Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Pentagon Goes After Colin Kapernick" video.

  1. Volt Fair enough 
    2
  2. The fact that money is lost at the Pentagon is another example why we need smaller, more local government. I find it funny how Kyle is complaining about this but supports Bernie who wants to expand the federal government. As if it has a great track record in saving money.
    2
  3. Because the reason why he is kneeling is asinine. No different than the OWS people who were nothing more than a bunch of disgruntle kids. Their ideas were stupid.
    1
  4. Volt I agree, he has a right to do what he is doing. And I, along with others, have the right to criticize him.   
    1
  5. People have a problem with liberals rioting. You can complain, but when you riot then it becomes a problem.
    1
  6. People support his rights, his reasoning for taking a knee is asinine.
    1
  7. dcaseng The people attacking him has freedom of speech as well.  It goes both ways.   
    1
  8. dcaseng I support his freedom of speech.  He can do this silly protest if he wants.  I won't stop him and I will disagree with anyone who wants to.  
    1
  9. Michelle Ullman Expand the federal government means going outside of the bounds of the constitution. The pentagon is defense which is constitutional.  Even at that you still have waste.  So why do you want the federal government running healthcare now?  To create more waste?   
    1
  10. Michelle Ullman While our military is large, in terms of percent of GDP we are not that big. That is especially true since the rest of the world refuses to do anything.   "how does for example, federal government providing healthcare, hich is obviously federal government expansion, violate the U.S Constitution." No where in the constitution does it say the federal government should run and manage healthcare.  Thus it becomes a state issue like K-12 education is.  The constitution lists what the responsibilities of the federal government are.  Beyond that it goes to the states.  Another example is the fire department which is also ran at the local level. 
    1
  11. Michelle Ullman How am I a corporate shill?  Because I want to follow the constitution?  
    1
  12. Michelle Ullman Ok, what? The constitution is the standard. We have to follow it.   
    1
  13. Michelle Ullman I did answer it.  The constitution lists what the federal government's role is and what their specific job is. Any else beyond that goes to the states via the 10th amendment.   
    1
  14. Michelle Ullman Not really.  You are not understanding the supremacy clause.  Treaties are with foreign nations. 
    1
  15. Michelle Ullman Makes perfect sense. Compare healthcare to education.  We have a department of ed but the state still run K-12 education.  They don't have to use CCSS and as is around 7 do not.  Even more don't use NGSS. The reason why is because of state rights.  Nowhere does the constitution say that the federal government is supposed to run and fund healthcare, period.  That is why the states had the option of the medicaid expansion.  They did not have to follow it.  The Supremacy Clause is similar to the Commerce Clause in that there were some regulatory power the federal government had when dealing with state conflicts.  For example, in Missouri vs Holland the waterfowl migrated across state lines thus, with each state having different hunting laws, it was hard to regulate.  It wasn't like deer that pretty much stayed put.  Thus the federal government got involved.  In Pennsylvania vs Nelson a man was basically close to committing treason which is a national threat, even if it is limited to the state level. If a person wants to overthrow a state government he is a threat to overthrow the federal government.  Therefore that ruling is in line with the idea that the federal government is for protection of the US against a common enemy.  Usually a foreign enemy but that does not always have to be the case. In McCulloch vs Maryland Maryland tried to tax a federal bank where that bank is necessary to establish a federal currency (also constitutional). That ruling is in line with preventing a state from taxing a federal program in a bias way. So in all it isn't as simple as the federal government can just create a law and the states have to follow suit.  There is a lot of connection behind it in the main design of the constitution. So in the end the federal government cannot have universal healthcare, period. If that were the case then why do we not have universal education?  
    1
  16. ***** He still does not get many views.  Jenna Marbles gets move views than him.  If I am the main source of his views than that is sad on his part. 
    1
  17. Michelle Ullman I think you need to study some court cases as well.
    1
  18. Krisotpher, what problem is he trying to solve?
    1