How did I get there you ask.
I agree with this. I'd like to see the war on drugs gone. But in its place, I'd like to see support systems in place that help those that need it as opposed to jailing them. Guns.. well we know my thoughts on that. Waaay more regulation on the fiduciary industry, from the money market to the mortgage market, and everything in between. I think we need a much more simplified tax system, not flat, but simplified, lose the loopholes. The government needs to revitalize the industrial revolution here, get people back to work. We need a more social economy, and I don't mean Twitter.
Man, you can't leave us like that. Everything OK? check back in when you get a chance and let us know what's up. Hope it's not serious.
We should probably call FEMA for him...
No. You asked this in the other thread.
If I'm reading correctly, with Cover California, if you have a doctor in San Francisco and live in say, San Rafael or Walnut Creek, you lose that doctor because they are not in your county. Another Obamacare massive FAIL .
I believe you are covered just about anywhere in the US for emergency or urgent care.
i know which one is at the top of your list: title II, civil rights.
In 2004, presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) voted against a resolution praising the 1964 law banning whites-only lunch counters and employment discrimination because he claimed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty. Ron Pauls views were recently echoed by his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who claimed that opposing the ban on whites-only lunch counters is the hard part about believing in freedom.In an interview this morning on CNN, the younger Paul was asked to defend his fathers disregard for one of the most important legislative accomplishments in American history. His answer? Allowing private businesses to maintain a culture of virulent racism is the price we must pay in order to have cigar bars:
And you are the one that points out that whites receive the most welfare when it suits your argument yet still claim that calling Him the food stamp president is racist. Your mind works in mysterious ways.
That is such a ridiculous claim. Less laws = Better America. That kind of speculation holds within a smug sense of liberty and freedom that conservatives feel an ownership of. They are alone in wanting "freedom" and define a government that is virtually useless in protecting the people. I want better laws and protection from corporate interests. The idea of the govt patiently chipping away our freedoms exists in the form of big money buying out the electorate. It is a certain type of paradigm that sees laws as oppressive by nature. The people who are generally indifferent to the oppressed and what truth is hiding in the shadows. If the corporation had a place in a better America it would certainly become more regulated.
Be careful what you wish for... the last time the US wanted better laws and protections it got the Patriot act and NDAA, both of which have not increased safety and security, at home or abroad. Corporate America is having a field day profiting of what will no doubt, only get bigger and more costly...
What is completely laughable about your assertions is the fact that the government is completely corporatized and makes laws to protect and enrich themselves. They have lobbiests create the very laws you are championing to *protect the little guy* which only serve to protect the corporations instead.
The patriot act was the biggest violation of American freedom that was not a response to public interest, it was not a better law, it is unconstitutional, and a gift of the right.
It's an important tool for you to continue dealing with an ongoing terrorist threat