Subscribe: Comments for Words by Woods
http://jimwoods.thinkertothinker.com/?feed=comments-rss2
Preview: Comments for Words by Woods

Comments for Words by Woods



Made from 100% real ideas.



Last Build Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 13:37:12 +0000

 






Comment on Initial Thoughts on SCOTUS ObamaCare Ruling by Jim

Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:33:15 +0000

The conservatives decide that atheists should pay a tax and call it an afterlife insurance mandate. Would you support that? If not, by what principle do you distinguish between what is individual choice and where force should be used to compel?

Report This Comment




Comment on Initial Thoughts on SCOTUS ObamaCare Ruling by k.d.

Mon, 13 Aug 2012 01:51:00 +0000

I see nothing wrong with individual mandate. Health insurance is something everybody wants and needs anyway. It's a bit like fining people for not being hooked-up to the city water supply. There's a good reason for I.M. - so people won't wait til they're very sick or disabled to buy government health insurance

Report This Comment




Comment on U.S. Troops in Uganda? Blame Congress, Not Obama by Erosophia

Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:07:41 +0000

[...] Woods presents U.S. Troops in Uganda? Blame Congress, Not Obama posted at Words by Woods, saying, “When Obama sent troops to Uganda in October, many wondered [...]

Report This Comment




Comment on Gingrich Pledges to Violate Constitution as President by Realist Theorist

Tue, 03 Jan 2012 10:50:01 +0000

That "argument" from Newt really shows his autocratic streak, and makes him unfit. Obama was critical of the SCOTUS while they sat in the front row during his state of the union speech, but Newt is going further and issuing a challenge that we last saw from FDR, in his threat to expand the size of the SCOTUS.

Report This Comment




Comment on Obama Kills an American Traitor by Realist Theorist

Sat, 01 Oct 2011 12:33:53 +0000

Great post. I'm going to link to it saying "what he said". For non-emergency situations, some type of judicial review ought to be instituted. Also, for situations like this, where the identity of the target is no secret, for months on end, I think these ought to be an official list, something like the "Wanted: Dead or Alive" posters of the past. I would like to see some type of judicial process, followed by placing the target's name on an official list. I would also like to see a rule that says no action will be taken against the target -- except in an emergency -- for the first two weeks of his name being placed on the list, and that the target should use these two weeks to plan his surrender to the U.S. government, under guarantee that he will be given some type of further judicial review if he does so.

Report This Comment




Comment on “Republican” Presidential Candidates vs. 14th Amendment by Answering the 14th Amendment Question

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 01:13:44 +0000

[...] other day, I wrote about the question that I would ask the Republican candidates for President. Today, I will answer that question as [...]

Report This Comment




Comment on On Foreign Policy, Our Founders vs. Ron Paul by Erosophia

Thu, 22 Sep 2011 19:46:30 +0000

[...] Woods presents On Foreign Policy, Our Founders vs. Ron Paul posted at Words by Woods, saying, “While it has been asserted that Ron Paul’s foreign [...]

Report This Comment




Comment on Did FreedomWorks Lie or Are They Clueless? by JackDoitCrawford

Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:15:14 +0000

Sorry Jim. I can't get through this wordy post. But thanks to you for trying to sort it out. I sure need this kind of posting so I don't have to go to source material all the time and still keep informed.

Report This Comment




Comment on Did FreedomWorks Lie or Are They Clueless? by Realist Theorist

Wed, 21 Sep 2011 11:35:58 +0000

It sounds like the idea is to counter the EPA's listing of "advantages" of environmental rules with a counter-list of costs. If an official listing of costs can be a requirement, then I'd also like to see a law that says that any time the costs are above some number (say $10 billion) the rules cannot be passed by the EPA alone, but require a Congressional vote. While this might sound like too little, in the current state of public opinion such a law might be as ambitious a law as could pass.

Report This Comment