WI Union-busting provisions added in budget committee

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by miraja2

YOU are telling someone to stop bitching about a decision an elected official made and are suggesting that the other side should just "deal with it" because the people voted those officials into office? YOU?

That comment was directed at Riot as I was told that exact phrase when Obamacare passed. Only difference between the two now is the WI bill was upheld by the WI supreme court while I still have hope Obamacare won't be.

If Obamacare does stand up against suits challenging it, then I suppose it can be used as a precedent to maybe all U.S. citizens being required to contribute to a retirement plan using money that would have been used for SS and then phasing SS out. Require all citizens to maintain a food stockpile and thus no need for food stamps. Require everyone to have a job and no need for unemployment. Lastly require all parents to foot the bill for their own childrens' schooling and impose fines against parents whose children fail. I see how this may now work. The savings reaped from SS, welfare and education will surely offset any Obamacare subsidies. Only question is I thought Dems didn't want to intrude on one's private life? I guess healthcare and in the case of males, their foreskin doesn't count as 'private' in the mind of a DEM

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

That comment was directed at Riot as I was told that exact phrase when Obamacare passed. Only difference between the two now is the WI bill was upheld by the WI supreme court while I still have hope Obamacare won't be.

If Obamacare does stand up against suits challenging it, then I suppose it can be used as a precedent to maybe all U.S. citizens being required to contribute to a retirement plan using money that would have been used for SS and then phasing SS out. Require all citizens to maintain a food stockpile and thus no need for food stamps. Require everyone to have a job and no need for unemployment. Lastly require all parents to foot the bill for their own childrens' schooling and impose fines against parents whose children fail. I see how this may now work. The savings reaped from SS, welfare and education will surely offset any Obamacare subsidies. Only question is I thought Dems didn't want to intrude on one's private life? I guess healthcare and in the case of males, their foreskin doesn't count as 'private' in the mind of a DEM

I rarely find these "slippery slope" arguments very convincing.

People say ridiculous things like: "If you allow two women to marry each other, what's next? You have to let a man marry a goat?!?!
Or
"If you legalize pot, what's next? You have to legalize heroine too?!?!?"

They are usually ridiculous arguments. There are already many "government mandates" that have been in place for years in the United States. That sure hasn't led to a law requiring all citizens to "maintain a food stockpile."

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I rarely find these "slippery slope" arguments very convincing.

People say ridiculous things like: "If you allow two women to marry each other, what's next? You have to let a man marry a goat?!?!
Or
"If you legalize pot, what's next? You have to legalize heroine too?!?!?"

They are usually ridiculous arguments. There are already many "government mandates" that have been in place for years in the United States. That sure hasn't led to a law requiring all citizens to "maintain a food stockpile."

Big differnce between allowing/legalizing and requiring IMO If two women were required to marry each other or all citizens were required to smoke pot you may have a comparison.

What law/mandate requires every US citizen to purchase a private product?

If there is one it's the Obamacare lawyers' holy grail.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Big differnce between allowing/legalizing and requiring IMO If two women were required to marry each other or all citizens were required to smoke pot you may have a comparison.

What law/mandate requires every US citizen to purchase a private product?

If there is one it's the Obamacare lawyers' holy grail.

I wasn't comparing pot legalization or gay marriage to PPACA.
I was simply commenting on the validity of the "slippery slope" style argument you used in your post and using gay marriage and pot legalization as examples of why I think those arguments are often ridiculous.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I wasn't comparing pot legalization or gay marriage to PPACA.
I was simply commenting on the validity of the "slippery slope" style argument you used in your post and using gay marriage and pot legalization as examples of why I think those arguments are often ridiculous.

Obamacare aka PPACA can't be compared to anything legalized or mandated and that's why it's going to the Supreme Court and why I posted. If it passes it does set a precedent like it or not, simply because it's a first.

Like I said it could become a possitive. I can see a time in the future of unrest, where the US government may need to require every citizen to buy and own a gun to protect ourselves from Islam possibly China!

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I can see a time in the future of unrest, where the US government may need to require every citizen to buy and own a gun to protect ourselves from Islam possibly China!

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I am seriously leaving this country as soon as I can..what an embarassment the tea baggers, Right have become