Does nobody here understand that the origin of employer-provided health insurance was as a perk to compete for employees at the end of WWII? Employers had to offer it to get the best talent. Not to mention that unions provided real bargaining power on the part of employees that they don't have today. We need both single-payer healthcare (whatever flavor you want) and a revival of unions to re-balance the toxic maldistribution of income and wealth in the country today. It's ridiculous to fight over how payment for healthcare is administered as long as the out-of-pocket costs for the patient are not ruinous, as they potentially are today. This is not rocket science for any industrialized country except The "Greatest Country on Earth".

The alternative is eventual civil unrest. It's happened before. Pick up a history book.

#33 I fully agree that the 2nd should be rewritten. That it's meaning is so heavily debated to this day suggests that it was poorly written.

#35 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

It's not that it's "poorly written", it's that the conditions for which it was written no longer apply. Militias were in lieu of a standing army, and the slave states demanded the ability to form slave patrols to capture runaways and to put down slave rebellions. Also, to protect from hostile "Indians" and wild animals. Today there are no slaves, the "Indians" have made peace treaties with the US, most people are in no danger from wild animals and we have, effectively, (even though it has to be re-authorized every two years) a standing army.

It now creates more danger to the public than the lack of guns does. Oh, and if more guns make us safer, why does the country with the most gun deaths by far (not including war zones) also have the most guns by far? We have 5% of the world's population but 42% of the world's guns. But, apparently, we need more guns.

Europe and Asia rebuilt using modern techniques which lowered cost while American steel companies made excuses for why they could not switch. In the end innovation killed them while they begged for protectionist trade policies.

^^^^^
THIS!

Obama was the best Republican President since Eisenhower! Maybe now we can try an actual Democrat (FDR-style).

"moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

--A Conservative Republican

There were 19 perpetrators. There are 1.8 Billion muslims. You want to blame all of them?

Ok, let's blame all white people for the genocide of the indigeneous population of North America. And slavery, by the way. Blaming individuals for the behavior of an entire population is fun!

Oh thats right, only 17% of the population trust the government will do whats right.
#6 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

If people actually participated in governing, they might trust it more. Maintaining a republic is not a spectator sport.

People with this attitude are the ones who shouldn't have access to guns.

And he'll end up either dead or in prison. Is it worth it?

The problem is that many want to assert the "slippery slope" argument. There was no pushback from "gun owners" when the government banned and confiscated tommy guns in the '30s as a result of the public (and law enforcement) being fed up with the gang wars. The massive increase in private firearms to now more than 390 million guns since that time invalidates the slippery slope argument. The 2nd Amendment doesn't speak to the ability of the government to limit the lethality of legal weapons.

The way it has been proposed, no one would be "knocking on doors" looking for weapons. "Law abiding gun owners" would simply sell the (AR/AK) weapons back to the government. Those who do not would no longer be "law abiding gun owners", but nobody is stupid enough to think that trying to "confiscate" them is a good idea.

The result of (violently) resisting confiscation would be martial law. Duh.

What's weird to me is the inability of some to recognize that all of our Constitutional rights have exceptions. The 1st Amendment right to free speech does not protect someone falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Why? Because it threatens public safety. Why do gun rights champions not recognize that the kinds of weaponry used in mass shootings, designed specifically to inflict the most possible damage on its targets, and the abilty to fire so many rounds so rapidly also threatens public safety. What is the "redeeming social value" (also a 1st Amendment limitation) of that kind of weaponry?

Don't give me the argument that they are needed to protect you from government tyranny. If they can protect you from the government, how would the government confiscate them?

They also think Sikhs are Muslims. Duh.

If you are from Irish or Italian ancestry, good thing Trump wasn't in charge when your forefathers got here.

Re: Reparations, the principle is that black people in this country have historically been damaged by intentional policies of the US government to prevent them from benefiting from government programs. After the civil war white slaveholders were compensated for the loss of their free labor, the black former slaves were stripped of any land and were then imprisoned for "vagrancy" and forced to work for free in prisons. Blacks were prevented from befefiting from the FHA, GI bill, and many other government programs. Understand: this was done consciously and deliberately by the government.

The Japanese were compensated (although inadequately) for the WWII Internment Camps (for three years), while blacks in this country endured 300 years of slavery (blessed by and enforced by government policy -- see 2nd Amendment). Black Codes, Jim Crow Laws, persecution by the FBI under Hoover, all government actions.

Why are blacks not entitled to compensation by the government that harmed them? And as the the argument that "that was a long time ago", consider the disparity of wealth between whites who have been building wealth for generations while blacks were, in many ways, prevented from doing the same by government initiated (or, at least, government tolerated) discrimination.

You just don't understand. "Real Americans" are proud of their ignorance.

I was raised Catholic and the teachings of Christ were always the focus.

Catholics aren't the problem. It's the "White Evangelicals" including, i.e., Southern Baptists and the Mega-Church pastors (i.e., Falwell, Graham, Osteen, etc.). The Pope thinks the Republican policies suck, too with the exception of abortion rights.

Either way, Constitution says "NO". The Founders didn't want a President influenced by other people's money ("foreign or domestic"). That's why there is an Emoluments clause in the first place.

You know, Jesus says you're all going to Hell for not taking Him in when He
"was a stranger", right?

How did [American] Christianity become based on the Old Testament and totally ignore everything Jesus said (the red letters)?

Is it that you do not like the information he is presenting, or do you have some facts to show his information is wrong?
#18 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

Hah! You expect FACTS from Nulli! Good luck with that.

No, they're not. You may be thinking of the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Our country is center right and always will be.

#9 | POSTED BY BOAZ

No, you and the people you associate with are on the right. You are not the center and you are not the majority. Trump represents a minority of the people who voted (by 3 million) and the senate majority also represents a minority of the voters. Just because they've figured out how to win without being a majority doesn't give them a mandate to rule.

Well, they're certainly getting their money's worth, aren't they?