BBC Blog Network

User Profile

rodidog

Listed below are comments made by rodidog between Thursday, 17th December 2009 and Wednesday, 23rd December 2009 (8 Hours Ago) .

«Newer
Older»

Christmas isn't cancelled 8:07pm on 23 Dec 2009 25. At 12:55pm on 23 Dec 2009, PartTimeDon wrote:
11# Rodidog
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/22/health-care-face-string-legal-challenges/
This is great news! If fox have started moaning about the need to have the bill struck down on technicalities rather than droning on about how bad it is, or how much of a lame duck Obama will be when it fails, then the fight is pretty much over.
-----------------------------------
Funny, I didn't read anywhere in the article where it said Fox was trying to do anything. The fact that other news outlets you frequent may not mention it or give credence to the story becuase Fox covered it, does not change the potential relevance of the article. Should a court strike down health care legislation on the grounds it's unconstitutional that would indeed mean the fights over, or at least victory delayed as the case goes through the legal system. But hey, Fox covered it so it must be irrelevant.
-------------------------------------------

It's not a great bill. It has lots of flaws and failings, but it's a start and it shows that Obama can get things done. It is historic in one critical sense. It shows that change can be made to the US healthcare system.
---------------------------------
Great, we are going to spend nearly a trillion dollars in ten years on a flawed bill with many failings, which will not kick in until 2014 but you'll be required to start paying for it in 2010, so Obama can have his victory. Nice. Oh, and who is the other big winner with this deal? Why, it's those evil insurance companies, you know, the ones who will now have 30 million new clients. And lets not forget the folks who could not afford insurance to start with. They will now be forced to pay for it or be fined by the IRS. Historic indeed.
Christmas isn't cancelled 03:32am on 23 Dec 2009 #4 SaintDominick wrote:
Ref 3, Rod

"...while others might take legal action against the bill should it become law because, in their opinion, it's unconstitutional."

Considering that the public option is off the table, and that language has been introduced to ensure public funds are not spent on abortion, you have to wonder what it is the opponents of this bill consider unconstitutional.

Should we assume that providing healthcare coverage to half the people that are currently uninsured, that the bill limits co-pays and out of pocket expenses, that it affords portability, and that regulation is being introduced to limit out of control insurance premium increases somehow violates the Constitution or its Ammendments?
-----------------------------------------------

The two main issues regard the mandate that individuals are required to purchase a product (insurance) from a private company and that Nebraska was given special treatment in comparison to the other states.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/22/health-care-face-string-legal-challenges/
Christmas isn't cancelled 11:44pm on 22 Dec 2009 Sen. Reid sees 60 votes for the first time. Naturally, he wants the vote now before the Senators go home, just in case someone changes their mind in the new year. Interestingly, it seems some Senators are now envious of the deal Sen. Nelson received for Nebraska and may demand something in turn as well; while others might take legal action against the bill should it become law because, in their opinion, it's unconstitutional.
Too much talk and pork in the US Senate? 07:36am on 22 Dec 2009 Mark,

Thanks for asking for my opinion. For what it's worth, I see nothing wrong with the Majority using the rules to finagle a deal or to pass legislation. There is also nothing wrong with the Minority in using the same rules to disrupt any legislation. As they say, them's the rules.

How your opponent will frame your actions and how voters will judge you is a different question entirely.
Obama's hard sell on climate change 05:34am on 19 Dec 2009 86. At 11:19pm on 18 Dec 2009, John_From_Dublin wrote:
# 81 rodidog wrote:

Which scientists? Where? In which respected journal have they published their research findings?

Granted, something like that did happen in the recent film '2012', in fulfillment of Mayan prophecy, and starring John Cusack - but I'm fairly sure that wasn't a documentary.....
--------------------------

See post #103.
Obama's hard sell on climate change 05:31am on 19 Dec 2009 100. At 03:19am on 19 Dec 2009, Via-Media wrote:
81 Rodidog

Please, please tell me that this was meant tongue in cheek...

Yes it was. Pole reversal, however, will happen as it has many times in the past. We seem to be entering into another pole reversal. Should this occur during the maximum output of radiation by the Sun, planet Earth might not have a strong enough magnetic field to deflect the cosmic ray's hitting our planet.

Should the Earth decide to demagnetize or shift the magnetic field to coincide with the solar maximum, well, greenhouse gases could be our best friend. The next solar maximum is due in 2012.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/38822

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/about.html
Obama's hard sell on climate change 10:31pm on 18 Dec 2009 75 RomeStu,

The problem now is :-
A) can we do anything about it?

B) should we do anything about? (speaking economically not morally/ ethically)

To A) the answer is that we don't know if we can solve the problem, but we certainly won't fin out if we don't try.

How nice of you to destabilize entire economies based on such sound reasoning.

To B) the issue is whether we mortgage our children's future by starting things now, even if it costs us money, or whether we let them sort it out in the future, if they can.

Well, since some scientists are suggesting the magnetic field of the Earth might flip in 2012, which would result in real global warming, I vote for waiting. In fact, if they're right we should start burning everything we can now before it's too late!
Obama's hard sell on climate change 06:46am on 18 Dec 2009 1 David Cunard wrote:

"I think it's unfair for the 100 countries to leave Copenhagen when the big party is over believing that we are going to do something we aren't going to do, so I think it's a mission of honesty."

Doesn't this rebut that statement?

Not necessarily, since it depends on how many Senators are willing to approve any commitment the President signs. I'm guessing not enough. If the Senate votes against the President, that means no deal and no $100b for Hillary.
An ill wind: The greening of Kansas 01:50am on 18 Dec 2009 I'm all for sustainable design, but folks should be realistic on the costs of such projects. While the operational cost savings realized over the life time of the building might offset the initial cost of construction, in many cases the cost of construction is what makes such projects prohibitive. For example, if we look at the school costing $50m dollars and sized at 125,000SF (see link below), that means the school was built at $400/SF. The national average is around $200/SF. Simply put, it's all about financing. Which begs the question, where did their financing come from?

IMO, the significance of the Greensburg approach is their requirement that all new building construction must be LEED certified. For those interested, the link below has more information on Greensburg.

http://www.builderonline.com/storm-and-wind-resistance/greensburg-update-sustainable-homes-businesses-rise-from-rubble.aspx
Changing Guantanamo's zip code? 10:35pm on 17 Dec 2009 #140 GH1618,
rodidog (#130) "I'm not sure if theses cases actually changed other procedures or rules governing the military tribunals as you suggested."

In fact, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld forced the Congress to pass the Military Commissions Act of 2006, under which Hamdan was tried. This replaced an ad-hoc system under which the Bush administration claimed to be able to proceed in any manner they pleased. There are some objections to the 2006 act as well (Obama voted against it), so there is now a 2009 act to replace it.

Here's a link to a discussion of the 2006 act, by The American Society of International Law:

http://www.asil.org/insights061114.cfm
--------------------------------------

In all fairness, to myself, I was referring to the military tribunals as authorized by MCA 2006. Below are two links which discuss the differences and similarities between the 2006 and 2009 military commission act. While the two have differences they are also very similar.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20091104.html

[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

rodidog