Customer Discussions > Politics forum

Shouldn't Social Security and Medicare be struck down since it violates the constitution?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 139 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 28, 2012 5:37:52 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Jan 1, 2013 7:44:40 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2012 5:42:30 PM PST
Axiomatic!!! says:
I't doesn't violate the Constitution.

But if it were to be struck down, I want every penny I paid in back.....with interest.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2012 5:43:34 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Jan 1, 2013 7:44:41 PM PST]

Posted on Nov 28, 2012 6:00:29 PM PST
C. Batty says:
What part of the Constitution?

Posted on Nov 28, 2012 6:02:50 PM PST
S. Evans says:
I wish the Constitution could ban stupid posts.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2012 6:05:11 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Jan 1, 2013 7:44:45 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2012 6:06:54 PM PST
Katrina says:
The Constitution doesn't say anything about seatbelts,....but, here I am,...buckling up or get a Ticket.

Why doesn't the Teaparty DO something??? They just stand there and scowl!

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2012 6:10:17 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Jan 1, 2013 7:44:47 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2012 6:11:25 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Jan 1, 2013 7:44:48 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2012 6:11:30 PM PST
Lonya says:
I'd explain it to you, but I don't have any crayons with me.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2012 6:32:54 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2012 6:45:57 PM PST
C. Batty says:
Ah, I see. The non-existant part of the Constitution.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2012 6:50:07 PM PST
Lonya says:
And the witty ripostes just keep on coming.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2012 7:23:20 PM PST
Indiana struck down a Republican candidate for the Senate, in part for suggesting that. ;)

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2012 8:09:22 PM PST
DonJuan says:
"I't doesn't violate the Constitution.

But if it were to be struck down, I want every penny I paid in back.....with interest."

Investing in the government is kind of like gambling at a casino or hiring someone to invest your money for you. Good luck!

Posted on Nov 28, 2012 8:21:35 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 28, 2012 8:22:26 PM PST
Sixteenth Constitutional Amendment: re: taxation
Tea Partiers make loudest noise posing as "patriots" who uphold the Constitution yet don't want to be taxed.

Is a mystery, Mr. Charlie Chan.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2012 8:23:47 PM PST
They're associated with Tax Protester groups, which have frivolous tax evasion claims such as "the sixteenth amendment was never ratified properly". It was. They try it and lose, get their property seized, and go to prison, every time they try that in court.

Posted on Nov 28, 2012 8:26:04 PM PST
There's TONS of stuff that's been enacted that anyone could argue "goes against the constitution". Much of it is quite ambiguous.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2012 8:30:12 PM PST
Yeah, and light bulb bans too. They actually did raise a stink about that one. All it did was get it delayed, unfortunately.

Posted on Nov 28, 2012 8:34:36 PM PST
Those CFLs are still kind of expensive. When I moved out of my old apartment, I had like two dozen of them in the various light fixtures and they were still at least $2.50 apiece, so about $60 worth of bulbs.

I went and replaced them with the cheapest bulbs I could find at the dollar tree. I think I paid $6.

I don't really care if the electric bill goes up for someone else. I just don't want MINE going up. CFL's are also extremely long lived. I used some of them for five years 6-7 hours a day, before they burned out.

They're a good long term investment.

Posted on Nov 28, 2012 8:36:43 PM PST
As to whether CFL light bulbs should be mandatory? That would be a good environmental goal.

People complained about low flow toilets at first, but they got over it eventually. The newer models work fine.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2012 8:38:48 PM PST
I don't mind buying them if they come down in price to match the incandescents. Right now, laid off and can't afford them. Don't like the fact there's mercury in them either, hazardous if they break. The LEDs are even more costly, like 50 bucks a piece, though they last a lot longer so they say.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2012 8:48:51 PM PST
Are those toilets mandatory? I have one in my flat and it works fine. I actually like it better because the water doesn't run as long as the old ones do!

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2012 8:54:46 PM PST
for new construction yes
replacing old ones yes

you can keep them if they work

cfl light bulbs are a scam
adding mercury to dumps everywhere to pollute the water
and they do not last long before getting dim
and when new nowhere near as bright as they claim to be

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2012 8:58:25 PM PST
Thanks. Yeah, and you can't put some shades over them either. I don't think they're an improvement either for many reasons, really. The LEDs, maybe, but they are still way too expensive.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 



Active discussions in related forums  
   
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  28
Total posts:  139
Initial post:  Nov 28, 2012
Latest post:  Jul 17, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions