[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nelson Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 8:12 PM snip The Mexican border is a war zone? The folks wading the Rio Grande or climbing the fence are armed and need to be engaged in a gun battle? snip While The people walking in are a problem, there is more concern about armed military incursions I think that assertion, armed military incursions, is pure bullshit. Please provide verifiable corroborated evidence that the Mexican military has made armed incursions across the US border. You sound like a nutso xenophobe. and heavily armed drug shipment guards- as in a hum vee with a 50 cal. on it. People are being killed there while the government is looking the other way. The border patrol is no match where they are out manned and out gunned by invaders. There is quite a bit of information on the subject but, most people are busy with other concerns.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Nelson nelsonriddle2001@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nelson Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 8:12 PM snip The Mexican border is a war zone? The folks wading the Rio Grande or climbing the fence are armed and need to be engaged in a gun battle? snip While The people walking in are a problem, there is more concern about armed military incursions I think that assertion, armed military incursions, is pure bullshit. Please provide verifiable corroborated evidence that the Mexican military has made armed incursions across the US border. You sound like a nutso xenophobe. You sound like a fairly wise thoughtful person--- I will try to get some links that were responsible for this assertion from another site and post them for your consideration.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nelson Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 8:12 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA' A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. And where are the militias who bear arms to protect the security of their states? They are on the southern border war zone- should be hearing something from there soon. The Mexican border is a war zone? The folks wading the Rio Grande or climbing the fence are armed and need to be engaged in a gun battle? Mexico is a deadly threat to the region. They're hiding their weapons of mass destruction related programs thought crimes. But we know where they are. They're in the area around Mexico City and east, west, south, and north somewhat. We don't want to wait for the smoking gun to show up in the form of all KFCs being turned into Taco Times. See this excellent animation by Mark Fiore: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0615,fiore,72857,9.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
Ruth wrote: So, you would rather have 47 million people uninsured? No, I would rather have universal employment, so that everyone could afford their own medical care. And it isn't the old people that are uninsured, it a mix of people. Old people are already insured through Medicare, Medicaid and the drug prescription plan passed by Congress. Many old people already have a medical plan carried over from the previous employer when they retired. For example, young people with jobs that don't offer insurance or the insurance costs too much. They feel bullet proof and go without. That's my point - young people don't need medical care because they're not sick and they hardly ever get hurt in accidents. My question was, why should the young people have to pay for medical care for old people? Are you suggesting that the government force the young people to pay? If so, that could cause a riot. Hillary Clinton suggested that the government garnish the wages of those young people who resist paying. Is that fair? Some will have accidents. Some will get cancer. They are screwed. You want to see screwed? A government-run universal health care system. The U.S. Goverment can't even secure the nation's borders and you want the young people who were born here to pay for the medical care of the illegal aliens? The U.S. Government could't even prevent an attack on the World Trade Center. It has already been established that the government got us into a quagmire in Afghanistan and Iraq. The U.S. Government can't even take care of it's own wounded soldiers! The U.S. Government brought on a crises in the present Medicare system; lost a war in Vietnam; failed to prevent North Korea, Pakistan, India, and Iran from getting nuclear weapons. What makes you think the U.S. Goverment could run a medical care system? Some will get treated anyway, but because they are judgment proof the health care providers eat the cost and pass it along to everyone else. The problem is that people can't say they don't need health insurance because they are healthy. Health is not something that is a matter of personal control. Sure you can live a healthy life, but you still can get cancer, be born with diabetes or other chronic illness, or have an accident. I personally have seen far too many of those young healthy people who suddenly are not healthy any more and cannot get health insurance at any price. Sure, there are going to be some people who need help - that's where charity comes in. But you are going to have a failed plan if you try to make all the young people pay to take care of all the older people, many of whom failed to take care of themselves. Yes, there are those who get sick and we should not judge them, however there are many respondents here who would agree that people don't eat right, don't exercise, and refuse to work. Why should I be forced to take care of them? I've got a simple plan for young people: 1. Finish school and get a degree. 2. Get a good job with benefits and save some money. 3. Don't get married until at least 22 years old. 4. Don't have any children until you're 35 years old. 5. Have only 2 children, with at least 5 years between sibs. Country will grow!
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
Excellent retort, Ruth! ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams willytex@ wrote: Ruth wrote: So, you would rather have 47 million people uninsured? No, I would rather have universal employment, so that everyone could afford their own medical care. Wouldn't that be nice! The problem is that even if you are employed, you might not be able to afford medical care and might not be able to purchase health insurance. Which is what I have said several times already. Every year more small employers drop health insurance. And it isn't the old people that are uninsured, it a mix of people. Old people are already insured through Medicare, Medicaid and the drug prescription plan passed by Congress. Many old people already have a medical plan carried over from the previous employer when they retired. That is what I said. For example, young people with jobs that don't offer insurance or the insurance costs too much. They feel bullet proof and go without. That's my point - young people don't need medical care because they're not sick and they hardly ever get hurt in accidents. My question was, why should the young people have to pay for medical care for old people? Are you suggesting that the government force the young people to pay? If so, that could cause a riot. Hillary Clinton suggested that the government garnish the wages of those young people who resist paying. Is that fair? Of course not all young people need medical care, but you cannot predict if you will need care. Rather than garnishing wages of those who won't buy insurance, I prefer either a national plan paid through income taxes on a progressive basis, or a plan like Senator Wyden's plan, that allows for insurance companies to stay in the mix, but the bill for your insurance is paid through your income taxes. Then no garnishing is necessary. I have paid for insurance my whole life. When I was young, I didn't need it, but it is insurance against the risk of something bad happening.If my premiums paid for someone else's illness, well that is the nature of the world we live in. Spread the risk and no one will have to pay so much that it breaks the bank. It is like people without children paying costs of education. Even though they do not directly benefit, the country as a whole benefits. If we all pay for heath care the country as a whole will benefit. Odds are it will increase employment because small employers won't have to worry about offering health insurance to compete. Employers will be less likely to hire people part time or only on a contract basis in order to save money on benefits. It is good for the country to have a healthy population. Interestingly, young people are more and more worried about having benefits at their job. They want insurance. They want a 401k. They are worried about security. A national health plan would remove one worry that just about everyone has. Some will have accidents. Some will get cancer. They are screwed. You want to see screwed? A government-run universal health care system. The U.S. Goverment can't even secure the nation's borders and you want the young people who were born here to pay for the medical care of the illegal aliens? The U.S. Government could't even prevent an attack on the World Trade Center. It has already been established that the government got us into a quagmire in Afghanistan and Iraq. The U.S. Government can't even take care of it's own wounded soldiers! The U.S. Government brought on a crises in the present Medicare system; lost a war in Vietnam; failed to prevent North Korea, Pakistan, India, and Iran from getting nuclear weapons. What makes you think the U.S. Goverment could run a medical care system? As people on this forum love to say: non sequitur! What does Afghanistan and Iraq have to do with health care funding? Medicare is noted as a very good and efficient and most all people on Medicare love it. The crisis has to do with funding. If we simply had a national plan that everyone paid into, I have a hard time imagining the cost would increase. Already our costs are double or more than most industrialized countries. Ever read about the billions in insurance company profits? I am talking about government for funding, not government run hospitals or government employed doctors. Some will get treated anyway, but because they are judgment proof the health care providers eat the cost and pass it along to everyone else. The problem is that people can't say they don't need health insurance because they are healthy. Health is not something that is a matter of personal control. Sure you can live a healthy life, but you still can get cancer, be born with diabetes or
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ruth wrote: So, you would rather have 47 million people uninsured? No, I would rather have universal employment, so that everyone could afford their own medical care. Wouldn't that be nice! The problem is that even if you are employed, you might not be able to afford medical care and might not be able to purchase health insurance. Which is what I have said several times already. Every year more small employers drop health insurance. And it isn't the old people that are uninsured, it a mix of people. Old people are already insured through Medicare, Medicaid and the drug prescription plan passed by Congress. Many old people already have a medical plan carried over from the previous employer when they retired. That is what I said. For example, young people with jobs that don't offer insurance or the insurance costs too much. They feel bullet proof and go without. That's my point - young people don't need medical care because they're not sick and they hardly ever get hurt in accidents. My question was, why should the young people have to pay for medical care for old people? Are you suggesting that the government force the young people to pay? If so, that could cause a riot. Hillary Clinton suggested that the government garnish the wages of those young people who resist paying. Is that fair? Of course not all young people need medical care, but you cannot predict if you will need care. Rather than garnishing wages of those who won't buy insurance, I prefer either a national plan paid through income taxes on a progressive basis, or a plan like Senator Wyden's plan, that allows for insurance companies to stay in the mix, but the bill for your insurance is paid through your income taxes. Then no garnishing is necessary. I have paid for insurance my whole life. When I was young, I didn't need it, but it is insurance against the risk of something bad happening.If my premiums paid for someone else's illness, well that is the nature of the world we live in. Spread the risk and no one will have to pay so much that it breaks the bank. It is like people without children paying costs of education. Even though they do not directly benefit, the country as a whole benefits. If we all pay for heath care the country as a whole will benefit. Odds are it will increase employment because small employers won't have to worry about offering health insurance to compete. Employers will be less likely to hire people part time or only on a contract basis in order to save money on benefits. It is good for the country to have a healthy population. Interestingly, young people are more and more worried about having benefits at their job. They want insurance. They want a 401k. They are worried about security. A national health plan would remove one worry that just about everyone has. Some will have accidents. Some will get cancer. They are screwed. You want to see screwed? A government-run universal health care system. The U.S. Goverment can't even secure the nation's borders and you want the young people who were born here to pay for the medical care of the illegal aliens? The U.S. Government could't even prevent an attack on the World Trade Center. It has already been established that the government got us into a quagmire in Afghanistan and Iraq. The U.S. Government can't even take care of it's own wounded soldiers! The U.S. Government brought on a crises in the present Medicare system; lost a war in Vietnam; failed to prevent North Korea, Pakistan, India, and Iran from getting nuclear weapons. What makes you think the U.S. Goverment could run a medical care system? As people on this forum love to say: non sequitur! What does Afghanistan and Iraq have to do with health care funding? Medicare is noted as a very good and efficient and most all people on Medicare love it. The crisis has to do with funding. If we simply had a national plan that everyone paid into, I have a hard time imagining the cost would increase. Already our costs are double or more than most industrialized countries. Ever read about the billions in insurance company profits? I am talking about government for funding, not government run hospitals or government employed doctors. Some will get treated anyway, but because they are judgment proof the health care providers eat the cost and pass it along to everyone else. The problem is that people can't say they don't need health insurance because they are healthy. Health is not something that is a matter of personal control. Sure you can live a healthy life, but you still can get cancer, be born with diabetes or other chronic illness, or have an accident. I personally have seen far too many of those young healthy people who suddenly are not healthy any more and cannot get health insurance at any price. Sure, there are going
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
(snip) Unlike the USA, Switzerland has tended to stay the hell out of other countries politically and militarily. That is a good point and, America would do well to see the connection. However, I doubt that was the deciding factor in Hitler's plan to take over everything. Perhaps Adolf's desire to 'take over everything'- Had more to do with meglomania fueled by Pervitin, a methamphetamine drug newly developed by the Berlin-based Temmler... And, an abusive childhood, and all kinds of mental issues. Also, much of the German population ended up addicted to these drugs. http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,354606,00.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nelson Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 8:12 PM snip The Mexican border is a war zone? The folks wading the Rio Grande or climbing the fence are armed and need to be engaged in a gun battle? snip While The people walking in are a problem, there is more concern about armed military incursions and heavily armed drug shipment guards- as in a hum vee with a 50 cal. on it. People are being killed there while the government is looking the other way. The border patrol is no match where they are out manned and out gunned by invaders. There is quite a bit of information on the subject but, most people are busy with other concerns.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What everyone is really concerned about; Under the surface, is the moral decay, apathy; From the 90's, to date... We need a change alright! All the divisiveness needs to end, soon. If not, and we get another Republican President- Well, that, my friends, could be the end of this Democracy... Apathy, lies, division, war-mongering; Quite simply, we don't need any-more-of- the- same. Are you gonna run for office?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
In a message dated 2/3/08 8:46:19 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And you think the Republicans are going to lay down and let the Democrats just do as they please if Obama is elected? The socialist agenda of higher taxes and redistribution of wealth, with higher energy costs, Don't forget universal health care. along with an erosion of the Bill of Rights will be resisted strongly by Obama's opposition. Any Democrat who is elected will be fighting tooth and nail to put the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution back together again after its merciless shredding by the Bush administration. Universal healthcare was included in *higher taxes and redistribution of wealth*. Democrats have fought tooth and nail to erode the first and second amendments thru attacks on religious freedom, free political speech, and the attempts to restrict gun ownership. **Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp00300025 48)
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/3/08 3:00:24 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: All the divisiveness needs to end, soon. If not, and we get another Republican President- Well, that, my friends, could be the end of this Democracy... Apathy, lies, division, war-mongering; Quite simply, we don't need any-more-of- the- same And you think the Republicans are going to lay down and let the Democrats just do as they please if Obama is elected? The socialist agenda of higher taxes and redistribution of wealth, with higher energy costs, along with an erosion of the Bill of Rights will be resisted strongly by Obama's opposition. Do I think the status quo will change easily, no. There will be all kinds of resistance to change. But, as we know, in a quatum mechanical world- It's all a matter of vibration of the field. Barack Obama is inspiring a higher vibration of the field. If enough people can raise their vibration the field will allow for more evolutionary change. You will see, that Hillary or McCain will win where people are rigid and afraid of any real change. Many Independents and Republicans are going with Obama. The whole political field is changing. The status quo will do everything it can to remain the same. It's like the ego will find every-way it can to hold onto to it's illusion of power, and in the same way, as the vibration increases, as the tables are turned over in the Temple, the status quo hits back in every-way it can. It's a battle of staying in the hut, or moving to higher ground. If anyone thinks that Hillary Clinton or John McCain can lead us to higher ground, well, we get the government we deserve...
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/3/08 8:46:19 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And you think the Republicans are going to lay down and let the Democrats just do as they please if Obama is elected? The socialist agenda of higher taxes and redistribution of wealth, with higher energy costs, Don't forget universal health care. along with an erosion of the Bill of Rights will be resisted strongly by Obama's opposition. Any Democrat who is elected will be fighting tooth and nail to put the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution back together again after its merciless shredding by the Bush administration. Universal healthcare was included in *higher taxes and redistribution of wealth*. Democrats have fought tooth and nail to erode the first and second amendments thru attacks on religious freedom, free political speech, and the attempts to restrict gun ownership. This is too ridiculous to even deserve a comment.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
In a message dated 2/3/08 8:50:42 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do I think the status quo will change easily, no. There will be all kinds of resistance to change. But, as we know, in a quatum mechanical world- It's all a matter of vibration of the field. Barack Obama is inspiring a higher vibration of the field. If enough people can raise their vibration the field will allow for more evolutionary change. You will see, that Hillary or McCain will win where people are rigid and afraid of any real change. Many Independents and Republicans are going with Obama. The whole political field is changing. The status quo will do everything it can to remain the same. It's like the ego will find every-way it can to hold onto to it's illusion of power, and in the same way, as the vibration increases, as the tables are turned over in the Temple, the status quo hits back in every-way it can. It's a battle of staying in the hut, or moving to higher ground. If anyone thinks that Hillary Clinton or John McCain can lead us to higher ground, well, we get the government we deserve... Oh Robert, you really are the idealist Chris Mathews spoke about a couple of weeks ago, *full of high hopes and dreams* mixed with a dash of mysticism. Hope you aren't crushed too badly when the vibes fade and you all of the sudden have to wake up. **Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp00300025 48)
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/3/08 3:00:24 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: All the divisiveness needs to end, soon. If not, and we get another Republican President- Well, that, my friends, could be the end of this Democracy... Apathy, lies, division, war-mongering; Quite simply, we don't need any-more-of- the- same And you think the Republicans are going to lay down and let the Democrats just do as they please if Obama is elected? The socialist agenda of higher taxes and redistribution of wealth, with higher energy costs, Don't forget universal health care. along with an erosion of the Bill of Rights will be resisted strongly by Obama's opposition. Any Democrat who is elected will be fighting tooth and nail to put the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution back together again after its merciless shredding by the Bush administration.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: In a message dated 2/3/08 8:46:19 A.M. Central Standard Time, jstein@ writes: And you think the Republicans are going to lay down and let the Democrats just do as they please if Obama is elected? The socialist agenda of higher taxes and redistribution of wealth, with higher energy costs, Don't forget universal health care. along with an erosion of the Bill of Rights will be resisted strongly by Obama's opposition. Any Democrat who is elected will be fighting tooth and nail to put the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution back together again after its merciless shredding by the Bush administration. Universal healthcare was included in *higher taxes and redistribution of wealth*. Democrats have fought tooth and nail to erode the first and second amendments thru attacks on religious freedom, free political speech, and the attempts to restrict gun ownership. This is too ridiculous to even deserve a comment. I've referred to Dixon's similar comments as: 'The continuing empty rhetoric of a hopeless willfully blind passenger on the freaky leaky right wing GOP sinking ship.'
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
Robert wrote: ...the moral decay, He balances a succinct discussion of each school's philosophy with the personal and moral (or, often, immoral) practices of its gurus. - David Marshall 'World of the Gurus' by Vishal Mangalwadi Cornerstone Press, Chicago, 1992 http://tinyurl.com/2udnsb apathy; Why Babaji, won't you put the pipe down, stand up and fight to save the children? 'The Fighting Ascetics of India' by J.N. Farquhar University press, 1925 Fortified Temple of Fighting Ascetics: http://tinyurl.com/2v82ze
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
In a message dated 2/3/08 9:18:28 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 2/3/08 8:46:19 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And you think the Republicans are going to lay down and let the Democrats just do as they please if Obama is elected? The socialist agenda of higher taxes and redistribution of wealth, with higher energy costs, Don't forget universal health care. along with an erosion of the Bill of Rights will be resisted strongly by Obama's opposition. Any Democrat who is elected will be fighting tooth and nail to put the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution back together again after its merciless shredding by the Bush administration. Universal healthcare was included in *higher taxes and redistribution of wealth*. Democrats have fought tooth and nail to erode the first and second amendments thru attacks on religious freedom, free political speech, and the attempts to restrict gun ownership. This is too ridiculous to even deserve a comment. Thank you, you just did. **Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp00300025 48)
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: Universal healthcare was included in *higher taxes and redistribution of wealth*. Democrats have fought tooth and nail to erode the first and second amendments thru attacks on religious freedom, free political speech, and the attempts to restrict gun ownership. Generally, when I hear words like socialist and agenda I tune out. But . . . Higher taxes: This doesn't have anything to do with your party affiliation. If you spend a lot, generally taxes have to go up. The republicans have been spending a lot of late, but have not touched the taxes. If they go up under the dems, it could be because we have to pay for the prior republican spending. Redistribution of wealth. This occurs all the time. We have a social contract. We are in this country together. The constitution gives power to the government to tax in order to provide for the general welfare. We tax for roads and other infrastructure. We tax for defense. We tax for education. We tax for social security. What makes universal health care any different? We provide it through Medicare to the elderly. Why not everyone? It isn't like people are going to lose their will to work if they get health care paid for by tax dollars. Democrats attack religious freedom or political speech? Ha! Show me. Don't forget that the federal government is not allowed to support a particular religion or any religion. Gun ownership regulation is not supported by all democrats, that is probably why we haven't got very far on gun control. However, you reading of the second amendment is contrary to its historic interpretation and at a minimum it is clear that it is perfectly legal to put some restrictions on gun ownership. Though I would agree with people who say that the second amendment is very awkwardly worded, which has led to many needless arguments.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: Universal healthcare was included in *higher taxes and redistribution of wealth*. Democrats have fought tooth and nail to erode the first and second amendments thru attacks on religious freedom, free political speech, and the attempts to restrict gun ownership. Generally, when I hear words like socialist and agenda I tune out. But . . . Higher taxes: This doesn't have anything to do with your party affiliation. If you spend a lot, generally taxes have to go up. The republicans have been spending a lot of late, but have not touched the taxes. If they go up under the dems, it could be because we have to pay for the prior republican spending. Redistribution of wealth. This occurs all the time. We have a social contract. We are in this country together. The constitution gives power to the government to tax in order to provide for the general welfare. We tax for roads and other infrastructure. We tax for defense. We tax for education. We tax for social security. What makes universal health care any different? We provide it through Medicare to the elderly. Why not everyone? It isn't like people are going to lose their will to work if they get health care paid for by tax dollars. Democrats attack religious freedom or political speech? Ha! Show me. Don't forget that the federal government is not allowed to support a particular religion or any religion. Gun ownership regulation is not supported by all democrats, that is probably why we haven't got very far on gun control. However, you reading of the second amendment is contrary to its historic interpretation and at a minimum it is clear that it is perfectly legal to put some restrictions on gun ownership. Though I would agree with people who say that the second amendment is very awkwardly worded, which has led to many needless arguments. Honest, sober, insightful and in my view, accurate commentary. Refreshing! Thanks for that, 'ruthsimplicity'.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
Ruth, excellent response and post. I disagree only with your 2d Amend. analysis. Gun ownership by the individual is fundamental to this country; in the last few years many constitutional experts have examined the 2d Amend. and construed it to guarantee rights to the individual, rather than the government militia. In my read that's exactly what it states. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 'Government' in the Constitution (and particularly in the Declaration of Independence) is to be feared for its inevitable inclination to Tyranny, and necessarily then, harnessed and fettered by the laws of the new republic. It was assumed that eventually any government will go bad and the ability to resist your own government (gone bad) by force of arms was understood to be one of the last resorts to Tyranny. The fact that it sits uneasily with many modern sensibilities doesn't mean it doesn't say what it says. Though that's just the way I see, and there is a lot of disagreement continuing. I think the Supremes have a 2d Amend. case in this term; I haven't been following it. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: Universal healthcare was included in *higher taxes and redistribution of wealth*. Democrats have fought tooth and nail to erode the first and second amendments thru attacks on religious freedom, free political speech, and the attempts to restrict gun ownership. Generally, when I hear words like socialist and agenda I tune out. But . . . Higher taxes: This doesn't have anything to do with your party affiliation. If you spend a lot, generally taxes have to go up. The republicans have been spending a lot of late, but have not touched the taxes. If they go up under the dems, it could be because we have to pay for the prior republican spending. Redistribution of wealth. This occurs all the time. We have a social contract. We are in this country together. The constitution gives power to the government to tax in order to provide for the general welfare. We tax for roads and other infrastructure. We tax for defense. We tax for education. We tax for social security. What makes universal health care any different? We provide it through Medicare to the elderly. Why not everyone? It isn't like people are going to lose their will to work if they get health care paid for by tax dollars. Democrats attack religious freedom or political speech? Ha! Show me. Don't forget that the federal government is not allowed to support a particular religion or any religion. Gun ownership regulation is not supported by all democrats, that is probably why we haven't got very far on gun control. However, you reading of the second amendment is contrary to its historic interpretation and at a minimum it is clear that it is perfectly legal to put some restrictions on gun ownership. Though I would agree with people who say that the second amendment is very awkwardly worded, which has led to many needless arguments.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ruth, excellent response and post. I disagree only with your 2d Amend. analysis. Gun ownership by the individual is fundamental to this country; in the last few years many constitutional experts have examined the 2d Amend. and construed it to guarantee rights to the individual, rather than the government militia. In my read that's exactly what it states. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 'Government' in the Constitution (and particularly in the Declaration of Independence) is to be feared for its inevitable inclination to Tyranny, and necessarily then, harnessed and fettered by the laws of the new republic. It was assumed that eventually any government will go bad and the ability to resist your own government (gone bad) by force of arms was understood to be one of the last resorts to Tyranny. There's absolutely *ZERO* possibility of any 'militia' being capable of successfully resisting the weaponry and manpower of the US military. The fact that it sits uneasily with many modern sensibilities doesn't mean it doesn't say what it says. Though that's just the way I see, and there is a lot of disagreement continuing. I think the Supremes have a 2d Amend. case in this term; I haven't been following it. Marek
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: Ruth, excellent response and post. I disagree only with your 2d Amend. analysis. Gun ownership by the individual is fundamental to this country; in the last few years many constitutional experts have examined the 2d Amend. and construed it to guarantee rights to the individual, rather than the government militia. In my read that's exactly what it states. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 'Government' in the Constitution (and particularly in the Declaration of Independence) is to be feared for its inevitable inclination to Tyranny, and necessarily then, harnessed and fettered by the laws of the new republic. It was assumed that eventually any government will go bad and the ability to resist your own government (gone bad) by force of arms was understood to be one of the last resorts to Tyranny. There's absolutely *ZERO* possibility of any 'militia' being capable of successfully resisting the weaponry and manpower of the US military. ++ the military is sworn to uphold the constitution and, obviously, the government hasn't been. Also, think Blackhawk down or Afgans knocking off choppers with small arms. In the forties, Japan observed that it would a disaster to attack the US mainland where most of the citizens were armed- that being one of the reasons for being armed in the first place. The fact that it sits uneasily with many modern sensibilities doesn't mean it doesn't say what it says. Though that's just the way I see, and there is a lot of disagreement continuing. I think the Supremes have a 2d Amend. case in this term; I haven't been following it. Marek ++ the DC gun ban was struck down by a local court and is now on appeal however, seeing the serious implications of a ruling either way, they might just make a ruling only to apply in DC.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: Ruth, excellent response and post. I disagree only with your 2d Amend. analysis. Gun ownership by the individual is fundamental to this country; in the last few years many constitutional experts have examined the 2d Amend. and construed it to guarantee rights to the individual, rather than the government militia. In my read that's exactly what it states. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 'Government' in the Constitution (and particularly in the Declaration of Independence) is to be feared for its inevitable inclination to Tyranny, and necessarily then, harnessed and fettered by the laws of the new republic. It was assumed that eventually any government will go bad and the ability to resist your own government (gone bad) by force of arms was understood to be one of the last resorts to Tyranny. There's absolutely *ZERO* possibility of any 'militia' being capable of successfully resisting the weaponry and manpower of the US military. ++ the military is sworn to uphold the constitution and, obviously, the government hasn't been. Then why do you need a 'militia' if you trust the US Military to uphold the constitution? And how do you expect a 'militia' to stand up the the US Military if it doesn't? Also, think Blackhawk down or Afgans knocking off choppers with small arms. In the forties, Japan observed that it would a disaster to attack the US mainland where most of the citizens were armed- that being one of the reasons for being armed in the first place. Get realistic. Without the US Military, the US would have been no match for the Japanese military. The fact that it sits uneasily with many modern sensibilities doesn't mean it doesn't say what it says. Though that's just the way I see, and there is a lot of disagreement continuing. I think the Supremes have a 2d Amend. case in this term; I haven't been following it. Marek ++ the DC gun ban was struck down by a local court and is now on appeal however, seeing the serious implications of a ruling either way, they might just make a ruling only to apply in DC.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 'Government' in the Constitution (and particularly in the Declaration of Independence) is to be feared for its inevitable inclination to Tyranny, and necessarily then, harnessed and fettered by the laws of the new republic. It was assumed that eventually any government will go bad and the ability to resist your own government (gone bad) by force of arms was understood to be one of the last resorts to Tyranny. There's absolutely *ZERO* possibility of any 'militia' being capable of successfully resisting the weaponry and manpower of the US military. ++ the military is sworn to uphold the constitution and, obviously, the government hasn't been. Then why do you need a 'militia' if you trust the US Military to uphold the constitution? And how do you expect a 'militia' to stand up the the US Military if it doesn't? snip Get realistic. Without the US Military, the US would have been no match for the Japanese military. I don't know if the Japaneese or German war machine was larger but the German takeover in Europe bypassed Switzerland which is a relatively small country where I believe, at the time, it was mandatory that all citizens be armed. It seems to be a positive factor as they haven't had any sign of a war in their country since before America was discovered.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's absolutely *ZERO* possibility of any 'militia' being capable of successfully resisting the weaponry and manpower of the US military. Well, the Iraquis have been doing a bang-up job of pretending otherwise...
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
Ruth wrote: It isn't like people are going to lose their will to work if they get health care paid for by tax dollars. They might if they don't need any health care or if they are forced to buy government health care when they don't need it. Why should young people be forced to pay for the health care of older people? It doesn't make any sense. It's a crazy ponzi scheme just like Social Security. There is an analogy between the compulsory aspects of the candidates' health care proposals and Social Security. A young man or woman would be crazy to participate in the Social Security system if he or she had any choice. If anyone saved 12.4% of his earnings over a lifetime, he would not only have far more money in retirement than Social Security can provide, it would, equally important, be his money, to invest and dispose of as he sees fit. But the government needs young people's money to support their grandparents' retirements, so Social Security is forced upon them. The same thing, in essence, will happen with health care if any comprehensive reform plan is adopted. Read more: 'Forcing Young People Into the System' Posted by John Hinderaker: Powerline, February 3, 2008 http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/02/019711.php
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ruth wrote: It isn't like people are going to lose their will to work if they get health care paid for by tax dollars. They might if they don't need any health care or if they are forced to buy government health care when they don't need it. Why should young people be forced to pay for the health care of older people? It doesn't make any sense. It's a crazy ponzi scheme just like Social Security. There is an analogy between the compulsory aspects of the candidates' health care proposals and Social Security. A young man or woman would be crazy to participate in the Social Security system if he or she had any choice. If anyone saved 12.4% of his earnings over a lifetime, he would not only have far more money in retirement than Social Security can provide, it would, equally important, be his money, to invest and dispose of as he sees fit. But the government needs young people's money to support their grandparents' retirements, so Social Security is forced upon them. The same thing, in essence, will happen with health care if any comprehensive reform plan is adopted. snip Hard to know what to think about the SS figures- it looks like a chain letter really but some of the figures are curious. When I started working, I was making a little over 100 a week(quite a while back) now, on SS I receive bout 250 a week but the money has lost so much value that it is the equivalent of nearer 25 so is it coming out even? 5.00 used to more than fill anyones gas tank where now 50.00 will hardly do it- money has really depreciated.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: snip A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 'Government' in the Constitution (and particularly in the Declaration of Independence) is to be feared for its inevitable inclination to Tyranny, and necessarily then, harnessed and fettered by the laws of the new republic. It was assumed that eventually any government will go bad and the ability to resist your own government (gone bad) by force of arms was understood to be one of the last resorts to Tyranny. There's absolutely *ZERO* possibility of any 'militia' being capable of successfully resisting the weaponry and manpower of the US military. ++ the military is sworn to uphold the constitution and, obviously, the government hasn't been. Then why do you need a 'militia' if you trust the US Military to uphold the constitution? And how do you expect a 'militia' to stand up the the US Military if it doesn't? snip Get realistic. Without the US Military, the US would have been no match for the Japanese military. I don't know if the Japaneese or German war machine was larger but the German takeover in Europe bypassed Switzerland which is a relatively small country where I believe, at the time, it was mandatory that all citizens be armed. It seems to be a positive factor as they haven't had any sign of a war in their country since before America was discovered. Unlike the USA, Switzerland has tended to stay the hell out of other countries politically and militarily.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Nelson nelsonriddle2001@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: snip Unlike the USA, Switzerland has tended to stay the hell out of other countries politically and militarily. That is a good point and, America would do well to see the connection. However, I doubt that was the deciding factor in Hitler's plan to take over everything.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Nelson nelsonriddle2001@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote: snip Unlike the USA, Switzerland has tended to stay the hell out of other countries politically and militarily. That is a good point and, America would do well to see the connection. However, I doubt that was the deciding factor in Hitler's plan to take over everything. And I doubt it was because a lot of the population had guns. Even if they did, they couldn't prevent the German military from occupying the country.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ruth, excellent response and post. I disagree only with your 2d Amend. analysis. Gun ownership by the individual is fundamental to this country; in the last few years many constitutional experts have examined the 2d Amend. and construed it to guarantee rights to the individual, rather than the government militia. In my read that's exactly what it states. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. And where are the militias who bear arms to protect the security of their states?
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ruth wrote: It isn't like people are going to lose their will to work if they get health care paid for by tax dollars. They might if they don't need any health care or if they are forced to buy government health care when they don't need it. Why should young people be forced to pay for the health care of older people? It doesn't make any sense. It's a crazy ponzi scheme just like Social Security. There is an analogy between the compulsory aspects of the candidates' health care proposals and Social Security. A young man or woman would be crazy to participate in the Social Security system if he or she had any choice. If anyone saved 12.4% of his earnings over a lifetime, he would not only have far more money in retirement than Social Security can provide, it would, equally important, be his money, to invest and dispose of as he sees fit. But the government needs young people's money to support their grandparents' retirements, so Social Security is forced upon them. The same thing, in essence, will happen with health care if any comprehensive reform plan is adopted. I can't answer you in a sound bite, but . . . . So, you would rather have 47 million people uninsured? And it isn't the old people that are uninsured, it a mix of people. For example, young people with jobs that don't offer insurance or the insurance costs too much. They feel bullet proof and go without. Some will have accidents. Some will get cancer. They are screwed. Some will get treated anyway, but because they are judgment proof the health care providers eat the cost and pass it along to everyone else. The problem is that people can't say they don't need health insurance because they are healthy. Health is not something that is a matter of personal control. Sure you can live a healthy life, but you still can get cancer, be born with diabetes or other chronic illness, or have an accident. I personally have seen far too many of those young healthy people who suddenly are not healthy any more and cannot get health insurance at any price. The fastest growing demographic of uninsured are families making between $50,000 and $75,000 a year. In large part, the reason for this growth is that small employers (with less than 100 employees) are less and less frequently offering health insurance. Here are some numbers for ya: 1.The number of uninsured is increasing. Current Census estimates show that, in 2005, 44.8 million people, 15.3 percent of the population, were without health insurance. (This is a drop from earlier Census estimates of 46 million however, recent estimate are showing about 47 million.) The Census only counted people who were uninsured for at least an entire year. 2. A 2004 study from Families USA found that 81.8 million lacked health insurance at some point in 2002 and 2003 and most were uninsured for more than 9 months. Adding to these numbers, the Commonwealth Fund has found 16 million adults were under-insured in 2003. 3. About 20% of the uninsured are children according to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The foundation found that about 70% of those children would be eligible for SCHIP or Medicaid, but parents often are unaware of the eligibility or daunted by the paperwork. There is no one out there advertising these programs. 4. Medicaid is administered by the states. States divide low income people into three groups: children, parents of children, and non-parent adults. In 40 of 50 states non-parent adults are not eligible for Medicaid at all, even if they do not have a penny to their name, unless they are fully and completely disabled. The remaining 10 states provide some coverage but it is very limited. Look at the Kaiser Family Foundation website, it reports a lot of this information about Medicaid. 5. In 14 states, more than 1/3 of non-elderly people had no health insurance for all or part of 2002 and 2003. Texas and California were the worst. 6. The National Academy of Sciences has found that lack of insurance causes about 18,000 unnecessary deaths a year. About 1400 is from undiagnosed high blood pressure. Chronic diseases and cancer do not get treated in the emergency room. Here is an interesting article on Houston's problem with one million uninsured and the inability for many to get treatment for cancer: http://www.click2houston.com/investi...14/detail.html http://www.click2houston.com/investigates/10935214/detail.html 7. From the 2004 Census, it appears that families with incomes between $50,000 and $75,000 is the fastest growing group of uninsured. Also, from the Kaiser 2005 employer health benefits survey, the percentage of employers offering insurance has decreased every year for the past six years, almost entirely in the small group market, with 40% of employers not offering any health insurance. Interestingly, 98% of employers which have 200+ employees offer health
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ruth, excellent response and post. I disagree only with your 2d Amend. analysis. Gun ownership by the individual is fundamental to this country; in the last few years many constitutional experts have examined the 2d Amend. and construed it to guarantee rights to the individual, rather than the government militia. In my read that's exactly what it states. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 'Government' in the Constitution (and particularly in the Declaration of Independence) is to be feared for its inevitable inclination to Tyranny, and necessarily then, harnessed and fettered by the laws of the new republic. It was assumed that eventually any government will go bad and the ability to resist your own government (gone bad) by force of arms was understood to be one of the last resorts to Tyranny. The fact that it sits uneasily with many modern sensibilities doesn't mean it doesn't say what it says. Though that's just the way I see, and there is a lot of disagreement continuing. I think the Supremes have a 2d Amend. case in this term; I haven't been following it. Marek Well, I didn't really give a second amendment analysis. I said it was awkwardly worded which has led to dispute. Yes, it says what it says, but what the heck is all that militia stuff about? (rhetorical question, you need not answer). And even if the right is an individual right, to what extent can government regulate that right? Various restrictions on gun ownership have been upheld by lower courts and most everyone agrees that some restrictions are going to be fine, even if the second amendment is an individual right. (Otherwise, people could go around carrying machine guns and hand grenades.) The case you likely are refering to is the Heller case, discussed in wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller This case involved an absolute ban on handguns. Given the current make up of the court, it wouldn't surprise me if the case was upheld. But then we will have flurry of cases trying to find the boundaries of regulation. Not really my issue either, and I have not followed the cases.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
In a message dated 2/3/08 6:00:05 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 7. From the 2004 Census, it appears that families with incomes between $50,000 and $75,000 is the fastest growing group of uninsured. Also, from the Kaiser 2005 employer health benefits survey, the percentage of employers offering insurance has decreased every year for the past six years, almost entirely in the small group market, with 40% of employers not offering any health insurance. Interestingly, 98% of employers which have 200+ employees offer health insurance. Her's one more number for you. About half of those 47 million uninsured people can afford to buy their own health insurance but choose not to because they know they can just show up at an emergency room and not be turned away. Mitt Romney in the presidential debate from the Reagan Library. **Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp00300025 48)
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/3/08 6:00:05 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 7. From the 2004 Census, it appears that families with incomes between $50,000 and $75,000 is the fastest growing group of uninsured. Also, from the Kaiser 2005 employer health benefits survey, the percentage of employers offering insurance has decreased every year for the past six years, almost entirely in the small group market, with 40% of employers not offering any health insurance. Interestingly, 98% of employers which have 200+ employees offer health insurance. Her's one more number for you. About half of those 47 million uninsured people can afford to buy their own health insurance but choose not to because they know they can just show up at an emergency room and not be turned away. Mitt Romney in the presidential debate from the Reagan Library. Not true. First, it is true that emergency rooms are required under federal law to treat emergencies to the point the person is stabilized. For example, they do not provide chemotherapy to cancer patients. They do not dispense drugs. Plus, the care is NOT free. If you can afford health insurance, you can bet that hospital emergency room is going to try to collect from you if you do not pay them. Hospitals frequently garnish people's wages for unpaid health care. I once had a person testify in a state legislative body about how she got ill and ended up in the hospital. She was 21 and without insurance. The bill went unpaid. The collection agency the hospital hired to get their money told her that is she wasn't going to pay her bills it would have been better if she died. I can give you many many more such stories. The second untruth is that there are no good figures on how many of the uninsured can actually afford insurance. The problem is that the insurance market is so fragmented that one person in one place might be able to afford insurance, but in another place cannot. Plus, if that person has preexisiting conditions, they very well may preclude that person from buying insurance at all, even if they can afford it. Take a family earning $50,000 a year. The employer drops health insurance. The family goes to buy on the individual market. Some family members get turned down. Dad has high cholesterol and high bp, both controlled with drugs. He still probably will get turned down. One of the kids has asthma--might get turned down. Mom had a hysterectomy a few years ago, she gets turned down. Maybe they can buy on a risk pool or get a HIPAA plan. Depending on the state, each family member might have to buy their own plan. The cost can be in the thousands a month. They seem like middle income people but they can't afford insurance. Be careful when you listen to the candidates talk about this stuff. I know the market and I know health insurance. They do not. They get stuff third and forth hand and put their own spin on what they learn and cherry pick facts. The health care problem in the US is a big, messy problem with many facets. Don't minimize it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
In a message dated 2/3/08 11:52:01 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Higher taxes: This doesn't have anything to do with your party affiliation. If you spend a lot, generally taxes have to go up. The republicans have been spending a lot of late, but have not touched the taxes. If they go up under the dems, it could be because we have to pay for the prior republican spending. Democrats attack religious freedom or political speech? Ha! Show me. Don't forget that the federal government is not allowed to support a particular religion or any religion. I agree Republicans have lost their way when it comes to fiscal policy, spending like drunken sailors and they paid the price for this in the last election. However in a growing economy all that is necessary to eliminate deficit spending is hold the line on spending and the revenues will grow into the budget. So a tax hike is not necessary. Regarding religious and political free speech, the Democrats would have a tuff time passing legislation on these issues so they get their judges to legislate from the bench. Let's look at the most obvious and first instance in my life time that I'm aware of. Everybody knows education is a states responsibility and school prayer was common up until the early sixties but the USSC ruled it could not be done. Some excuse of a separation of church and state which is no where in the constitution but found in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Ct. Baptists assuring them the Federal government would not establish an official Church of State. However, the first amendment does guarantee that the government shall not establish a state religion NOR prohibit the FREE exercise there of. So if some federal judge is telling people where and when they can or can not pray that is prohibiting the free exercise there of claus, especially if it is the will of the people in that school district to begin the day that way. How about free speech? Lets look at McCain/ Feingold for example. Ah Yes, but you say McCain is a Republican and it had bipartisan support. McCAin is not called a RINO for nothing and it was the Democrats that really pushed the issue of restricting free political speech through this bill that Bush so unwisely signed into law.So lets look at another , the Fairness Doctrine which democrats first imposed on the FCC and want to bring back so they can force Talk Radio to present their sides to any argument which most talk radio listeners don't want to even listen to. **Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp00300025 48)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
In a message dated 2/3/08 6:46:12 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Be careful when you listen to the candidates talk about this stuff. I know the market and I know health insurance. They do not. They get stuff third and forth hand and put their own spin on what they learn and cherry pick facts. The health care problem in the US is a big, messy problem with many facets. Don't minimize it. I think Mitt Romney probably is in a better place to know more than you since he helped develop a health care program for his state. **Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp00300025 48)
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavismarek@ wrote: Ruth, excellent response and post. I disagree only with your 2d Amend. analysis. Gun ownership by the individual is fundamental to this country; in the last few years many constitutional experts have examined the 2d Amend. and construed it to guarantee rights to the individual, rather than the government militia. In my read that's exactly what it states. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. And where are the militias who bear arms to protect the security of their states? They are on the southern border war zone- should be hearing something from there soon.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/3/08 6:46:12 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Be careful when you listen to the candidates talk about this stuff. I know the market and I know health insurance. They do not. They get stuff third and forth hand and put their own spin on what they learn and cherry pick facts. The health care problem in the US is a big, messy problem with many facets. Don't minimize it. I think Mitt Romney probably is in a better place to know more than you since he helped develop a health care program for his state. Well, you don't know my bona fides, so fair enough. But I trust that you know that Romney himself did not develop the Mass. plan and the odds of him reading all the dang census bureau reports and other research is about nill. (FWIW, I do know more about health insurance than Romney :))
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snipRegarding religious and political free speech, the Democrats would have a tuff time passing legislation on these issues so they get their judges to legislate from the bench. Let's look at the most obvious and first instance in my life time that I'm aware of. Everybody knows education is a states responsibility and school prayer was common up until the early sixties but the USSC ruled it could not be done. Some excuse of a separation of church and state which is no where in the constitution but found in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Ct. Baptists assuring them the Federal government would not establish an official Church of State. However, the first amendment does guarantee that the government shall not establish a state religion NOR prohibit the FREE exercise there of. So if some federal judge is telling people where and when they can or can not pray that is prohibiting the free exercise there of claus, especially if it is the will of the people in that school district to begin the day that way. So you blame the democrats for abolishing formalized school prayer? Why thank you. :) The 1963 joint decisions on school prayer had ONE dissent. Interestingly, the cases, as are so often true, were more about the power of the federal constitution versus the power of the states. There was a long history going back probably 100 years that the federal government was to remain neutral on religious questions and do nothing to promote a religion. Some of the current justices, like Thomas, would say that if a state wanted school prayer that would be fine, it is not the federal government's business. My bet Thomas would go so far as saying that if a state wanted to establish a state religion, it could do so. Me, I believe in the right of the individual to be free from state or federal coerced religious practice. A good, solid liberal position.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nelson Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 8:12 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA' A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. And where are the militias who bear arms to protect the security of their states? They are on the southern border war zone- should be hearing something from there soon. The Mexican border is a war zone? The folks wading the Rio Grande or climbing the fence are armed and need to be engaged in a gun battle? No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.19/1257 - Release Date: 2/3/2008 5:49 PM
