Maybe Obama is right.....

[viiiball]

I thought this article went well with this thread:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/12/ ... r-country/

I especially like:
President Obama, for whom I voted because I believed he was the best choice available, is a profound disappointment. I now regard his campaign as a sly bait-and-switch operation, promising one thing and delivering another. Shame on me.

[rugdoc]

I hear ya, but one thing we do not advocate here is the forceful overthrow of the government...not a good thing to do. And, I do agree that our Founders put in the 2A for this reason but IMO its the nuclear option. That is its a deterrent. We dont want to use it but as long as we have it - it serves the intended purpose.

I also agree, this deterrent is critical to the survival of our blessed republic. I can not see any current situation that would warrant violence, we are still a republic and our votes still count... I think.

[Username]

This thread took a Anarchist's Cookbook turn.

But, I think a lot of people are clueless as to what they can do to get involved which is why otherwise well intentioned people find themselves turning to extremes.

[CCFan]

I think more freedoms were removed under 8 years of Bush.. I did not see anyone rising up when it was found that the government was listening in and copying ever single piece of information being transmitted within the US. Or that they passed an Act that took away more 'rights' than any other act in US history.

Just out of curiosity, I've heard this a lot from people, so I'd like to hear your opinion on how this changed your life. What freedoms of yours were infringed upon by this Act that took away more rights than any other act in US history? Did it impact your ability to work or find gainful employment? Your income? How much you paid for gas or increase the amount your company had to pay in "carbon credits"? Did you change the way you talked on the telephone because you knew it might be recorded? I've just yet to hear someone articulate exactly how this affected them personally...

[zephyp]

Just out of curiosity, I've heard this a lot from people, so I'd like to hear your opinion on how this changed your life. What freedoms of yours were infringed upon by this Act that took away more rights than any other act in US history? Did it impact your ability to work or find gainful employment? Your income? How much you paid for gas or increase the amount your company had to pay in "carbon credits"? Did you change the way you talked on the telephone because you knew it might be recorded? I've just yet to hear someone articulate exactly how this affected them personally...

I dont think the Patriot Act has affected any of us personally - yet. It does give me the willies that it can now be interpreted and used by a liberal socialist administration. I hope this aint part of their secret back room discussions. For folks like us the Patriot Act and the DHS report released this past winter are their trump cards. I'll be surprised if they dont use them sooner or later. AND, who's to say that they havent already targeted certain people or internet forums to listen in on...

[bzybee08]

I think more freedoms were removed under 8 years of Bush.. I did not see anyone rising up when it was found that the government was listening in and copying ever single piece of information being transmitted within the US. Or that they passed an Act that took away more 'rights' than any other act in US history.

Just out of curiosity, I've heard this a lot from people, so I'd like to hear your opinion on how this changed your life. What freedoms of yours were infringed upon by this Act that took away more rights than any other act in US history? Did it impact your ability to work or find gainful employment? Your income? How much you paid for gas or increase the amount your company had to pay in "carbon credits"? Did you change the way you talked on the telephone because you knew it might be recorded? I've just yet to hear someone articulate exactly how this affected them personally...

It has not changed my life at all.. but obviously that is not the point. If the government started to round up all the jews, that would not effect me either.

The reason I mention the Bush years is because over the last 6 months I have read so much about how Obama is destroying this country and taking away our freedoms. What freedoms? How is trying to provide basic medical needs to millions of Americans destroying the country? I am not an Obama fan, but I am not seeing the same thing as some others. I've just yet to hear someone articulate exactly how he is doing this..

[zephyp]

It has not changed my life at all.. but obviously that is not the point. If the government started to round up all the jews, that would not effect me either.

The reason I mention the Bush years is because over the last 6 months I have read so much about how Obama is destroying this country and taking away our freedoms. What freedoms? How is trying to provide basic medical needs to millions of Americans destroying the country? I am not an Obama fan, but I am not seeing the same thing as some others. I've just yet to hear someone articulate exactly how he is doing this..

Providing socialized medical care is the holy grail for the liberals. Health care costs amount to about 20% of the country's total economy. Handing that over to the government is a big step towards a "take over." And lets not forget that this also falls into obama's "redistribute the wealth" scenario. The current bills will not reduce the cost of health care. What it will do is raise taxes for some and use everybody's tax dollars to pay for those who cant afford to buy it.

Also, the government will mandate that everybody buy this health insurance. This is America and we should have a choice. Why should anyone be forced to buy something by the government.

I'm all for making sure everybody can afford health care. What I would like to see is them tackle lowering the cost so people could afford to buy it - if they chose to do so. And do away with frivolous law suits against doctors. They arent doing that. The current proposals will only further line the pockets of the health care industry and everybody will have to pay for it instead of those who choose to do so.

obama is doing many other things that IMHO will see our ruin. Cap and trade (tax) will send our energy bills out of sight. Amnesty is on his agenda and assault weapons. Who knows what else he will do.

If you'd like to see some of the silly crap these people are trying to do I suggest you browse Thomas which is the site where they record all the stuff going on in congress. Here's the link. Play around with it and take a look for yourself.

http://thomas.loc.gov/

[TheGodfather]

The government has successfully dumbed down the masses through public education for the past 50 years or so. Voters vote according to how they think. If the government has taught the public how to think, then how do you think the public will vote?

That is a cop out. The current problem is that the population has become lazy.

Cop out? Hardly. In fact, you've only proved my point more.

Why do you think the massess are lazy to do their own research?
1. Schools no longer teach children how to do any real research.
2. Children have been taught in schools to believe the garbage that comes out of the mouths of the liberal media.

"Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed."
Joseph Stalin

"Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted."
"Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever."
Vladimir Lenin

[wylde007]

It has not changed my life at all.. but obviously that is not the point. If the government started to round up all the jews, that would not effect me either.

That, sir, is one of the most brilliant associations that has ever been made.

Simple. Elegant. 100% true.

One is not a patriot for simply defending one's own rights, but the collective rights of all those whom cannot fight for themselves.

Of course, that's probably going to sound hypocritical coming from me, seeing as how I detest the government's military meddling all over Creation, but the PEOPLE of this country, all of the republics that make it up, have to decide when enough is enough. If one waits until they are directly effected then it is likely that those who would support you have already been done away with.

So says the old Niemöller "poem":

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

The biggest problem is trying to figure out if, in that progression applied today, how to disrupt the process before they come for the proverbial "me" and how soon to start.

[zephyp]

It has not changed my life at all.. but obviously that is not the point. If the government started to round up all the jews, that would not effect me either.

That, sir, is one of the most brilliant associations that has ever been made.

Simple. Elegant. 100% true.

One is not a patriot for simply defending one's own rights, but the collective rights of all those whom cannot fight for themselves.

Of course, that's probably going to sound hypocritical coming from me, seeing as how I detest the government's military meddling all over Creation, but the PEOPLE of this country, all of the republics that make it up, have to decide when enough is enough. If one waits until they are directly effected then it is likely that those who would support you have already been done away with.

So says the old Niemöller "poem":

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

The biggest problem is trying to figure out if, in that progression applied today, how to disrupt the process before they come for the proverbial "me" and how soon to start.

Thanks guys. This is something I've been harping on for some time. Many of us are interested in only legislation that affects the 2A. We cannot do that. We must speak against anything that affects any of the rights in our Constitution.

Travis, I cant remember how many times I've posted that very same poem or a similar version of it here. Its spot on. We cannot allow any of our rights of freedoms (or any of anyone elses for that matter) be taken away.

We cannot piecemeal the Constitution. Its a take all or none proposition.

[VBshooter]

Bottom line is this...THe other side is playing for keeps,We need to bring our best game to the table every time, Riding the bench won;t cut it,

[bzybee08]

Riding the bench won;t cut it,

It depends on how hot the wench who is on the bench.

I could get behind any 'march' on DC if it was not centered towards Obama or the democrats. The problem is with government as a whole. Republicans are just as bad and if they had 60 votes would be doing similar deals. The Republicans have increased government size and spending just as much.

[zephyp]

Riding the bench won;t cut it,

It depends on how hot the wench who is on the bench.

I could get behind any 'march' on DC if it was not centered towards Obama or the democrats. The problem is with government as a whole. Republicans are just as bad and if they had 60 votes would be doing similar deals. The Republicans have increased government size and spending just as much.

True but they are the lesser evil. Right now we are pretty much down to damage control. Vote out the liberals, replace them with conservatives and clean up the mess later. The critical thing now is to get us off this hellish road to socialism. I'm hoping the Constitutionalist and Tea party candidates will start taking off. But, how long will it be before they start acting up. The problem is these guys get too much power once they hit office - and power corrupts.

[bzybee08]

Road to socialism ? you know, it is not a bad thing to try and help out the x million Americans who struggle to obtain health insurance due to no fault of their own.. If the system was fair in the first place, we would not be having this bill rammed down our throats. And what exactly is current group coverage anyway? pay into a pot and given to the needy.

If republicans are so against the idea of socialism, then we did Reagon or the Bush's not abolish welfare during his 8 years or even medicare? What about the 'stimulus' bill passed by Bush? Sharing the wealth.. socialism?

Helping out those who deserve help is not a bad thing. Having grown up in a socialized country, I don't believe it to be the evil that it is painted to be. The key is to find the people who don't deserve it and who work to con the system and then ship them to Cuba

[moss20]

I am so tired of hearing about how hard it is to obtain healthcare. 10 years ago I called a local insurance company, because I didn't like the health insurance offered at my work and got an individual policy for my family that I have had ever since. I have changed jobs 3 times and it hasn't affected my health insurance. It is no different than shopping for house or car insurance--people just have to pick-up the phone. I have a $20.00 co-pay, $300.00 deductible, and $1000.00 cap. I pay less than I would with a policy from my work and since I pay after parole deductions I can deduct a percentage off my taxes.

[WildBill44]

Ideally, socialism look good, and the only real society where it really worked well was with the Native Americans and similar cultures. What is considered "socialism" today is totally different. Today the situation is that the elitist central government whats to micro-manage everyone's life and make every decision for us from cradle to grave. Some may like it when someone else tells them what to do, what to think and every other aspect of their lives. I for one DO NOT! I am not a sheep to follow someone else, nor a slave to work for someone else's gain. I worked for everything I have, and owe no one. As the Bible plainly says, "Let those who will not work, not eat."

[zephyp]

Road to socialism ? you know, it is not a bad thing to try and help out the x million Americans who struggle to obtain health insurance due to no fault of their own.. If the system was fair in the first place, we would not be having this bill rammed down our throats. And what exactly is current group coverage anyway? pay into a pot and given to the needy.

If republicans are so against the idea of socialism, then we did Reagon or the Bush's not abolish welfare during his 8 years or even medicare? What about the 'stimulus' bill passed by Bush? Sharing the wealth.. socialism?

Helping out those who deserve help is not a bad thing. Having grown up in a socialized country, I don't believe it to be the evil that it is painted to be. The key is to find the people who don't deserve it and who work to con the system and then ship them to Cuba

Here in America most of us who are honest hard working believe in giving folks a hand up not a hand out. The problem with this health care bill is its not going to reduce the cost. Here's a rude awakening for you. Based on a non-partisan study by an independent group an average family of 4 making $66,000 per year will pay approximately 10% of their income for this government subsidized insurance if it passes. The 10% is after the government pays their share.

Now, you do the math. First, dont forget that this insurance will be mandated. That means you must buy it or pay a penalty.

Please explain to me how a family of 4 making $66,000 per year will be able to pay 10% of their income for this insurance and still make ends meet. They are most likely struggling as it is and not to pay medical bills but simple things like food, clothes, and shelter. My guess is they might be analyzing the penalty and counting their pennies to see what they can do: buy the mandated insurance, pay the penalty, keep the lights on, or put food on the table.

What good will health insurance do if you cant pay your bills and feed your family? How many people will go bankrupt because of this or worse? I think this is the second biggest mistake in the history of congress. The first being the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

[bzybee08]

I am so tired of hearing about how hard it is to obtain healthcare.

Try having a pre-existing condition and then try again.. Or putting in a major claim to your insurance company and watch them deny it because you forgot to cross an t in an application.

If you are fit, healthy and of ideal weight with no pre-existing conditions, then yes.. it is very easy to get decent insurance.

[moss20]

I am so tired of hearing about how hard it is to obtain healthcare.

Try having a pre-existing condition and then try again.. Or putting in a major claim to your insurance company and watch them deny it because you forgot to cross an t in an application.

If you are fit, healthy and of ideal weight with no pre-existing conditions, then yes.. it is very easy to get decent insurance.

Most companies will pay for pre-existing conditions after a certain time period( Trigon is 1 year). How many of your x million people without healthcare have pre-existing conditions?

When I was in my 20's, I went without healthcare because I didn't think I needed it. After changing jobs when I was 26 to a job that provided healthcare at no charge after 30 days, I went in the hospital for 10 days with a medical problem 18 days after my insurance started. Out of a $20,000.00 bill, I owed $2000.00. I almost learned the hard way about not having health insurance.

My wife is disabled--she has had 3 knee surgeries, therapy, injections, custom braces, etc. in the last 3 1/2 years. Not one problem with insurance paying.

[zephyp]

I am so tired of hearing about how hard it is to obtain healthcare.

Try having a pre-existing condition and then try again.. Or putting in a major claim to your insurance company and watch them deny it because you forgot to cross an t in an application.

If you are fit, healthy and of ideal weight with no pre-existing conditions, then yes.. it is very easy to get decent insurance.

I go through the same thing but this is still no excuse to force families to buy health insurance that might leave them penniless. Here's a link to an article posted this morning. Full text also posted below. Scroll down to the bottom to see what the cost will be for an average family will be. Its a little disturbing. I honestly cannot see how this average family is making ends meet now much less after being forced to spend another 10% of their income on mandated insurance. Thats even more disturbing. When this passes (and it will) I can finally say "yes, I did wake up in nazi germany this morning."
---------------------------------------------------------
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... AD9COSVM80
----------------------------------------------------------
Pain before gain in health care overhaul

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR (AP) – 3 hours ago

WASHINGTON — The costs of health care reform being pushed through Congress by Democrats will be felt long before the benefits.

Proposed taxes and fees on upper-income earners, insurers, even tanning parlors, take effect quickly. So would Medicare cuts.

Benefits, such as subsidies for lower middle-income households, consumer protections for all, and eliminating the prescription coverage gap for seniors, come gradually.

"There's going to be an expectations gap, no question about that," said Drew Altman, president of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. "People are going to see their premiums and out-of-pocket costs go up before the tangible benefits kick in."

Most of the 30 million uninsured helped by the bill won't get coverage until 2013 at the earliest, well after the next presidential election.

More than two-thirds of Americans get their coverage through large employer plans and their premiums won't go up because of the legislation, according to number crunchers at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

But Congress can't abolish medical inflation, so don't hold your breath waiting for premiums to drop.

For people who buy their own insurance policies — about one of every six Americans — premiums will go up. But that's for better benefits prescribed under the legislation. And about half of them would get tax credits to substantially lower their costs.

As Senate Democrats cleared the second of three 60-vote procedural hurdles, over unanimous GOP opposition Tuesday, it looked like the White House was already celebrating. "Health care reform is not a matter of if, health care reform now is a matter of when, and I think the president is enormously encouraged by that," declared spokesman Robert Gibbs.

Republicans, bolstered by opinion polls that show a majority of Americans opposed to the legislation, aimed their fire at dozens of deals Democratic leaders cut to line up the 60 votes needed in the Senate. "Senator so-and-so may have gotten his deal," said GOP Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. "But the American people haven't signed off."

If the Senate passes the bill Thursday, as now seems likely, the pressure will be on Democrats to quickly sort out House and Senate differences and get final legislation to Obama's desk. That would end a divisive debate that has soured the public mood.

But there are significant differences between the bills, including stricter abortion language in the House version as well as a government-run insurance plan that is missing from the Senate package. The Senate plan also embraces a tax on high-value insurance plans, something strongly opposed by unions and many House Democrats.

One thing that won't emerge in the end is a government takeover of health care. The government-run insurance plan some liberals were hoping would be a step to Medicare-for-all lacks support in the Senate. If negotiators put it back, moderate Democrats in the Senate say they'll oppose the final bill. And Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., needs every one of his party's 60 votes.

Instead, the final package could end up looking like the Medicare prescription drug benefit, delivered through private insurance companies but subsidized and regulated by the government.

Just as seniors now pick their drug coverage from a range of private plans, Americans who were previously uninsured would select brand-name coverage through a new kind of insurance supermarket called an exchange. As seniors do today, they would have to pay part of the cost themselves. Most people with employer coverage wouldn't need to go to the exchange.

The exchanges could be national, regional or state-based. They'd be up and running in 2013 under the House bill, a year later in the Senate version. Around that same time, other major changes would snap into place:

_Health insurance companies would be prohibited from denying coverage to people with health problems, or charging them more.

_For the first time, Americans would be required to carry health insurance, either through an employer, Medicare or Medicaid, or by buying it themselves. Refusal would bring fines, except in cases of financial hardship.

_Federal subsidies would start flowing to individuals and small businesses buying coverage in the exchange, helping them afford the premiums.

_Most employers would be required to offer coverage or pay a tax, under the House bill. In the Senate version, employers would get a bill if any of their workers got subsidized coverage in the exchange.

_Medicaid coverage would be expanded to pick up millions more living near the poverty line.

Debated since President Harry Truman's administration, health care overhaul would finally be in place. An estimated 94 percent to 96 percent of Americans, not counting illegal immigrants, would have coverage.

But there's a catch.

Cost is the Achilles' heel of the whole complicated undertaking. To keep the cost of the bill at around $1 trillion over 10 years, lawmakers had to limit subsidies for people seeking coverage through the exchange.

The aid tapers off dramatically for households with solid middle-class incomes. A family of four making $66,000 a year would still have to spend about 10 percent of its income on premiums — less than a mortgage but more than a car payment. And that's without counting copayments and deductibles. Several million otherwise eligible Americans could still be priced out.

Altman, the Kaiser Foundation expert, thinks Democrats won't be able to resist the temptation to keep tinkering with the legislation to improve or speed up coverage. "The legislation is going to be out there, and politics can change," he said. "There's a potential for modification and amendment."

Health care overhaul could be back for an encore.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.