Harry Reid on Rockefeller and Byrd

If she didn't ban me when she found me despicable, I doubt she'll do it now but you can give it a try. Make your case to her, not me. But as she knows what I mean when I say you know how she has banning power, she'll likely just get a chuckle out of all of this.

And for the record, I've not called you names. I've just stated the obvious from your post. You're not a very bright person. I'm sorry that offends you but I call them like I see them. On a positive not though, I do like your enthusiasm. Keep that part of your mostly mundane arguments up sweetie.

Now wait just a minute there, Aaron. When I said you were despicable, we were using the Gazz forum and I didn't have admin powers. But I wouldn't have banned you then either.

I will tell you both I don't approve of name calling and personal attacks, but I'm just here to vent and mouth off like everybody else. I'm not your mother.

I appreciate your position Stephanie and I will strive to do better but I can't promise anything. I take it coming from RI you might have a comprehension of the temperment of Italians.

I'm half WOP myself

Stephanie wrote:I'm half WOP myself

Ah so you do know. I think a great deal of my grandmother who passed on now some years ago. A tiny woman who could instill fear into the biggest men. She had quite a 'hand gesture' vocabulary as well. She was incredibly funny though.

Andrea Cristobal wrote: She had quite a 'hand gesture' vocabulary as well. She was incredibly funny though.

Could she tell you how 2% wasn't 2%?

Andrea Cristobal wrote:
That takes a lot Cato to say, when Aaron has consistantly insulted me. Insisting that I am someone that I am not, because it makes him look 'righter' somehow which is ludicrous. The source I posted is clear. The role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution. "Literalists" as I refer to them, refuse to see that when it comes to subject matter they don't like. But they have no objection to the word "militia" being consistantly interpreted as meaning 'average citizen' when it comes to the right to bear arms, though there are many who dispute that interpretation. The 'literalist' point of view like Aaron's is self-serving. When they don't want something like health care reform, the 'letter of the law' should apply. But when it comes to something they want, then allowances in the interpretation they have no problem with. It is profoundly hypocritical.

I won't deal witht he first part of your post. You can take what I said and do with it as you will.

As I said, it is not the job of the supreme court to interpret the US Constitution. It is their job to determine if laws passed by legislatures and the lowers courts are in line with the US Constitution. The US Constitution is the ultimate authority, which they measure others laws against. If they are doing their job, they are interpreting the Constitution, they are determining if other laws meet constitutional muster.

Like so many today, who want a "Living" document, you make reference to the 2nd amendment to the Bill of Rights. It states the following. I notice how convienently you look at one word to make a point, especially since that point suits your agenda. You made one bad mistake however, you failed to look at all the other words in the amendment. Let's look at the 2nd amendment for a monent.

It states: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated Militia ie. a means of defence,

being necessary to the security of a free State Defending what? The security of a Free State. To protect the people from all enemies foreign and domestic.

So far what we have is a preamble. It states the reason the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

Now we get to the meat of the amendment:

the right of the people I made larger the word you overlooked, "people" the people are the citizens of the United States. Once a word is under in a writing it carries that meaning throughout the document unless it is stated that the meaning has changed. People in the US Constitution means the citizens of the United States of America.

Finally exactly what is the right? It is exactly what the last part of the Amendment says, to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The 2nd amendment does not nor never has limited the right to keep and bear arms to the military and police. Anyone reading the amendment in an honest manner knows that. I know that you will say the supreme court has said different. I know they have, but just because someone sits ont he US Supreme Court does not make them infalible or unbaised. The amendment says what it says, nothing changes that not even a so called constitutional scholar. We have far to many so called scholars now, and not enough people who read the Constitution with any common sence.

Aaron wrote:

Andrea Cristobal wrote: She had quite a 'hand gesture' vocabulary as well. She was incredibly funny though.

Could she tell you how 2% wasn't 2%?

Lets see Aaron if we can get past this in a way you are capable of understanding. From a literal perspective 2% is 2%. 2% of my last years income was $1672. But 2% of let's say Pzeizer's income was $1,000,000,000 (as an example). If both parties take out their overhead and my 2% becomes $700 of 'profit', theirs becomes $500,000.000. (Research included in the percentiles.) Do you think that perhaps they might be able to spare a bit for the good of the American people by charging less in the first place? Or is that so utterly unreasonable?

In the first place, Pfizer is not an individual person. How many people benefitted financially from Pfizer's revenue?

Secondly, you're not taking into account the expenses of all of those deriving income from Pfizer's profits. You're not taking into account any additional jobs Pfizer will create as a result of its profits. Nor are you considering all of the lives the scientists at Pfizer has improved and saved as a result of their products. You're not taking into consideration the benefits of the work they currently have under way.

Perhaps you should take a cut in pay, Andrea, for the benefit of your fellow man. You can do without that $700 at the end of the year not to mention the fact that I seriously doubt you need to fly off for vacations. You could do with a little less in order to benefit your fellow man.

Can you even believe I have the audacity to suggest such a thing? Perhaps the good folks over at Pfizer think you've got quite a bit of gall too.

Stephanie wrote:In the first place, Pfizer is not an individual person. How many people benefitted financially from Pfizer's revenue?

Secondly, you're not taking into account the expenses of all of those deriving income from Pfizer's profits. You're not taking into account any additional jobs Pfizer will create as a result of its profits. Nor are you considering all of the lives the scientists at Pfizer has improved and saved as a result of their products. You're not taking into consideration the benefits of the work they currently have under way.

Perhaps you should take a cut in pay, Andrea, for the benefit of your fellow man. You can do without that $700 at the end of the year not to mention the fact that I seriously doubt you need to fly off for vacations. You could do with a little less in order to benefit your fellow man.

Can you even believe I have the audacity to suggest such a thing? Perhaps the good folks over at Pfizer think you've got quite a bit of gall too.

Actually I did take those things into account except for the 'lives Pfizer has improved' which has no monetary value. I give 10% already to charity and sometimes more. I also 'improve people's lives' on my job. Yet most people would say that is just part of my job. If Pfizer creates a drug that improves people's lives, isn't that just part of what they do? Why give them more credit than any other job where lives are improved? Do you think that they give what they can/

Also in another posting you stated your support for Americans being able to buy drugs from Canada. Why do you support this unless it is because our prices are too expensive?

And how much of that 500K profit can be wiped out by one runaway jury because of the laws of a state like WV DA?

Andrea Cristobal wrote: Also in another posting you stated your support for Americans being able to buy drugs from Canada. Why do you support this unless it is because our prices are too expensive?

The drugs people buy from Canadian suppliers are drugs that are produced by US Pharmaceutical Companies and sold to Canadian suppliers.

DUH, ask your Democrat mentors in Congress why those same drugs that are exported to Canada cost so damn much here in the states?

Aaron wrote:And how much of that 500K profit can be wiped out by one runaway jury because of the laws of a state like WV DA?

Didn't know Pfizer was in danger of going out of business. Lots of jury awards I am sure. They still seem pretty solvent to me. No? Got their market numbers perchance?



PS. Captions gone DA.

Wow. And it only took you two hours to figure it out. You're getting brighter by the moment. Congratulations, you must be SO proud of yourself for achieving such a monumental task in ONLY 2 hours. I'm seeing a nobel prize in Physics comeing your way.

And Pfizer is a pharmaceutical company, not an insurance company. So why the switch?

I see that you still haven't learned to read. When it suits you the supposed bluntness becomes what is called 'skirting the issue'. My you do it well.


PS. It might have taken me two hours. At least I learn. You don't have a clue what the word means.

Try explaining why you would use a pharmaceutical company as an example when health insurance compaines were the subject regardging 2%!!!

I don't see insurance companies going out of business either. Is Blue Cross bankrupt?

Not yet but what the economy started guberment insurance will likely finish.

Now answer the question. Why did would use a pharmaceutical company as an example when health insurance compaines were the subject regardging 2%!!!

I don't owe you an answer to anything. I used the example I used. Period. So buzz. What exactly is guberment?

You can't even hold up your end of the converasation and you wonder why I think you're not very bright.

For the record, Pfizer's profits were ~17% last year and I'm happy with that number.

Actually I haven't seen you holding up any arguments. Just raining down insults. Is that what you call holding up an argument? The level of your intelligence is amazing in its simplicity.

I know that 2% is 2% and I'm not the one flipping around, confusing a pharmaceutical company with an insurance company.

You brought up BCBS, so I'll ask, what happens to that company if the governemnt mandates they spend more on medical loss ratio's and as a result, they lose money? Where to they cut and do you really want to face a life threatening surgery with an insurance company that may or may not be able to pay the bill?

No Aaron you haven't flipped around once. Like in the other thread bringing Iraq into a discussion of Afghanistan. I don't believe for one second that BCBS is in any danger of making payments. Nor will it be.

I brought up Iraq because there is a direct correlation so why not discuss it on that thread instead of trying to cloud the issue here?

Regarding what BCBS may or man not face; 2 years ago there was no danger of AIG not being able to pay out on life insurance policies so for you to say that BCBS will not face the same scenario is at best naive.

What happens if government insurance has the same effect on them (or any other health insurance company) as government accounting rules did Lehman Brothers and Baer Sterns?

Ah yes now we blame the woes of the accounting industry on accounting rules. Oh my. They did nothing wrong in your view I take it.

Why am I not surprised. Anything else you might want to blame on laws and rules you don't like? The weather perhaps?