Husker Red Til Dead

I concur. This notion that too many Republicans have, that the "free market" will police corporations to ensure they do the right thing is absolutely a ludicrous sham. Businesses will ALWAYS put their profits ahead of protecting the environment, their employees safety, and general civic responsibility. It's bizarre. It's almost as if Republicans don't think that poisoning the air or water will affect them in any way. The free market can and does regulates business. For example, a new restaurant opens, the food is terrible, restaurant closes from lack of sales. Thats the free market. The market won't respond as quickly as govt intervention ,because of the govt has regulative coercion ,but its does none the less. The problem with regulation is that it can be used for political/monetary gain http://reason.com/reasontv/2017/02/08/airbnb-vs-the-world-the-battle-for-the-r Yes, some businesses do put profit over people but not all. The EPA is not the innocent do-gooder it gets made out to be. There is a moderation of policy that needs to take place, I think we can agree on that. I'm trying to figure out if I agree with you. I'm very pro business. I believe one of the main jobs of the government is to provide an environment where business can thrive....not through no regulation....but by reasonable regulation that is stable. Industry thrives on the known. If they know the rules, they can work within those rules.....as long as the rules are reasonable. I left the Republican party partly because I found more and more Republicans that have the attitude that all regulations are bad. I would hear people say..."Take away all the regulations and let the free market run". Sorry, even though I'm pro business, that's a load of BS. That is how we ended up with both the great depression and 2008. That's how we ended up with rivers on fire and cities where you couldn't breath. The EPA is, in some instances, out of control. BUT....I get pissed off when Republicans claim the EPA needs to be completely dismantled. Fine....then what are you going to put in place? I hope we agree. But, I'm feeling we don't. For the most part we do. I feel the govt's only job is to have as little reg's as needed and to promote fair trade.

What emails are you talking about? The emails involved with the clinton campaign .

The fact that the emails were uncovered is absolutely, 100% a problem if you're an American. Or are you opposed to the CIA being the CIA? That's a part of this discussion but it's up for debate. If we're against gathering intelligence on groups like, say, ISIS, then we can argue that what was uncovered is a problem. Regardless, the fact they were uncovered is a problem. Im fine with the CIA operating outside the US. Using resources in country on citizens is a no go.

Because killing babies is abhorrentBut killing mothers and babies is cool? Show me the actual epidemic of pregnancies killing the mother, and I might reconsider my views. from zoogs p[ost earlier in this thread https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/02/21/us-life-expectancy-will-soon-be-on-par-with-mexicos-and-croatias/?utm_term=.6daba90c50cb Not so in the United States. “Notable among poor-performing countries is the USA,” the researchers wrote, “whose life expectancy at birth is already lower than most other high-income countries, and is projected to fall further behind, such that its 2030 life expectancy at birth might be similar to the Czech Republic for men, and Croatia and Mexico for women.” The reasons for the United States' lag are well known. It has the highest infant and maternal mortality rates of any of the countries in the study, and the highest obesity rate. It is the only one without universal health insurance coverage and has the “largest share of unmet health-care needs due to financial costs,” the researchers wrote. So you're not going to answer my question? That article had nothing on pregnancies killing the mother, only the life expectancy of men and women.

Nice blanket statement, but wiki and trump aren't actively trying to kill those that disagree with their ideology. who is actively trying to kill who? ISIS is trying to kill...everyone lol....you implied someone other than isis.

I concur. This notion that too many Republicans have, that the "free market" will police corporations to ensure they do the right thing is absolutely a ludicrous sham. Businesses will ALWAYS put their profits ahead of protecting the environment, their employees safety, and general civic responsibility. It's bizarre. It's almost as if Republicans don't think that poisoning the air or water will affect them in any way. The free market can and does regulates business. For example, a new restaurant opens, the food is terrible, restaurant closes from lack of sales. Thats the free market. The market won't respond as quickly as govt intervention ,because of the govt has regulative coercion ,but its does none the less. The problem with regulation is that it can be used for political/monetary gain http://reason.com/reasontv/2017/02/08/airbnb-vs-the-world-the-battle-for-the-r Yes, some businesses do put profit over people but not all. The EPA is not the innocent do-gooder it gets made out to be. There is a moderation of policy that needs to take place, I think we can agree on that.

You're assuming they worked on it for seven years?! They pulled outta the butt after doing shots at the local bar last night. This is hardly a "conservative" bill imo. Republicans have two choices: They can say they've been working on this for seven years and this is the best they could come up with. - OR - They can admit they've been voting to repeal Obamacare for seven years without an alternative plan, so that if they had been successful at any point in that span they'd have forced millions of people to forego healthcare simply because they're unwilling or unable to do their damned job. Those are basically their choices at this point. The majority of the GOP has been running on "repeal obamacare " for the last 2 or 3 election cycles. Now with the perfect opportunity to do it...they don't. Giving more fuel to the fire about my views on how both parties could give a damn about "we the people"

Because killing babies is abhorrent But killing mothers and babies is cool? No, no, no, no. If you defund Planned Parenthood, people will stop having sex and getting abortions. Abstinence will be the norm, teens will stop exploring their sexuality, everyone will wait until they're married, and we'll all have missionary sex under the covers with the lights off for the sole purpose of procreation. I sense...sarcasm

Because killing babies is abhorrentBut killing mothers and babies is cool? Show me the actual epidemic of pregnancies killing the mother, and I might reconsider my views.

You're assuming they worked on it for seven years?! They pulled outta the butt after doing shots at the local bar last night. This is hardly a "conservative" bill imo.

Because killing babies is abhorrent

Nice blanket statement, but wiki and trump aren't actively trying to kill those that disagree with their ideology. Trump's healthcare bill would make it unaffordable for sick people, some of whom would then die. Rich people die all the time though.

Nice blanket statement, but wiki and trump aren't actively trying to kill those that disagree with their ideology. who is actively trying to kill who? ISIS is trying to kill...everyone

Russia hacked the WNBA

So let me get this straight. Its not the fact the emails exist, but the people that uncovered the emails that is the problem....mmmmk

Nice blanket statement, but wiki and trump aren't actively trying to kill those that disagree with their ideology.

Very strange. Hopefully the autopsy will be conclusive and unsullied.

Alas, I have but one +1 to give, it is yours!

Don't waste money on a locker, get a safe. Depending on your location to a fire dept ( response time) get the best fire rating for your money that you can.

The state is what created the rules for even having businesses and markets. Without the govt setting up and enforcing those rules, there would be no business. Part of those rules is equal treatment. You have the choice to follow the rules and have a business or not. No, humans have traded and bartered since the beginning of time. And that didn't always work well. For example, your trading partner steals your goods or renegs on an agreement. So laws were made to allow trading without some of those side effects, and to create and enforce these laws a govt or ruling body was needed. And that's before we switched to currency instead of direct barter and trade. How do you have a currency without rules and enforcement of those rules? What exactly those rules should be is a matter of debate. The idea that the govt can't tell private business what the rules are isn't true. But therein lies the problem with lobbyists and special interests. What? I don't understand your point. You mentioned that govt is needed to enforce rules. Sure, but at the same time, the govt is susceptible to influencing deals that benefit those that are making said rules i.e. Crony Capitalism response to the bold: So are you anti free market?

Well, the quran doesn't speak well of jews. But this is a Christian nation right? So why would we need a law to discriminate when Jesus told us to love our neighbors and worry about the beam in our own eye? I can't recall him ever saying not to provide service or deny buisness to a sinner. *edit* I see Moiraine already made the point. Why didn't you just say Christians then, why beat around the bush

In what context? Just because someone doesn't like gays, or because its against their faith to condone it? Let's be real here, when it comes to America and businesses not serving gays due to religion, we're talking about Christians. And if we're talking about Christians look no further than the gospel to find out how we should treat supposed sinners. Denying them service is not WJWD. Well, imo being real would be accepting the fact that Christians are not the only faith that discriminate towards gay people. As a Christian myself, I feel Jesus wouldn't kick gays out of (for example )his bakery. He'd ask them to repent and and change their ways.

The state is what created the rules for even having businesses and markets. Without the govt setting up and enforcing those rules, there would be no business. Part of those rules is equal treatment. You have the choice to follow the rules and have a business or not. No, humans have traded and bartered since the beginning of time. And that didn't always work well. For example, your trading partner steals your goods or renegs on an agreement. So laws were made to allow trading without some of those side effects, and to create and enforce these laws a govt or ruling body was needed. And that's before we switched to currency instead of direct barter and trade. How do you have a currency without rules and enforcement of those rules? What exactly those rules should be is a matter of debate. The idea that the govt can't tell private business what the rules are isn't true. But therein lies the problem with lobbyists and special interests.

Well, the quran doesn't speak well of jews.

In what context? Just because someone doesn't like gays, or because its against their faith to condone it?