-a-two-term-limit-on-Presidents-after-FDR

    W/O term limits the President might as well be the King and Congress Royal Princes.

    There is no "giving up our freedoms w/o a fight", only a level playing field.

    An amendment would make it very, very difficult for a few groups to amass almost unlimited power and influence USED FOR THEIR GAIN and not the people's.

    Senators and representatives do not have the power to become monarchs. I never said or suggested that voting would be taken away, only choices... a freedom we currently enjoy. Dispense with your freedoms as you see fit, but please leave mine alone.
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    And fiery auto crashes
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    While sifting through my ashes
    Some will fall in love with life
    And drink it from a fountain
    That is pouring like an avalanche
    Coming down the mountain
  • droptopdroptop Member Posts: 8,925
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
    quote:Originally posted by droptop
    quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
    quote:Originally posted by droptop
    quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
    Well said Don. I will never understand why folks continually want to give away their freedoms to the government. Without a fight, even!!


    Exactly what Freedoms are being giving up w/o a fight?

    Voting is a freedom. Don't you get that? You want choices taken from you? Get a grip man!


    Voting is NOT taken away.

    There are 435 Representatives and 100 Senators in Congress who should be term limited. The President was term limited 70 years ago.

    The President (FDR) had too much power and the Presidential office was limited to two terms.

    Seems you believe in allowing Obama to run as long as he is winning. Although a win for Cliton is pretty much a win for Obama.

    Quote: The Constitutional amendment limiting the Presidents term was to prevent Presidents from establishing themselves as?de-facto?monarchs, by remaining in office for more than 2 terms. Prior to FDR, it was an unofficial understanding that no President would sit for longer than Washington did -- a sort of "gentleman's agreement".? When FDR broke this expectation, Congress acted to ensure that the expectation became law.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-U-S-pass-a-two-term-limit-on-Presidents-after-FDR

    W/O term limits the President might as well be the King and Congress Royal Princes.

    There is no "giving up our freedoms w/o a fight", only a level playing field.

    An amendment would make it very, very difficult for a few groups to amass almost unlimited power and influence USED FOR THEIR GAIN and not the people's.

    Senators and representatives do not have the power to become monarchs. I never said or suggested that voting would be taken away, only choices... a freedom we currently enjoy. Dispense with your freedoms as you see fit, but please leave mine alone.


    I'd NEVER think about bothering your freedoms,, REGRETFULLY, A Vast majority of the American people think TERM LIMITS on congress are a GOOD THING.

    A Luntz poll show supporters of the concept favor three terms over six terms in the House by a margin of 82 percent to 14 percent. (Indeed, a 1993 poll by Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates found that a solid plurality of Americans actually favor only a two term limit for the House.)

    There is a group(s) that believe Term Limits are BAD,, (hope you're not with these folks).

    The only negative poll I am aware of was conducted by the Gallup organization a year or so ago. It found that a majority of congressional aides, corporate lobbyists, and mid-level federal bureaucrats, as a group, oppose congressional term limits. And that, I would suggest, is a finding that would only intensify public support for the idea.

    BTW: This is NOT a new idea,, Just need to get TRUMP elected and with congress passing and 3/4 of the states voting for,, well,, guess your rights are in danger. If the law passes congress and then the states.

    http://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/congressional-term-limits
  • wifetrainedwifetrained Member Posts: 1,092 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Term limits are a placebo. While it would allow for an influx of new blood, what about the bureaucracies behind them. The vast amount of unelected officials who appear to be the real power behind the front people, who never seem to go anywhere.
  • droptopdroptop Member Posts: 8,925
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by wifetrained
    Term limits are a placebo. While it would allow for an influx of new blood, what about the bureaucracies behind them. The vast amount of unelected officials who appear to be the real power behind the front people, who never seem to go anywhere.


    Nothing is perfect.

    I'd guess a new member will PROBABLY bring in his own staff, maybe keep a few existing staff for a while?

    Hopefully the old staff won't help the new congressman in illegal schemes.
  • droptopdroptop Member Posts: 8,925
    edited November -1
    Another of Trumps First 100 days promises:

    For every NEW Federal Regulation, TWO existing regulations MUST BE ELIMINATED.

    Trump mentioned Regulations are killing our country and jobs.

    Video Time: 16:49

    Article contains a list of 7 major Obama (will be supported by Cliton) regulations. Named THE MALEFICENT 7.

    Quote: Until Congress fixes the entire regulatory system that enables a dictatorial executive branch, we're at the mercy of more disasters in the form of job-killing regulations, especially from a president who doesn't want to be bothered with Congressional opposition. Meanwhile, Obama's Maleficent Seven will continue to ride roughshod over our struggling economy.

    http://www.newsmax.com/ErnestIstook/Obama-Regulations-Killing-Jobs/2011/09/02/id/409593/
  • spasmcreekspasmcreek Member Posts: 38,925
    edited November -1
    what is needed is k thru college changes in education to eliminate indoctrination of potential into drone like passivity that allows everyone to graduate with honors..... cancel recess after lunch ....and voting is a freedom albeit one with no real knowlege necessary
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 22,937 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
    quote:Originally posted by droptop
    Another of Trumps First 100 days promises:

    For every NEW Federal Regulation, TWO existing regulations MUST BE ELIMINATED.

    Trump mentioned Regulations are killing our country and jobs.

    Video Time: 16:49

    Article contains a list of 7 major Obama (will be supported by Cliton) regulations. Named THE MALEFICENT 7.

    Quote: Until Congress fixes the entire regulatory system that enables a dictatorial executive branch, we're at the mercy of more disasters in the form of job-killing regulations, especially from a president who doesn't want to be bothered with Congressional opposition. Meanwhile, Obama's Maleficent Seven will continue to ride roughshod over our struggling economy.

    http://www.newsmax.com/ErnestIstook/Obama-Regulations-Killing-Jobs/2011/09/02/id/409593/









    Well, here you go....the federal rules used to protect nursing home residents.....which rules do you wish to eliminate ?

    https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/downloads/som107ap_pp_guidelines_ltcf.pdf


    Why not all of them?

    One would guess that most are duplicated by State Regulatory agencies.

    An issue in which the Federal Government need not be involved, IMO.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • droptopdroptop Member Posts: 8,925
    edited November -1
    quote:

    Why not all of them? (regulations)

    One would guess that most are duplicated by State Regulatory agencies.

    An issue in which the Federal Government need not be involved, IMO.


    Agreed, the U.S. is a republic and regulations should be kept at the state level. Some will be required the Federal Level and apply equally to all states,, again this is out of hand.

    Trump specifically stated FEDERAL regulations and that's his job. Don't think he can "fix" states directly. Courts or voters fix it locally.

    General Article about regulations in 2015. (in addition to the Maleficent 7 above.)

    According to the NFIB Small Business Optimism Index, small business owners have cited regulations as a top impediment to conducting business for over 65 months in a row. (Source: NFIB Small Business Optimism Index)

    United States fell out of the top ten ranks in the ease of starting a business, according to World Bank data. In fact, the World Bank found that it's easier to start a new business in Portugal, Romania, Panama, Hungary and Belarus than in the U.S. (Source: U.S. World Bank)

    Due to federal regulations, U.S. productivity growth rate is nearly half of its historical rate, dropping from an annual average rate of 2.5 percent since 1948 to 1.1 percent since 2011. (Source: Wall Street Journal, 2014)

    http://www.sensibleregulations.org/resources/facts-and-figures/

    Below is a video explaining how regulations affect jobs. Silly but true. These local regulations are the "states problem". Not yours or Trumps,, you only pay a few dollars more and Trump probably gets a tax deduction[:p][:p]

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQscE3Xed64

    Most people are not aware of the massive amount of rules, regulations, directives, executive orders, etc.

    2015 Quote: In a blog post on the libertarian think tank's website, the group's vice president for policy, Clyde Wayne Crews, said there have been 3,378 final rules and regulations among the pages of the Federal Register this year.

    Some of the major final rules included the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan and its Waters of the Unites States rule, as well as the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality order.

    He said another 2,334 proposed rules were issued in 2015 and are at various stages of consideration. On top of that, President Obama issued 29 executive orders and 31 executive memorandums, among them were agency directives to expand paid family and medical leave and overtime pay.

    http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/264456-2015-was-record-year-for-federal-regulation-group-says


    There's not anything requiring a reply, just wanted of "scratch the surface" of a governmental function "gone wild".

    In some cases the regulations / rules are used to intimidate and harass. IE: No freedom of speech, because when you exercise it,, you'll pay a price. Don't comply, you'll pay a price.
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 22,937 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
    quote:Originally posted by droptop
    Another of Trumps First 100 days promises:

    For every NEW Federal Regulation, TWO existing regulations MUST BE ELIMINATED.

    Trump mentioned Regulations are killing our country and jobs.

    Video Time: 16:49

    Article contains a list of 7 major Obama (will be supported by Cliton) regulations. Named THE MALEFICENT 7.

    Quote: Until Congress fixes the entire regulatory system that enables a dictatorial executive branch, we're at the mercy of more disasters in the form of job-killing regulations, especially from a president who doesn't want to be bothered with Congressional opposition. Meanwhile, Obama's Maleficent Seven will continue to ride roughshod over our struggling economy.

    http://www.newsmax.com/ErnestIstook/Obama-Regulations-Killing-Jobs/2011/09/02/id/409593/









    Well, here you go....the federal rules used to protect nursing home residents.....which rules do you wish to eliminate ?

    https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/downloads/som107ap_pp_guidelines_ltcf.pdf


    Why not all of them?

    One would guess that most are duplicated by State Regulatory agencies.

    An issue in which the Federal Government need not be involved, IMO.





    One would guess all one would want, but one would be wrong.

    One would think, perhaps, that when federal tax revenues are used to provide contracted Medicaid and Medicare services, that federal specifications for the quality of care provided would be part and parcel of that contract for performance by private providers.

    Participation in Medicaid as a provider is voluntary, no one has to obligate themselves to perform at those minimum levels of care.


    It could just as easily stipulate that such funds only go to facilities that are in good standing with state regulators and regulations. The duplication of regulation is really not necessary.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • pwilliepwillie Member Posts: 20,254 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
    Well said Don. I will never understand why folks continually want to give away their freedoms to the government. Without a fight, even!!
    "Well said Don".........[:o)]
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 22,937 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
    quote:Originally posted by droptop
    Another of Trumps First 100 days promises:

    For every NEW Federal Regulation, TWO existing regulations MUST BE ELIMINATED.

    Trump mentioned Regulations are killing our country and jobs.

    Video Time: 16:49

    Article contains a list of 7 major Obama (will be supported by Cliton) regulations. Named THE MALEFICENT 7.

    Quote: Until Congress fixes the entire regulatory system that enables a dictatorial executive branch, we're at the mercy of more disasters in the form of job-killing regulations, especially from a president who doesn't want to be bothered with Congressional opposition. Meanwhile, Obama's Maleficent Seven will continue to ride roughshod over our struggling economy.

    http://www.newsmax.com/ErnestIstook/Obama-Regulations-Killing-Jobs/2011/09/02/id/409593/









    Well, here you go....the federal rules used to protect nursing home residents.....which rules do you wish to eliminate ?

    https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/downloads/som107ap_pp_guidelines_ltcf.pdf


    Why not all of them?

    One would guess that most are duplicated by State Regulatory agencies.

    An issue in which the Federal Government need not be involved, IMO.





    One would guess all one would want, but one would be wrong.

    One would think, perhaps, that when federal tax revenues are used to provide contracted Medicaid and Medicare services, that federal specifications for the quality of care provided would be part and parcel of that contract for performance by private providers.

    Participation in Medicaid as a provider is voluntary, no one has to obligate themselves to perform at those minimum levels of care.


    It could just as easily stipulate that such funds only go to facilities that are in good standing with state regulators and regulations. The duplication of regulation is really not necessary.



    You are wrong in considering the state and federal rules to be equivalent. My guess would be that you have not reviewed the state laws in your locale.

    You now have a link to the Title 19 rules, feel free to find the state rules in your state and compare.


    My wife worked in nursing home administration for many years so my knowledge of state regulation is only second hand. Therefore I did look up our state code 388-97. The table of contents is about 6 pages long, and looks to be comprehensive. In burrowing down I discovered that to be licensed, the laundry facility must wash clothing at 160 degrees for a minimum of 5 minutes. Obviously I cannot compare each regulation line by line with the 691 pages you linked, but from a quick review, it is obvious there is a significant duplication of effort, and I am more convinced that federal regulation is not necessary.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 22,937 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
    I appreciate the effort to review your state rules.

    You will note, however, that many of the rules adopted by the state reference 42CFR as a source of authority or reference, in the second half of the document you have referenced. In most cases the actual language adopted by your state is a duplication of the requirements for Medicaid/Medicare certification.

    I think you will find that the rules adopted by the state are simply incorporations of the federal rules for the most part, except for the basic licensing process and unique state aspects.

    The major reason for that incorporation is that there are private pay facilities in each state, that do not maintain a medicaid/medicare certification. States commonly find it necessary to incorporate the higher federal standard for them, as well, to match the minimum level of services required for medicaid beneficiaries.

    When we look at which is the driving factor for the recognized minimum standards in long term care, you will find that it is CMS, not the states, evidenced by the language so commonly identical in each set of rules.

    CMS is the horse, and the states are commonly the cart, in this area. It is best to not get them in the wrong order for causation.



    FYI...

    http://projects.propublica.org/nursing-homes/


    A legitimate point, barzillia, and I noticed the same thing in many of the supporting ombudsman's guidelines.

    Causation does remain a question, in that state facilities are (by default) required to follow the Federal guidelines in order to accept Medicare/Medicaid patients. One could spend hours researching what was in place in the individual states prior to the implementation of 42CFR to evaluate whether 42CFR was a necessary action by the Federal Government or the simple extension of control where it may or may not have been necessary.

    I will be the first to admit that federal guidelines are necessary in areas where the effects of an action in one state negatively impact conditions in another such as water rights, clean water, clean air regulation, etc.

    Where states have their own regulatory agencies, such as occupational health and safety, traffic laws, building codes, and yes, health care, it is not inconceivable that regulation of these areas can be removed from the Federal Government so as to reduce the cost and influence of Washington D.C. in areas where it is not needed, even in cases where some of the funding comes from monies that are being returned to the states.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 22,937 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
    With all respect, you can claim a point of order that it would take a long time to research what set of requirements came first, but it is pretty darn specious if any familiarity exists with the situation before OBRA 87 came down the pike, or at the time of any major revisions since.

    Perhaps you could provide any example of any significant state agency initiative to establish higher standards than already exist in Title 19 in the major care areas ?

    The research required for significant evidence based and outcome oriented changes really are beyond the scope of most states, and there is essentially no political will to accomplish such.


    But that is another story.




    Exactly, Barzillia.

    FWIW, 'I don't know either' is a perfectly acceptable response.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Mr. PerfectMr. Perfect Member Posts: 62,897 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by droptop
    quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
    quote:Originally posted by droptop
    quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
    quote:Originally posted by droptop
    quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
    Well said Don. I will never understand why folks continually want to give away their freedoms to the government. Without a fight, even!!


    Exactly what Freedoms are being giving up w/o a fight?

    Voting is a freedom. Don't you get that? You want choices taken from you? Get a grip man!


    Voting is NOT taken away.

    There are 435 Representatives and 100 Senators in Congress who should be term limited. The President was term limited 70 years ago.

    The President (FDR) had too much power and the Presidential office was limited to two terms.

    Seems you believe in allowing Obama to run as long as he is winning. Although a win for Cliton is pretty much a win for Obama.

    Quote: The Constitutional amendment limiting the Presidents term was to prevent Presidents from establishing themselves as?de-facto?monarchs, by remaining in office for more than 2 terms. Prior to FDR, it was an unofficial understanding that no President would sit for longer than Washington did -- a sort of "gentleman's agreement".? When FDR broke this expectation, Congress acted to ensure that the expectation became law.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-U-S-pass-a-two-term-limit-on-Presidents-after-FDR

    W/O term limits the President might as well be the King and Congress Royal Princes.

    There is no "giving up our freedoms w/o a fight", only a level playing field.

    An amendment would make it very, very difficult for a few groups to amass almost unlimited power and influence USED FOR THEIR GAIN and not the people's.

    Senators and representatives do not have the power to become monarchs. I never said or suggested that voting would be taken away, only choices... a freedom we currently enjoy. Dispense with your freedoms as you see fit, but please leave mine alone.


    I'd NEVER think about bothering your freedoms,, REGRETFULLY, A Vast majority of the American people think TERM LIMITS on congress are a GOOD THING.

    A Luntz poll show supporters of the concept favor three terms over six terms in the House by a margin of 82 percent to 14 percent. (Indeed, a 1993 poll by Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates found that a solid plurality of Americans actually favor only a two term limit for the House.)

    There is a group(s) that believe Term Limits are BAD,, (hope you're not with these folks).

    The only negative poll I am aware of was conducted by the Gallup organization a year or so ago. It found that a majority of congressional aides, corporate lobbyists, and mid-level federal bureaucrats, as a group, oppose congressional term limits. And that, I would suggest, is a finding that would only intensify public support for the idea.

    BTW: This is NOT a new idea,, Just need to get TRUMP elected and with congress passing and 3/4 of the states voting for,, well,, guess your rights are in danger. If the law passes congress and then the states.

    http://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/congressional-term-limits

    Basically, you don't care about my freedoms if the majority don't? Well, how nice of you.
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    And fiery auto crashes
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    While sifting through my ashes
    Some will fall in love with life
    And drink it from a fountain
    That is pouring like an avalanche
    Coming down the mountain
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 22,937 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
    With all respect, you can claim a point of order that it would take a long time to research what set of requirements came first, but it is pretty darn specious if any familiarity exists with the situation before OBRA 87 came down the pike, or at the time of any major revisions since.

    Perhaps you could provide any example of any significant state agency initiative to establish higher standards than already exist in Title 19 in the major care areas ?

    The research required for significant evidence based and outcome oriented changes really are beyond the scope of most states, and there is essentially no political will to accomplish such.


    But that is another story.




    Exactly, Barzillia.

    FWIW, 'I don't know either' is a perfectly acceptable response.



    If that were accurate, it would be. But you presume.

    However, claiming things you do not know are the case, and are not familiar with, would not.

    Which is why I asked for examples.

    Hearing none, the firing line became "hot".


    I believe I properly noted with each statement their presumptive nature, discrediting your 'claiming things you do not know are the case' statement to be in error.

    When pressed, I looked for an example and the results confirmed my presumption.

    You then commented that even though the duplication of effort was shown, causation must also be discussed. I will put it to you to determine causation, as though it may be interesting from an historical perspective, I live in the present.

    At present, the effort is duplicated and I confirm my belief that the Federal monies would be better spent elsewhere or, better yet, not spent at all.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Mr. PerfectMr. Perfect Member Posts: 62,897 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Just about everything the Federal government does is either highly inefficient, duplication of other programs or efforts, and/or could be done more cheaply by private industry.

    We could eliminate 99% of all federal programs and I'd not lose an ounce of sleep. Most Americans wouldn't even notice.
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    And fiery auto crashes
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    While sifting through my ashes
    Some will fall in love with life
    And drink it from a fountain
    That is pouring like an avalanche
    Coming down the mountain
  • pwilliepwillie Member Posts: 20,254 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Until States Rights are confirmed(reestablished)...none of this matters...Folks in Maine should not have a voice in our self determination in Alabama...You don't like our laws...move to a place that suits your plans...if you want term limits in Washington,so be it..vote on it...[;)]
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 22,937 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by pwillie
    Until States Rights are confirmed(reestablished)...none of this matters...Folks in Maine should not have a voice in our self determination in Alabama...You don't like our laws...move to a place that suits your plans...if you want term limits in Washington,so be it..vote on it...[;)]


    What is your take on Trump's plan to fix the ACA by 'erasing the lines around the states'? The ACA effectively did that already, but is it a portion of the plan that should be strengthened?
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • pwilliepwillie Member Posts: 20,254 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Trump will eliminate the ACA...
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 22,937 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by pwillie
    Trump will eliminate the ACA...
    that would be a good thing, but he says 'replace' every time he says 'repeal'. His approach seems to be making it a national industry rather than the state regulated (other than Medicare/Medicaid) industry it once. He also states he will continue to force companies to accept high dollar clients with pre-existing conditions, something that could be done to national vs local providers via the Commerce Clause. I guess I am missing how this will advance the cause of States Rights in any way.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • pwilliepwillie Member Posts: 20,254 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Don, Trump is the best we have...and the American people want change. Any change!
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 22,937 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by pwillie
    Don, Trump is the best we have...and the American people want change. Any change!


    We got 'change' with Carter and Obama, too.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • pwilliepwillie Member Posts: 20,254 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by pwillie
    Don, Trump is the best we have...and the American people want change. Any change!


    We got 'change' with Carter and Obama, too.
    vote "Gary" and you will see change....
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 22,937 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by pwillie
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by pwillie
    Don, Trump is the best we have...and the American people want change. Any change!


    We got 'change' with Carter and Obama, too.
    vote "Gary" and you will see change....


    With any luck, my vote for Libertarian Ideals will help in the effort to give my Grandchildren a real choice in 16 - 20 years.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • pwilliepwillie Member Posts: 20,254 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by pwillie
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by pwillie
    Don, Trump is the best we have...and the American people want change. Any change!


    We got 'change' with Carter and Obama, too.
    vote "Gary" and you will see change....


    With any luck, my vote for Libertarian Ideals will help in the effort to give my Grandchildren a real choice in 16 - 20 years.


    I hope your grand children are not taking Chinese language(Mandarin) unless its an elective subject!
Sign In or Register to comment.