Biden Drops the Hammer on Unvaccinated

[hedrick]

That's not how the supremacy clause works.

OSHA rules will override any state rules. Rules for contractors might not. They might simply make any Texas company ineligible for a Federal contract.

 

[hedrick]

I don't think that there is a lot of use discussing our very, very different standards of what laws are good or effective. That cannot be done without some common ground.

But, since you asked, I'll give three examples that have been greatly important to our quality of life
1) the formation of OSHA
2) the formation of the EPA
3) Medicare Part D (drug coverage for seniors)

There are many hundreds more examples. I would note that each of these was a bi-partisan effort led a Republican president.

That shows how the Republican Party has changed. I don’t think it would currently support any of these.

 

[Hammster]

Do Muslims and Christians use the same standard for God's Word? How about Jews?

Or Hindus? Or Sikhs? Or Indigenous (e.g. Native Americans)?

When you realize there is a plethora of religious beliefs, different religious scriptures, etc., you quickly realize that people claiming there is a singular standard for "God's word" doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Sure it does. There’s one fixed standard (God’s word), and a lot of lies.

 

[Hammster]

And if taking that response to be a "yes", then it's in contradiction with actual legal challenges and redaction of laws that were enacted on the basis of religious motivation/justification.

IOW, the law in your country doesn't seem to work the way you think it works.

Correction: It doesn’t work the way it should.

 

[Hammster]

Activity related to a heart that doesn't exist.

I’m just using your term. If you want to find another one, go ahead.

 

[pitabread]

Sure it does. There’s one fixed standard (God’s word), and a lot of lies.

Assuming that were true, the question then becomes which is which. And there is clearly no agreement on that, nor seemingly any way to actually determine that on an objective basis.

For all I know what you're promoting could be part of that pack of lies.

 

[pitabread]

Correction: It doesn’t work the way it should.

And how should it work?

 

[Hammster]

And how should it work?

According to biblical principles. I feel like I’m repeating myself.

 

[pitabread]

According to biblical principles. I feel like I’m repeating myself.

The current Constitution doesn't support that. Perhaps you'd be in favor of rewriting it?

I've started a poll on that topic: Would you support writing a new U.S. Constitution based on the Bible?

 

[ArmenianJohn]

I’m just using your term. If you want to find another one, go ahead.

The term is correct. I'm jut making clear the fact that it refers to a heart that doesn't exist in response to your statement that said it relates to a heart, giving the implication that the heart exists when in fact it doesn't. Ergo it is not a "heartbeat" but rather "cardiac activity".

Pro-life groups, especially the extremists, like to bend the truth (fib) and the "heartbeat at 6 weeks" is one of those fibs.

 

[Hammster]

The current Constitution doesn't support that. Perhaps you'd be in favor of rewriting it?

I've started a poll on that topic: Would you support writing a new U.S. Constitution based on the Bible?

The current constitution is based on that.

 

[Hammster]

The term is correct. I'm jut making clear the fact that it refers to a heart that doesn't exist in response to your statement that said it relates to a heart, giving the implication that the heart exists when in fact it doesn't. Ergo it is not a "heartbeat" but rather "cardiac activity".

Pro-life groups, especially the extremists, like to bend the truth (fib) and the "heartbeat at 6 weeks" is one of those fibs.

To me it’s not relevant. I’m not in favor of the six week guideline.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

To me it’s not relevant. I’m not in favor of the six week guideline.

That's fine. But something made you see fit to respond to my post with an inaccurate (at least) assertion.

 

[Hammster]

That's fine. But something made you see fit to respond to my post with an inaccurate (at least) assertion.

Gold star for you, then.

 

[pitabread]

The current constitution is based on that.

How do you figure?

 

[Hammster]

How do you figure?

I don’t figure. It’s just the way it is.

 

[pitabread]

I don’t figure. It’s just the way it is.

So you don't have anything to support that.

 

[Hammster]

So you don't have anything to support that.

The Bible-Inspired Influences on the U. S. Constitution and Bill of Rights - The Founding

 

[JSRG]

Lets cut that number in half. Do you really believe we need 15,000 laws??

Given that you have not provided any reference point for comparison for what the right number of laws have, nor have you demonstrated that we have 15,000 things that would be thought of as "laws" (as noted, most acts of congresses are not new laws, but rather adjustments to existing laws, minor things that don't even qualify as laws, or laws that in no way affect any idea of liberty), your question doesn't mean much of anything.

Number of laws (or rather, acts of congress) seems a pretty bad way of measuring government interference. What matters is what the laws do. 100,000 acts of congress giving names to government facilities is a whole lot less tyrannical than 1 act establishing a military dictatorship.

The issue here is beyond what the constitution says, there arent many more laws really needed. The constitution is to stop big govt, yet any new law passed today is designed to stop us.

The Constitution was actually made to expand the role of the federal government, which was too weak under the Articles of Confederation.

Granted, it also put restrictions on the federal government. But ultimately the goal of the Constitution was to make the federal government more powerful so that it could actually function right, while also leaving state sovereignty as intact as possible. That's why the Constitution puts very few restrictions on state law, and the Bill of Rights didn't initially apply to any state law; states were quite free to set up a state church, enact cruel and unusual punishment, and all of the rest of them. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to reassure state governments that the federal government wouldn't be interfering with their own business. Which meant that, ironically, the 14th Amendment (which applied the Bill of Rights to state law) basically turned it inside out, suddenly taking stuff that was meant to prevent interference in state law and suddenly forcing it all on state law.

 

[Aldebaran]

According to that article the company that did the buying hd revenues of $8 billion, while the company they bought had revenues of only $43 million. That’s not going to move the market share needle much.

Irrelevant. The issue is that China has that more control over the chip market. That's what we were discussing.