besides some philosophical differences, this is fairly close to accurate.
i feel that since recent polls have shown that conservatives are the largest ideological group in the US the first part about how the conservatives are out of touch with the general populous is only half true. i cant remember off the top of my head what the actual number was but i think something like 44% consider themselves conservative. thats a fairly large chunk. only something like 25% called themselves "Liberals" the rest were "moderates" and "other" with that big of a base, conservatives can only be "out of touch" with about 56% of the population, and that all depends on what you mean by "out of touch"
in the inverse, the liberals are not 100% out of touch either. they do recognize that there are issues that the everyday man is struggling with. they want to help. that is not out of touch at all. what is out of touch is the methodology that they try to fix problems, namely by asking people to give up more money/rights every time they want to fix something.
my other issue with this article is that he referenced that "Machiavelli said a leader should be feared as well as loved," and then continued on to accept that statement as fact, that YES, leaders SHOULD be loved and feared.
in a well run government, it is quite the contrary. Leaders should not be loved or feared. In the US the government is, theoretically, working for the people. according to the constitution (yes a bit of extrapolation has taken place here) the leaders should fear us. should we love our leader? I can go so far as respect them. however, once "love" is reached there are issues that could occur. With respect, i still feel that people are keeping an eye out for what the leaders are doing. with "love," things have a tendency to be overlooked. People "love" Obama and there is no doubt that things are being overlooked and justified. Seriously, how many people read the Stimulus bill? that was an overlook. then it was justified. who knows what we were missing at the time of the vote? I doubt any of us did.
What about our right to be left alone? The 10th Amendment — a real right — says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution . . . are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people..
This made me think about Judge Sotomayor's ruling that stated the states have the right to ban gun ownership because the constitution only says the FEDERAL government can't infringe on your right to bear arms. This bothers me because when did the states have the right to overturn the constitution of our country?
Anyone else have a problem with this or believe this is sound logic?
As the constitution is written, the states are supposed to have the ability govern themselves with little federal interference. The Constitution states that what is not expressly stated as an enumerated federal ... What's the word I'm looking for here.... constitutional decree(?) is left up to the states decide for themselves. In a lotta ways the federal gov't has, in and of itself, become unconstitutional; and it keeps getting worse. The second amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms, and as far as I can see that is something expressly stated in the constitution and as such cannot be left up to the states; But I could be wrong there.
In a lotta ways the federal gov't has, in and of itself, become unconstitutional; and it keeps getting worse.
... like income tax....
oh damn, thats the 16th amendment.
we should repeal that.
the tenth amendment says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
right now the government is doing just the opposite of this. they are taking all the power. nowhere in the constitution does it say we have a right to medicine, insurance, food, water, or any other good or service. the acquisition of things is left up to the people.
That is nothing but lies and right wing propaganda! Everyone knows conservatives are out of touch with the American public and the left has it right all the time! If you don't believe it just listen to CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC... etc...etc...
That is nothing but lies and right wing propaganda! Everyone knows conservatives are out of touch with the American public and the left has it right all the time! If you don't believe it just listen to CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC... etc...etc...
When I want to hear honest an forthwright no-nonsense and non-partisan commentary, I listen to Air Amerika, and read the Huffingstuff post. They obviously have no agendas, and say/print only facts.
here's the link to the present health bill from Congress... http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/multidb.cgi. Just waiting for the one from the senate. There's a lot of good stuff in this bill as it is, and will answer a lot of crap that has been spewed around. Though I think it is way too complicated, something that a single payer program would fix, it's a good start.
Cabinetmaker and puro, since you like to attack msnbc, and air america for bringing out lies and such most of the shows, ed shultz, rachel maddow, bill press, tom hartman they have a lot of paper and facts to back back up their comments. Unlike stuff from hannity, o-riely, and rush. I know tonight I was flipping through channels and O-reily had a adviser from the clinton era saying point blank that the govt will decide what a dr can and cannot do when someone needs a procedure... Well that is just a lie, flat out. In fact if he was to read the bill (1 from congress) and listen to the president and many of the key makers of the bills he would know that. There's just one. I don't see Fox's intelligent hosts bringing out facts of insurance profits, money that is thrown around washington, and anything that is constructive what-so-ever.
1 SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT
2 COVERAGE.
3 (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV 4
ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of
5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov 6
erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health
7 insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance
8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the
9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef 15
fective date of coverage is on or after the first
16 day of Y1.
17 (B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PER 18
MITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect
19 the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an
20 individual who is covered as of such first day.
21 (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR
22 CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except
23 as required by law, the issuer does not change any
24 of its terms or conditions, including benefits and
25 cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be 26
fore the first day of Y1.
in short this makes new insurance policies and changes to existing ones illegal.
so much for not wiping out the private insurance option.
tell me how that will create jobs? it will only destroy the thousands, if not millions, that are in the health insurance field. thats a good idea. not to mention that if i dont want the government insurance ill be FINED $2500 a year. so much for freedom. so much for "choice." i wonder why they even bother to call it the public "option" there is no option. this is not what the USA is all about.
phobicsquirrel:
Though I think it is way too complicated,
yes
phobicsquirrel:
something that a single payer program would fix,
no. the bill will be this complicated if not more so as it moves along.
phobicsquirrel:
Cabinetmaker and puro, since you like to attack msnbc, and air america for bringing out lies and such most of the shows, ed shultz, rachel maddow, bill press, tom hartman they have a lot of paper and facts to back back up their comments. Unlike stuff from hannity, o-riely, and rush.
if you can back that statement up then i will give you some credit. this statement shows that you do not listen to Hannity, Rush, "O-riely" they reference every single fact they put out. since you have not seen/heard their shows i will tell you how it goes.
one of them will read a newspaper clip, a quote by someone, have a guest on, or read about a poll. they will tell you where they got the info from and where you can find it too. They will then form an OPINION of that poll and give their OPINION on what that means to them, and how they think it may influence the nation. they do not claim the facts as theirs, just the opinion. so saying that they do not use facts is a flat out lie. you may not agree with their opinion (as i dont some of the time as well) but that does not mean that they are making up "facts" as they go along.
phobicsquirrel:
I know tonight I was flipping through channels and O-reily had a adviser from the clinton era saying point blank that the govt will decide what a dr can and cannot do when someone needs a procedure... Well that is just a lie, flat out.
back that statement up with any bit of evidence. tell me what page in the bill states this. show me any other national health care system that this has not happened in. when they try and cut costs how will they not have to make decisions about who gets care and who doesnt? explain yourself.
phobicsquirrel:
In fact if he was to read the bill (1 from congress) and listen to the president and many of the key makers of the bills he would know that.
funny, the president admitted that even he did not read the bill.
phobicsquirrel:
There's just one. I don't see Fox's intelligent hosts bringing out facts of insurance profits, money that is thrown around washington, and anything that is constructive what-so-ever.
insurance profits are not anyone's business but those who make them. also explain how showing how much money a business makes is constructive. what does that prove? that many people like the business and have freely chosen to spend their money on it? where is the sin in that?
here's the link to the present health bill from Congress... http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/multidb.cgi. Just waiting for the one from the senate. There's a lot of good stuff in this bill as it is, and will answer a lot of crap that has been spewed around. Though I think it is way too complicated, something that a single payer program would fix, it's a good start.
Cabinetmaker and puro, since you like to attack msnbc, and air america for bringing out lies and such most of the shows, ed shultz, rachel maddow, bill press, tom hartman they have a lot of paper and facts to back back up their comments. Unlike stuff from hannity, o-riely, and rush. I know tonight I was flipping through channels and O-reily had a adviser from the clinton era saying point blank that the govt will decide what a dr can and cannot do when someone needs a procedure... Well that is just a lie, flat out. In fact if he was to read the bill (1 from congress) and listen to the president and many of the key makers of the bills he would know that. There's just one. I don't see Fox's intelligent hosts bringing out facts of insurance profits, money that is thrown around washington, and anything that is constructive what-so-ever.
First of all I NEVER said any of those agencies lie and for you to put words in my mouth shows a total lack of respect and knowledge. These agencies slant their coverage to fit their own agenda, but I never said they lie. Please don't make accusations unless you know what you are talking about my friend.
"There's just one. I don't see Fox's intelligent hosts bringing out facts of insurance profits, money that is thrown around washington, and anything that is constructive what-so-ever."
Kuzi is dead on with this one. It's none of anyone's business. Why do you keep up this line of thought that any company having profits is an evil thing? You say this about all big corporations constantly and I still don't understand this. Why and how is a company making large profits bad for the country? This question was asked of you a while back and we never got an actual answer. You just had a ton of conspiracy theories but nothing to back it up. How does a corporation making profits hurt the country?
Ok lets take a closer look at this Bill. I have read through a good portion of it, and yes it is LONG and BORING, but it is one of the most important issues of our lives because if this thing passes it will NEVER be able to be overturned. This is the single most costly and dangerous piece of legislation to ever come before congress and it is time to see what this is REALLY all about.
SEC 102 "(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
So much for choices! The ONLY way this protects "Choice of Coverage" is if you don't plan to EVER change your coverage. That means if you switch jobs and find out the Health coverage the new company has is great... Well you are just S.O.L. because the insurance companies can't write any new policies. The saddes thing about this is that President Obama didn't even read this far into the Bill... If you have looked at it at all you would see that this is in the first few pages.
"SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. (a) ESTABLISHMENT.— (1) IN GENERAL.—There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans."
This is where Healthcare Rationing will come from. These people will decides who gets treatment and for what problems. If they see you as a draim on the country and not of some kind of value... you are S.O.L. This will be the most pollitically charged and dangerous group in our country! If you don't believe it just look at it. 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers will beappointed by the President. Also one of their jobs will be to consult with "experts in racial and ethnic disparities." This has nothing to do with actual Healthcare Reform and EVERYTHING to do with the left's political agenda.
‘‘SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE. ‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—‘‘(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over ‘‘(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
Here it is! The death of freedom of Choice! This will tax and fine people for not taking part in the government program. If you do not currently have insurance if and when the Bill goes into effect, then you will not be able to get a new policy through a private insurer, so your only option is to turn to the government, or be fines and pay for everyone else's health coverage.
This bill is the most potentially destructive piece of legislation every brought before our nation. The left in this country always claims to be pro-choice but they aren't, they are simply pro-abortion. They don't want us to have ANY choices when it comes to things like our children's education, the cars we drive, how much we drive, what we eat, if we smoke, what we do with OUR money, or our own healthcare. Let's take a minute to remember that WE ALREADY HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE! If you don't think so, just go into any ER with a problem. By law they CAN NOT refuse you service due to lack of insurance or abillity to pay. You can get treatment and this bill will not save a single life in this country. It will be a drain on our national economy and strip away rights that thousands of men have fought and died for. Remember that Health Coverage is NOT A RIGHT and nobody owes you anything. If this was such a good thing then don't you think congress wouldn't be exempt from it??
I just don't see the bad side of making a profit. It's why businesses exist. It's why my business exists. There are so many on the left seemingly jealous of any business - large or small - making a profit. Insurance companies have responsibilities to employees and stockholders as well as those they insure. That's how a business operates.
This Big Government "option" is bad in so many ways. Here's a few.
1. The government does not have to compete, they mandate. Bad for insurance companies/thier employees/stockholders etc. These people pay taxes on money they earn from this big evil insurance company, but since the Big Government "option" needs to turn no profit, jobs in the real world get lost, and tax revenue goes down.
2. It's not an option, it's required. There is no choice in the matter. Well, there is the choice of taking the rotted carrot or the stick, both pretty well suck.
3. Once all the choices are taken out of the hands of the people actually involved in a given situation, and transferred to washington beurocrats, then people start having to wait inordament amounts of time for live giving and saving procedures. They, in essence, die off. It's well documented everwhere this has been tried.
Private insurance for those who want it (I don't want it myself, or any forced "option" either) will no longer be available because there are those individuals who so hate that companies exist to turn a profit and be responsible to those they are indebted to as opposed to just tossing all profits out the window at passersby.
Answer this: How is a company not making a profit, or a wealthy person having more of thier hard earned money taken from them, how will it make your life any better? I just cannot understand the blatant jealousy on the left of anyone who is in business to make money.
And the kicker here is that the left keeps electing these people who hate peole with money - and they all have lots of money!?!?!? Algore had made MILLIONS off the "global warming" scam, but who on the left hates him for turning a profit off a scam?
The left in this country always claims to be pro-choice but they aren't, they are simply pro-abortion.
I was all with ya till this line. im sure there are some people out there that want to use abortion as birth control and think its fun or a good idea but the majority of people have a stance of "i wouldnt have an abortion and i would never suggest that YOU should have an abortion, but if thats the choice that you make i wont stop you"
but this isnt an abortion debate. I understand your point that its all about control, im just not sure about your method of pointing it out.
PuroFreak:
Let's take a minute to remember that WE ALREADY HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE! If you don't think so, just go into any ER with a problem. By law they CAN NOT refuse you service due to lack of insurance or abillity to pay.
if we want to get technical, its not about "health care" its about "medical coverage" Ive seen the argument that we have a lower life expectancy of all developed nations and its only because we dont have universal healthcare. the thought is that government run medicine causes you to live longer. this is a logical fallacy, a bifurcation fallacy to be exact. it takes two unrelated conditions and puts them together with the assumption that first influences the other exclusively. there could be other factors involved. a few things are left out of this argument are:
1) life expectancy rates comparison from Pre-government-run VS government run medical coverage
2) survival rates of other common diseases/conditions.
3) any other factors that may influence life expectancy.
lets look at them closer.
1) in these countries where they have government run medicine, did the life expectancy suddenly jump by a measurable amount exceeding the world average life expectancy increase when implemented? if it didnt, this entire argument is shot. 2) the average cancer survival rate (all types) for patients in the United States is 60%. Canada’s survival rate is significantly lower at 55%, while Europe’s is a dismal 48%.
The US also has a higher heart attack and stroke survival rate.
3) there are other factors that have little to do with covering the cost of health care that influence how long we live. the stereotype for Americans world wide is that we are fat and lazy. And there are numbers to back that up too.
this sedentary life that we have has something to do with it as well. Every doctor in the US will say to eat right and exercise. few actually do it. is this now the doctors fault? the fault of the system? no. this is the fault of the individual that would rather sit around all day with a bag of chips watching Springer.
those three things show the problems with the life expectancy argument.
PuroFreak:
If this was such a good thing then don't you think congress wouldn't be exempt from it??
we are all equal. some are just more equal than others.
The left in this country always claims to be pro-choice but they aren't, they are simply pro-abortion.
I was all with ya till this line. im sure there are some people out there that want to use abortion as birth control and think its fun or a good idea but the majority of people have a stance of "i wouldnt have an abortion and i would never suggest that YOU should have an abortion, but if thats the choice that you make i wont stop you"
but this isnt an abortion debate. I understand your point that its all about control, im just not sure about your method of pointing it out.
I'm not saying I'm against abortion and I didn't say the left is wrong for being pro choice when it comes to abortion. I am just saying that it is the ONLY choice they want us to be able to make for ourselves. I have stated here before I am not a hard right to life guy. But it's a fact, they are ONLY pro abortion, not Pro Choice.
I have friends who choose not purchase insurance. They wouldn't know what it cost if you asked them, as they've never gotten a price. All they "know" is it's too much. They are content with just making enough to get by, rent an apartment, buy some beer and cigs etc. There is nothing wrong with that, fine, good for them. They are capable of earning more, working "real" jobs, they choose not to.
My question is then - should they be entitled to the same care as those of us who have been paying through the nose year after year? And if so, why?
I have friends who choose not purchase insurance. They wouldn't know what it cost if you asked them, as they've never gotten a price. All they "know" is it's too much. They are content with just making enough to get by, rent an apartment, buy some beer and cigs etc. There is nothing wrong with that, fine, good for them. They are capable of earning more, working "real" jobs, they choose not to.
My question is then - should they be entitled to the same care as those of us who have been paying through the nose year after year? And if so, why?
That is a big problem in this country today. Not that your friends are like this, but there is a large entitlement mentallity in this country where people think they are "owed" everything. We are having the word "deserve" thrown at us from all directions. Watch TV for a few days and see how many commercials use the phrase, "You deserve" to push their products. The reality of it is that we don't "deserve" anything. The fact that so many people think they do causes many of the problems in this country.
Puro --Interested in what your take and those you work withs was on Obama's comment about the police arresting his 'friend' being a act of 'stupidity'. Is it something your department talked about or just individually amonst yourselves or at all . Admitting he did not have all the facts and still making a off the cuff comment like that ...hhmmmm...shows a severe lack of judgement in my opinion. Before anyone jumps on the " a lot of elected officials make mistakes speaking " bus I don't care , this man is the damn President Of The United States. I can guarantee you some of his handlers would have liked to bit_ch slapped him right then and there. I think he could have used any number of phrases that would have been acceptable or just passed on the question until he had the facts.It is in my opinion degrading to the Office Of The Presidency for the Commander In Chief to say that a law enforcement officer or department acted stupidly in any manner of the performance of their duty without any knowledge of the facts or what he's talking about. Or did the fact the guy getting arrested was black provoke this racist comment from the President? Some Commander in Chief !!! I wonder if he would have used the same "stupidly" term if the arresting officer had been black ? I think he's a great pretender...pretends to be for unifying the country...change ...transparency in Govt...when in fact he is an angry , power obsessed dangerous individual who bears watching and monitoring. The 2010 House and Senate elections can't get here fast enough for me ...
Puro --Interested in what your take and those you work withs was on Obama's comment about the police arresting his 'friend' being a act of 'stupidity'. Is it something your department talked about or just individually amonst yourselves or at all . Admitting he did not have all the facts and still making a off the cuff comment like that ...hhmmmm...shows a severe lack of judgement in my opinion. Before anyone jumps on the " a lot of elected officials make mistakes speaking " bus I don't care , this man is the damn President Of The United States. I can guarantee you some of his handlers would have liked to bit_ch slapped him right then and there. I think he could have used any number of phrases that would have been acceptable or just passed on the question until he had the facts.It is in my opinion degrading to the Office Of The Presidency for the Commander In Chief to say that a law enforcement officer or department acted stupidly in any manner of the performance of their duty without any knowledge of the facts or what he's talking about. Or did the fact the guy getting arrested was black provoke this racist comment from the President? Some Commander in Chief !!! I wonder if he would have used the same "stupidly" term if the arresting officer had been black ? I think he's a great pretender...pretends to be for unifying the country...change ...transparency in Govt...when in fact he is an angry , power obsessed dangerous individual who bears watching and monitoring. The 2010 House and Senate elections can't get here fast enough for me ...
Puro --Interested in what your take and those you work withs was on Obama's comment about the police arresting his 'friend' being a act of 'stupidity'. Is it something your department talked about or just individually amonst yourselves or at all . Admitting he did not have all the facts and still making a off the cuff comment like that ...hhmmmm...shows a severe lack of judgement in my opinion. Before anyone jumps on the " a lot of elected officials make mistakes speaking " bus I don't care , this man is the damn President Of The United States. I can guarantee you some of his handlers would have liked to bit_ch slapped him right then and there. I think he could have used any number of phrases that would have been acceptable or just passed on the question until he had the facts.It is in my opinion degrading to the Office Of The Presidency for the Commander In Chief to say that a law enforcement officer or department acted stupidly in any manner of the performance of their duty without any knowledge of the facts or what he's talking about. Or did the fact the guy getting arrested was black provoke this racist comment from the President? Some Commander in Chief !!! I wonder if he would have used the same "stupidly" term if the arresting officer had been black ? I think he's a great pretender...pretends to be for unifying the country...change ...transparency in Govt...when in fact he is an angry , power obsessed dangerous individual who bears watching and monitoring. The 2010 House and Senate elections can't get here fast enough for me ...
I'm really interested too to hear what police think of this. I'd be pissed as hell and hats off to cops for continuing to do their job despite the fact that entire segments of the population are just waiting for a situation like this to cry racism and start calling for people's jobs.
I read that the arresting cop teaches a course on diversity. He has said he will never, ever apologize for it. Good for him...they got a call and investigated, following all their procedures. The Gates guy went ballastic and wasn't cooperating. So he got charged. Of course the mayor of the town had to call to apologize and BO had to throw his two sense in. Couldn't agree more with Geno on this one..
Puro --Interested in what your take and those you work withs was on Obama's comment about the police arresting his 'friend' being a act of 'stupidity'. Is it something your department talked about or just individually amonst yourselves or at all . Admitting he did not have all the facts and still making a off the cuff comment like that ...hhmmmm...shows a severe lack of judgement in my opinion. Before anyone jumps on the " a lot of elected officials make mistakes speaking " bus I don't care , this man is the damn President Of The United States. I can guarantee you some of his handlers would have liked to bit_ch slapped him right then and there. I think he could have used any number of phrases that would have been acceptable or just passed on the question until he had the facts.It is in my opinion degrading to the Office Of The Presidency for the Commander In Chief to say that a law enforcement officer or department acted stupidly in any manner of the performance of their duty without any knowledge of the facts or what he's talking about. Or did the fact the guy getting arrested was black provoke this racist comment from the President? Some Commander in Chief !!! I wonder if he would have used the same "stupidly" term if the arresting officer had been black ? I think he's a great pretender...pretends to be for unifying the country...change ...transparency in Govt...when in fact he is an angry , power obsessed dangerous individual who bears watching and monitoring. The 2010 House and Senate elections can't get here fast enough for me ...
Thank You Gmill, seriously! Well said sir; finally somebody else who doesn't feed into all the bullshit and uses their brain!
Puro --Interested in what your take and those you work withs was on Obama's comment about the police arresting his 'friend' being a act of 'stupidity'. Is it something your department talked about or just individually amonst yourselves or at all . Admitting he did not have all the facts and still making a off the cuff comment like that ...hhmmmm...shows a severe lack of judgement in my opinion. Before anyone jumps on the " a lot of elected officials make mistakes speaking " bus I don't care , this man is the damn President Of The United States. I can guarantee you some of his handlers would have liked to bit_ch slapped him right then and there. I think he could have used any number of phrases that would have been acceptable or just passed on the question until he had the facts.It is in my opinion degrading to the Office Of The Presidency for the Commander In Chief to say that a law enforcement officer or department acted stupidly in any manner of the performance of their duty without any knowledge of the facts or what he's talking about. Or did the fact the guy getting arrested was black provoke this racist comment from the President? Some Commander in Chief !!! I wonder if he would have used the same "stupidly" term if the arresting officer had been black ? I think he's a great pretender...pretends to be for unifying the country...change ...transparency in Govt...when in fact he is an angry , power obsessed dangerous individual who bears watching and monitoring. The 2010 House and Senate elections can't get here fast enough for me ...
Very well put G-man! It isn't something we have formally discussed around here, but it has been metioned in private on a number of occasions. I don't see why the President felt he had to comment on a situation that he knows nothing about, and why he had to criticize a profession that he knows nothing about. He has no idea about the pressure and stress in this line of work. I can't comment on the legallity of what happened in the case because I am not fully aware of the state laws in Mass. but I can tell you in the state of TX you can be arrested for refusing to identify yourself to a police officer. Since I don't know all the facts of this situation I won't comment on the officers job performance... I just wish our Commander in Chief would have exercised the same restraint instead of throwing every law enforcement officer in our nation under the proverbial bus.
"I do not have all the facts in this situation. To comment on it at this point would not be an accurate opinion or analysis of what may or may not have taken place"
that is just off the top of my head after almost no sleep. if he would have said that, the conversation we are having now would not be taking place.
"I do not have all the facts in this situation. To comment on it at this point would not be an accurate opinion or analysis of what may or may not have taken place"
that is just off the top of my head after almost no sleep. if he would have said that, the conversation we are having now would not be taking place.
It's sad that he has taken a more firm stance against a law enforcement officer in our own country than his entire administration has against North Korea or Iran...
Puro --Interested in what your take and those you work withs was on Obama's comment about the police arresting his 'friend' being a act of 'stupidity'. Is it something your department talked about or just individually amonst yourselves or at all . Admitting he did not have all the facts and still making a off the cuff comment like that ...hhmmmm...shows a severe lack of judgement in my opinion. Before anyone jumps on the " a lot of elected officials make mistakes speaking " bus I don't care , this man is the damn President Of The United States. I can guarantee you some of his handlers would have liked to bit_ch slapped him right then and there. I think he could have used any number of phrases that would have been acceptable or just passed on the question until he had the facts.It is in my opinion degrading to the Office Of The Presidency for the Commander In Chief to say that a law enforcement officer or department acted stupidly in any manner of the performance of their duty without any knowledge of the facts or what he's talking about. Or did the fact the guy getting arrested was black provoke this racist comment from the President? Some Commander in Chief !!! I wonder if he would have used the same "stupidly" term if the arresting officer had been black ? I think he's a great pretender...pretends to be for unifying the country...change ...transparency in Govt...when in fact he is an angry , power obsessed dangerous individual who bears watching and monitoring. The 2010 House and Senate elections can't get here fast enough for me ...
Very well put G-man! It isn't something we have formally discussed around here, but it has been metioned in private on a number of occasions. I don't see why the President felt he had to comment on a situation that he knows nothing about, and why he had to criticize a profession that he knows nothing about. He has no idea about the pressure and stress in this line of work. I can't comment on the legallity of what happened in the case because I am not fully aware of the state laws in Mass. but I can tell you in the state of TX you can be arrested for refusing to identify yourself to a police officer. Since I don't know all the facts of this situation I won't comment on the officers job performance... I just wish our Commander in Chief would have exercised the same restraint instead of throwing every law enforcement officer in our nation under the proverbial bus.
This President (Obama) is the first (that I have seen in my lifetime) thats more interested in abusing his own people (americans) than protecting and supporting them. If only we were ALL Muslims or a minority maybe we could have our voices heard then ...I'm just sayin'...never mind class warfare how about the class representation we are receiving from this administration . I am not racist , I have white, black, asian and even an Iranian friend (well you get the point) and I treat them as I would want to be treated . Wish Obama would get on board with the same plan !!! and realize we (Americans) are not the enemy ...
Puro --Interested in what your take and those you work withs was on Obama's comment about the police arresting his 'friend' being a act of 'stupidity'. Is it something your department talked about or just individually amonst yourselves or at all . Admitting he did not have all the facts and still making a off the cuff comment like that ...hhmmmm...shows a severe lack of judgement in my opinion. Before anyone jumps on the " a lot of elected officials make mistakes speaking " bus I don't care , this man is the damn President Of The United States. I can guarantee you some of his handlers would have liked to bit_ch slapped him right then and there. I think he could have used any number of phrases that would have been acceptable or just passed on the question until he had the facts.It is in my opinion degrading to the Office Of The Presidency for the Commander In Chief to say that a law enforcement officer or department acted stupidly in any manner of the performance of their duty without any knowledge of the facts or what he's talking about. Or did the fact the guy getting arrested was black provoke this racist comment from the President? Some Commander in Chief !!! I wonder if he would have used the same "stupidly" term if the arresting officer had been black ? I think he's a great pretender...pretends to be for unifying the country...change ...transparency in Govt...when in fact he is an angry , power obsessed dangerous individual who bears watching and monitoring. The 2010 House and Senate elections can't get here fast enough for me ...
Very well put G-man! It isn't something we have formally discussed around here, but it has been metioned in private on a number of occasions. I don't see why the President felt he had to comment on a situation that he knows nothing about, and why he had to criticize a profession that he knows nothing about. He has no idea about the pressure and stress in this line of work. I can't comment on the legallity of what happened in the case because I am not fully aware of the state laws in Mass. but I can tell you in the state of TX you can be arrested for refusing to identify yourself to a police officer. Since I don't know all the facts of this situation I won't comment on the officers job performance... I just wish our Commander in Chief would have exercised the same restraint instead of throwing every law enforcement officer in our nation under the proverbial bus.
This President (Obama) is the first (that I have seen in my lifetime) thats more interested in abusing his own people (americans) than protecting and supporting them. If only we were ALL Muslims or a minority maybe we could have our voices heard then ...I'm just sayin'...never mind class warfare how about the class representation we are receiving from this administration . I am not racist , I have white, black, asian and even an Iranian friend (well you get the point) and I treat them as I would want to be treated . Wish Obama would get on board with the same plan !!! and realize we (Americans) are not the enemy ...
I agree with you on this and have add that President Obama, and Sharpton, and Jackson ALL need to learn that just because something involves a black man DOESN'T MEAN IT'S A RACE MATTER! Period!
Comments
Poll: Public losing trust in President Obama
as with all polls, take with a grain of salt.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/opinion/21brooks.html?em
i feel that since recent polls have shown that conservatives are the largest ideological group in the US the first part about how the conservatives are out of touch with the general populous is only half true. i cant remember off the top of my head what the actual number was but i think something like 44% consider themselves conservative. thats a fairly large chunk. only something like 25% called themselves "Liberals" the rest were "moderates" and "other"
with that big of a base, conservatives can only be "out of touch" with about 56% of the population, and that all depends on what you mean by "out of touch"
in the inverse, the liberals are not 100% out of touch either. they do recognize that there are issues that the everyday man is struggling with. they want to help. that is not out of touch at all. what is out of touch is the methodology that they try to fix problems, namely by asking people to give up more money/rights every time they want to fix something.
my other issue with this article is that he referenced that "Machiavelli said a leader should be feared as well as loved," and then continued on to accept that statement as fact, that YES, leaders SHOULD be loved and feared.
in a well run government, it is quite the contrary. Leaders should not be loved or feared. In the US the government is, theoretically, working for the people. according to the constitution (yes a bit of extrapolation has taken place here) the leaders should fear us.
should we love our leader?
I can go so far as respect them. however, once "love" is reached there are issues that could occur. With respect, i still feel that people are keeping an eye out for what the leaders are doing. with "love," things have a tendency to be overlooked. People "love" Obama and there is no doubt that things are being overlooked and justified. Seriously, how many people read the Stimulus bill? that was an overlook. then it was justified. who knows what we were missing at the time of the vote? I doubt any of us did.
This made me think about Judge Sotomayor's ruling that stated the states have the right to ban gun ownership because the constitution only says the FEDERAL government can't infringe on your right to bear arms. This bothers me because when did the states have the right to overturn the constitution of our country?
Anyone else have a problem with this or believe this is sound logic?
oh damn, thats the 16th amendment.
we should repeal that.
the tenth amendment says:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
right now the government is doing just the opposite of this. they are taking all the power. nowhere in the constitution does it say we have a right to medicine, insurance, food, water, or any other good or service. the acquisition of things is left up to the people.
THIS
and
THIS
polls. salt. apply.
Cabinetmaker and puro, since you like to attack msnbc, and air america for bringing out lies and such most of the shows, ed shultz, rachel maddow, bill press, tom hartman they have a lot of paper and facts to back back up their comments. Unlike stuff from hannity, o-riely, and rush. I know tonight I was flipping through channels and O-reily had a adviser from the clinton era saying point blank that the govt will decide what a dr can and cannot do when someone needs a procedure... Well that is just a lie, flat out. In fact if he was to read the bill (1 from congress) and listen to the president and many of the key makers of the bills he would know that. There's just one. I don't see Fox's intelligent hosts bringing out facts of insurance profits, money that is thrown around washington, and anything that is constructive what-so-ever.
1 SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT
2 COVERAGE.
3 (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV
4 ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of
5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov
6 erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health
7 insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance
8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the
9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef
15 fective date of coverage is on or after the first
16 day of Y1.
17 (B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PER
18 MITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect
19 the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an
20 individual who is covered as of such first day.
21 (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR
22 CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except
23 as required by law, the issuer does not change any
24 of its terms or conditions, including benefits and
25 cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be
26 fore the first day of Y1.
in short this makes new insurance policies and changes to existing ones illegal. so much for not wiping out the private insurance option.
tell me how that will create jobs? it will only destroy the thousands, if not millions, that are in the health insurance field. thats a good idea. not to mention that if i dont want the government insurance ill be FINED $2500 a year. so much for freedom. so much for "choice." i wonder why they even bother to call it the public "option" there is no option. this is not what the USA is all about. yes no. the bill will be this complicated if not more so as it moves along. if you can back that statement up then i will give you some credit. this statement shows that you do not listen to Hannity, Rush, "O-riely" they reference every single fact they put out. since you have not seen/heard their shows i will tell you how it goes.
one of them will read a newspaper clip, a quote by someone, have a guest on, or read about a poll. they will tell you where they got the info from and where you can find it too. They will then form an OPINION of that poll and give their OPINION on what that means to them, and how they think it may influence the nation. they do not claim the facts as theirs, just the opinion. so saying that they do not use facts is a flat out lie. you may not agree with their opinion (as i dont some of the time as well) but that does not mean that they are making up "facts" as they go along. back that statement up with any bit of evidence. tell me what page in the bill states this. show me any other national health care system that this has not happened in. when they try and cut costs how will they not have to make decisions about who gets care and who doesnt? explain yourself. funny, the president admitted that even he did not read the bill.
insurance profits are not anyone's business but those who make them.
also explain how showing how much money a business makes is constructive. what does that prove? that many people like the business and have freely chosen to spend their money on it? where is the sin in that?
"There's just one. I don't see Fox's intelligent hosts bringing out facts of insurance profits, money that is thrown around washington, and anything that is constructive what-so-ever."
Kuzi is dead on with this one. It's none of anyone's business. Why do you keep up this line of thought that any company having profits is an evil thing? You say this about all big corporations constantly and I still don't understand this. Why and how is a company making large profits bad for the country? This question was asked of you a while back and we never got an actual answer. You just had a ton of conspiracy theories but nothing to back it up. How does a corporation making profits hurt the country?
SEC 102 "(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
So much for choices! The ONLY way this protects "Choice of Coverage" is if you don't plan to EVER change your coverage. That means if you switch jobs and find out the Health coverage the new company has is great... Well you are just S.O.L. because the insurance companies can't write any new policies. The saddes thing about this is that President Obama didn't even read this far into the Bill... If you have looked at it at all you would see that this is in the first few pages.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/21/obama_not_familiar_with_key_provision_in_health_care_bill.html
"SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. (a) ESTABLISHMENT.— (1) IN GENERAL.—There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans."
This is where Healthcare Rationing will come from. These people will decides who gets treatment and for what problems. If they see you as a draim on the country and not of some kind of value... you are S.O.L. This will be the most pollitically charged and dangerous group in our country! If you don't believe it just look at it. 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers will beappointed by the President. Also one of their jobs will be to consult with "experts in racial and ethnic disparities." This has nothing to do with actual Healthcare Reform and EVERYTHING to do with the left's political agenda.
‘‘SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE. ‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—‘‘(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over ‘‘(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
Here it is! The death of freedom of Choice! This will tax and fine people for not taking part in the government program. If you do not currently have insurance if and when the Bill goes into effect, then you will not be able to get a new policy through a private insurer, so your only option is to turn to the government, or be fines and pay for everyone else's health coverage.
This bill is the most potentially destructive piece of legislation every brought before our nation. The left in this country always claims to be pro-choice but they aren't, they are simply pro-abortion. They don't want us to have ANY choices when it comes to things like our children's education, the cars we drive, how much we drive, what we eat, if we smoke, what we do with OUR money, or our own healthcare. Let's take a minute to remember that WE ALREADY HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE! If you don't think so, just go into any ER with a problem. By law they CAN NOT refuse you service due to lack of insurance or abillity to pay. You can get treatment and this bill will not save a single life in this country. It will be a drain on our national economy and strip away rights that thousands of men have fought and died for. Remember that Health Coverage is NOT A RIGHT and nobody owes you anything. If this was such a good thing then don't you think congress wouldn't be exempt from it??
This Big Government "option" is bad in so many ways. Here's a few.
1. The government does not have to compete, they mandate. Bad for insurance companies/thier employees/stockholders etc. These people pay taxes on money they earn from this big evil insurance company, but since the Big Government "option" needs to turn no profit, jobs in the real world get lost, and tax revenue goes down.
2. It's not an option, it's required. There is no choice in the matter. Well, there is the choice of taking the rotted carrot or the stick, both pretty well suck.
3. Once all the choices are taken out of the hands of the people actually involved in a given situation, and transferred to washington beurocrats, then people start having to wait inordament amounts of time for live giving and saving procedures. They, in essence, die off. It's well documented everwhere this has been tried.
Private insurance for those who want it (I don't want it myself, or any forced "option" either) will no longer be available because there are those individuals who so hate that companies exist to turn a profit and be responsible to those they are indebted to as opposed to just tossing all profits out the window at passersby.
Answer this: How is a company not making a profit, or a wealthy person having more of thier hard earned money taken from them, how will it make your life any better? I just cannot understand the blatant jealousy on the left of anyone who is in business to make money.
And the kicker here is that the left keeps electing these people who hate peole with money - and they all have lots of money!?!?!? Algore had made MILLIONS off the "global warming" scam, but who on the left hates him for turning a profit off a scam?
but this isnt an abortion debate. I understand your point that its all about control, im just not sure about your method of pointing it out.
if we want to get technical, its not about "health care" its about "medical coverage"
Ive seen the argument that we have a lower life expectancy of all developed nations and its only because we dont have universal healthcare. the thought is that government run medicine causes you to live longer. this is a logical fallacy, a bifurcation fallacy to be exact. it takes two unrelated conditions and puts them together with the assumption that first influences the other exclusively. there could be other factors involved. a few things are left out of this argument are:
1) life expectancy rates comparison from Pre-government-run VS government run medical coverage
2) survival rates of other common diseases/conditions.
3) any other factors that may influence life expectancy.
lets look at them closer.
1) in these countries where they have government run medicine, did the life expectancy suddenly jump by a measurable amount exceeding the world average life expectancy increase when implemented? if it didnt, this entire argument is shot.
2) the average cancer survival rate (all types) for patients in the United States is 60%. Canada’s survival rate is significantly lower at 55%, while Europe’s is a dismal 48%. The US also has a higher heart attack and stroke survival rate.
3) there are other factors that have little to do with covering the cost of health care that influence how long we live. the stereotype for Americans world wide is that we are fat and lazy. And there are numbers to back that up too.
this sedentary life that we have has something to do with it as well. Every doctor in the US will say to eat right and exercise. few actually do it. is this now the doctors fault? the fault of the system? no. this is the fault of the individual that would rather sit around all day with a bag of chips watching Springer.
those three things show the problems with the life expectancy argument. we are all equal. some are just more equal than others.
-- Animal Farm by George Orwell.
i didnt edit that bit but i did edit again. same message. fixed some wording.
I have friends who choose not purchase insurance. They wouldn't know what it cost if you asked them, as they've never gotten a price. All they "know" is it's too much. They are content with just making enough to get by, rent an apartment, buy some beer and cigs etc. There is nothing wrong with that, fine, good for them. They are capable of earning more, working "real" jobs, they choose not to.
My question is then - should they be entitled to the same care as those of us who have been paying through the nose year after year? And if so, why?
I read that the arresting cop teaches a course on diversity. He has said he will never, ever apologize for it. Good for him...they got a call and investigated, following all their procedures. The Gates guy went ballastic and wasn't cooperating. So he got charged. Of course the mayor of the town had to call to apologize and BO had to throw his two sense in. Couldn't agree more with Geno on this one..
Rob
"I do not have all the facts in this situation. To comment on it at this point would not be an accurate opinion or analysis of what may or may not have taken place"
that is just off the top of my head after almost no sleep.
if he would have said that, the conversation we are having now would not be taking place.
This President (Obama) is the first (that I have seen in my lifetime) thats more interested in abusing his own people (americans) than protecting and supporting them. If only we were ALL Muslims or a minority maybe we could have our voices heard then ...I'm just sayin'...never mind class warfare how about the class representation we are receiving from this administration . I am not racist , I have white, black, asian and even an Iranian friend (well you get the point) and I treat them as I would want to be treated . Wish Obama would get on board with the same plan !!! and realize we (Americans) are not the enemy ...