Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
True, thus putting the airlines in a bind with thousands of cancelled flights. In 1955, Congress made such strikes punishable by fines or a one-year jail term, a law the Supreme Court upheld in 1971.it was his job to keep the airways safe
Or was it his job to keep people below minimum wage?
he did the right thing
it was an illegal strike
Or was it his job to keep people below minimum wage?
he did the right thing
it was an illegal strike
An illegal strike? Strikes by there very nature are illegal. Reagan went beyond his executive power by displacing those people. People who only asked for a better standard of living...
True, thus putting the airlines in a bind with thousands of cancelled flights. In 1955, Congress made such strikes punishable by fines or a one-year jail term, a law the Supreme Court upheld in 1971.Or was it his job to keep people below minimum wage?
he did the right thing
it was an illegal strike
Had they told the truth about the law, it wouldn't have passed. But then again, when you have majorities in both houses, you can pass it anyway, circa 2009.
Had they told the truth about the law, it wouldn't have passed. But then again, when you have majorities in both houses, you can pass it anyway, circa 2009.
you will have to pass it to see whats in it
So what would your solution be to solving where the SCOTUS could be able to represent the interests of 300 million people?True, thus putting the airlines in a bind with thousands of cancelled flights. In 1955, Congress made such strikes punishable by fines or a one-year jail term, a law the Supreme Court upheld in 1971.he did the right thing
it was an illegal strike
9 people cannot represent the interests of 300 million.
Had they told the truth about the law, it wouldn't have passed. But then again, when you have majorities in both houses, you can pass it anyway, circa 2009.
you will have to pass it to see whats in it
True, thus putting the airlines in a bind with thousands of cancelled flights. In 1955, Congress made such strikes punishable by fines or a one-year jail term, a law the Supreme Court upheld in 1971.he did the right thing
it was an illegal strike
The supreme court itself works on the basis of 9 people. 9 people cannot represent the interests of 300 million. Even then "higher law" dictates that people should have the right to assemble and "strike".
Had they told the truth about the law, it wouldn't have passed. But then again, when you have majorities in both houses, you can pass it anyway, circa 2009.
you will have to pass it to see whats in it
No one bothered to read the 200+ pages of legislation. Not really his fault for lying when no one bothered to read the dang thing.
Of course not. The point of the lie was to convince americans they had nothing to lose. "If you don't like our new plans, you can stick with your old plan. How can you lose?
Health plans that don't meet minimum essential coverage don't qualify as coverage in 2014. If you have only these types of coverage, you may have to pay the fee.
https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-...-coverage-in-2014/#13838036785041&74|noscroll
So what would your solution be to solving where the SCOTUS could be able to represent the interests of 300 million people?True, thus putting the airlines in a bind with thousands of cancelled flights. In 1955, Congress made such strikes punishable by fines or a one-year jail term, a law the Supreme Court upheld in 1971.
9 people cannot represent the interests of 300 million.
Had they told the truth about the law, it wouldn't have passed. But then again, when you have majorities in both houses, you can pass it anyway, circa 2009.
you will have to pass it to see whats in it
Yep, now we see what's in it. A load of bullshit.
Ame®icano;8111314 said:True, thus putting the airlines in a bind with thousands of cancelled flights. In 1955, Congress made such strikes punishable by fines or a one-year jail term, a law the Supreme Court upheld in 1971.
The supreme court itself works on the basis of 9 people. 9 people cannot represent the interests of 300 million. Even then "higher law" dictates that people should have the right to assemble and "strike".
Who said they represent 300 million people? Their role is to judge cases involving laws of Congress to be in check with the highest law of all, the Constitution.
So again, what would your solution be to dealing with them when they 'obviously' don't belong?Ame®icano;8111314 said:The supreme court itself works on the basis of 9 people. 9 people cannot represent the interests of 300 million. Even then "higher law" dictates that people should have the right to assemble and "strike".
Who said they represent 300 million people? Their role is to judge cases involving laws of Congress to be in check with the highest law of all, the Constitution.
. If they don't represent the people they obviously don't belong.
So again, what would your solution be to dealing with them when they 'obviously' don't belong?Ame®icano;8111314 said:Who said they represent 300 million people? Their role is to judge cases involving laws of Congress to be in check with the highest law of all, the Constitution.
. If they don't represent the people they obviously don't belong.
Of course not. The point of the lie was to convince americans they had nothing to lose. "If you don't like our new plans, you can stick with your old plan. How can you lose?
That the president lied is obviously a lie.
If you like your current insurance, you may keep it, the president was correct and he wasnt lying.
If the insurance you have fails to meet the coverage requirement mandated by the ACA, you may be subject to the same fee charged to those without insurance at all, but you don't have to 'cancel' the policy:
Health plans that don't meet minimum essential coverage don't qualify as coverage in 2014. If you have only these types of coverage, you may have to pay the fee.
https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-...-coverage-in-2014/#13838036785041&74|noscroll
Of course, its ignorant rightwing idiocy to clam that the government can force a private citizen to cancel a policy he has with a private insurance company; or its willful ignorance and partisan demagoguery on the part of conservatives who know this, but lie about it for some perceived political gain anyway.
So one is at liberty to keep his current policy, paying both the premium and possible penalty if thats his decision.
Why is everyone blaming the president? Last I remember the president executes laws, not creating them.
He was in the thick of it with lies from start to finish, pushing it before it was passed against the groundswell of objection across the nation, and spending taxpayer money on his "you'd like it if you were smart enough to understand it" tour.
His administration is the one who took the lies all the way to the Supreme Court.
His administration is the one who threatened insurance providers who tried to tell the truth about it.
His administration is the one which set up a hotline for people call in to report when someone told the truth about the legislation. Which of course he painted as a lie. But which even the complicit media now admits.
And as to executing laws -- he's the one who has been changing laws from the oval office, not executing them in good faith, but bending or breaking them for his political advantage.
Woah buddy, I see a lot of opinions, and not enough sources. I understand your anger for universal healthcare being dumbed down because of staunch conservative opposition but don't you think this is way out of proportion? Obama is a bad president but not because of this little lie. Remember he still has us in war against "terrorists", and kept the bush tax cuts.
Had they told the truth about the law, it wouldn't have passed. But then again, when you have majorities in both houses, you can pass it anyway, circa 2009.
Ame®icano;8111314 said:The supreme court itself works on the basis of 9 people. 9 people cannot represent the interests of 300 million. Even then "higher law" dictates that people should have the right to assemble and "strike".
Who said they represent 300 million people? Their role is to judge cases involving laws of Congress to be in check with the highest law of all, the Constitution.
We have a democratic republic. If they don't represent the people they obviously don't belong. Also, the constitution is not the highest law of all, Higher law is. The constitution merely serves as framework.
