Loading ...
THE Gun Toting Liberal Reaches Out To His Fellow Commentators -Slash- Co-Bloggers And Readers To Furnish Their Opinions On Any Of The Above, Below, Or Anything Else Political One Wishes To O-Pine On…
Wow, my apologies to our readers — I just realized this is the first open thread opportunity of the month of October and obviously, they’re pretty popular since our last one on September 9th garnered 136 comments. Oh well, here we go with another chance for everybody to have their say…
According to The Washington Post‘s Chris Cillizza’s “The Fix” blog, a new Washington Post/ABC News poll, “The Party Of YES! (as in Yes, We Will Say NO!)” says a whopping 75% of American voters lack confidence in the ability of G.O.P. members to make rational legislative decisions. Don’t pop those champaign corks just yet, my Republican friends — there is still obviously some heavy duty work left to be done before you even become “relevant” again.
ABC News‘ Jake Tapper of the “Political Punch” blog, attempts to hit President Obama’s White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs between the eyes in a direct Q & A published at his blog. Gibbs sticks to his guns on this controversial issue we addressed just a couple of days ago right here at The GTL™. The torqued off and offended folks tend to protect The FNC gang using the 1st Amendment argument. Well, the president has the same Creator-granted Civil Liberty as well and the “Oh So Offended” have the right not to vote for him in the next presidential election oppotunity in 2012 if they don’t like his opinion, correct?
Read it and weep, or read it and cheer; whatever your stance might be on ObamaCare. The Washington Post (again) is reporting yet another Washington Post-ABC News poll says the vast majority of Americans now favor a public healthcare option for the uninsured. Of course, this poll could partially explain why “The Party Of Yes, We Shall Say NO!” is so unpopular these days, ya’ think? Can we say “out of touch”? I can, and I mean out of touch with Ms. Sarah Palin’s “Mainstreet U.S.A.”, too — or the pollsters wouldn’t be coming with lopsided numbers like this. “Fuzzy math”? I’m sure we’re going to hear some of that in the comments section of this column but we shall see…
Annnnnnd, now it’s YOUR turn. Back to you, my friends.
***
“…a whopping 75% of American voters lack confidence in the ability of G.O.P. members to make rational legislative decisions”
That might have something to do with the fact that more than 30 of them voted AGAINST victims of gang rape for the sole reason of being opposed to a Democrat. (Note to the far right: I understand partisanship and politics, but there are some things that are no-brainers in that you don’t vote against them simply just to be against the other party.)
@Alabama Moderate,
OK, “voted against victims of gang rape”? What the hell are you talking about? Maybe they were voting against a talking head grandstanding by using an emotionally laden incident to push his own agenda. Maybe they thought that the amendment had no place in that bill. Maybe they though that there were other means to deal with the issue.
Are you saying that all laws that are based on emotion should be passed by acclimation? Got news for you – that POS USA-PATRIOT Act was passed on emotionalism just as strong as the emotionalism of that amendment.
Are the contracts and conditions that led to the attack on and abuse of Ms. Jones and others a matter of concern? Yes. But address it without the grandstanding and pathos. Address it with logic.
Franken should be ashamed of himself for covering himself with her suffering, and callously exploiting her for political advantage.
@Joe Lovell, Give me one good reason it shouldn’t have been passed. And I’m talking about tangible reasons that were actually of substance in the amendment– not made up, vague answers. The reason why it was attached to a defense appropriations bill is because it the bill was dealing with payments to similar contractors AND the amendment was also pertaining to those same contractors.
Is there any good reason why a company– ANY company– should be allowed to have such an arbitration clause in their contract? How exactly do you believe that addressing such issues by passing legislation that pulls their funding for behaving in such a manner “illogical”? Or are you just using blanket statements? The blanket statements are EXACTLY the problem. There was nothing inappropriate in the amendment. It didn’t even make the arbitration agreements illegal. It merely said that the U.S. government wouldn’t fund/hire contractors if they had such agreements in their employment contracts– which is PRECISELY the job of Congress.
And weren’t we just addressing ACORN for similar things, or is it just that if they’re defense contractors they should be exempt from such standards?
@Alabama Moderate, Well, you could argue that since the courts had already ruled that Ms. Jones was not bound by that clause and could seek remedy in the courts, and that Halliburton could not enforce arbitration on her ccharges of assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring, retention and supervision of employees involved in the assault, and false imprisonment, it was soley punitive, that Frankens cloaking it as something to prevent rape or to bring rapists to justice was misplaced and misleading.
And by the official Statement of Purpose : “AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims. ” in which certaim companies are singled out, it is discriminatory and/or defamatory. A blatent slap at a company whose real crime was having employed Mr. Cheney.
I have no real problem with the text of the amendment: “Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.” I see no real benefit from it, but is the Federal government wants to punish companies for their employee contracts, contracts freely entered into by the way, so be it.
But to say that those who didn’t see a need for the amendment and voted against it, or who saw it as a blatant move to punish a company that the left holds up as the left arm of Satan incarnate and so voted against it, as somehow voting against the victims of rape, and almost implying that they were there applauding and holding her down, is reprehensable.
So, I guess, given your logic – and that of just about every leftist blog, site, and newsgroup – what I posted below about the NAMBLA supporter that the former junior senator from IL has hired as our “Safe Schools Czar” proves that the current admisistraion is in favor of homosexual paedophiles, right?
@Joe Lovell,
Joe, as dispiccable as NAMBLA is, I’m surpised you don’t support their right to exist as an organization and to make their disgusting arguments under the protection of our 1st Amendment Civil Liberty to spout offensive speech, which is what the whole “anti-NAMBLA” thing is all about — the blatant CENSORSHIP of unpopular speech. Or, more likely, you are on their side on this issue and are simply exercizing your own 1st Amendment Civil Liberty to blast the organization’s (lack of) moral values and immoral cause as do I. Is this assumption correct? If it isn’t, frankly, I’d be totally surprised that a Constitutional Constructionalist such as yourself would take an anti-1st stance on the NAMBLA issue?
Obviously, I’m very interested in your response, my friend
@The GTL™, well, what is NAMBLA about? Promoting sex with underage people. Is that, having sex with those under the age of consent, legal? No. So, in my opinion, NAMBLA is using 1st Amendment protection of freedome of speech to shield what amounts to conspiracy to commit statutory rape. Does the 1st Amendment apply to criminal conspiracy? I don’t think it does. And that is what the whole “anti-NAMBLA” thing is all about” – the very strong suspicion, just short of actionable, that that group is a network for paedophiles to trade tips on how to lure young boys into being sex toys for adult males, and possibly to pass boys around to be abused by those adult males. No more an infringement on the 1st Amendment than the shutting down of websites that hypothetically talk about killing a president.
Nambla states its official policy very carefully to avoid being seen as advocating anything illegal, but with its push to remove all AoC laws, it is pretty clear what their intent is.
You wrote: ” Or, more likely, you are on their side on this issue and are simply exercizing your own 1st Amendment Civil Liberty to blast the organization’s …”
I’m not quite sure who the “their” refers to in that. I can’t tell from your phrasing. I am hoping that there is a typo somewhere in there.
Are you suggesting that I support NAMBLA and its quest to legalize pederasty and paedophelia? That I might think that sex between an adult male and a toddler is in any way acceptable?
@Joe Lovell, Sorry for that vague quote — I was ONLY referring to their 1st Amendment Civil Liberty to spout extremely offensive speech.
Here’s where I am on the issue. I’m as much if not more reluctant to give our government ANY stamp of approval on tinkering with our 1st Amendment as I am our 2nd Amendment. I’m REPULSED by NAMBLA — let there be NO DOUBT!!! I believe the feds should indeed be keeping the key figures under surveillance if there is any evidence whatsoever they are participating in or inciting others to commit heinous crimes. Correct me if I’m wrong but these DWEEBS are simply organized in a futile (thank GOD!) effort to overturn current laws and statutes as applicable to their DISGUSTING movement?
That being the case, their disclaimer of which you speak better DAMNED well hold up in court. I’ve got both a commenting policy and a disclaimer of my own and I’d better DAMNED well not be held responsible personally for some of the (borderline?) comments and columns where it could be argued there is some degree of slander being leveled amongst and between certain parties (just for an example).
Perhaps I simply have a different perspective on the matter because a loss for NAMBLA is a loss for all of us who launch interactive sites and/or send out mailers. A new precedent will be set opening the door of making myself and other bloggers responsible for the words and deeds should they be deemed illegal, committed by others.
I hope this clarifies my position. My defense of these creeps’ 1st Amendment Civil Liberties is NOT to be construed as a “thumbs up” to such deviant and immoral behavior to which they refer. As long as their offensive speech can be countered by common sense spoken and/or written attacks, let them continue to fester in their lonesome, tiny, and DISGUSTING little world.
@The GTL™, OK,we seem to be exactly on the same page, same paragraph.
I recall hearing a mouthpiece for them on one of the talk shows in the late 70s (Phil Donahue maybe?) who was saying that even toddlers should be allowed the “choice” to have sex with adults. And that it was actually good for them, especailly young boys with adult males (can’t really call them men). Now, if they are openly saying things like that on broadcast TV, what are they saying behind closed doors?
But, they are coached most carefully in what to say and how to say it. Right on that thin edger of legality. One word different and it would change from ‘legitimate political advocacy’ to ‘conspiracy to commit statutory rape.’
@Joe Lovell, AMEN, bro… hopefully, these NAMBLA ASSES will keep on shooting their mouths off to the point they are rendered “irrelevant” by their own propeganda. No need here for “gub’mint” involvement with our 1st Amendment… these jackasses are using their 1st Amendment Civil Liberty to bury themselves in the court of Public Opinion and they shall REMAIN “irrelevant” without any censorchsip needed….
@Alabama Moderate,
You really should change your name AM. Your not a moderate. Your into GOP bashing. Perhaps Alabama GOP Basher would be a better name for ya.
The amendment in question has an unwritten rule that you do not promote social issues in defense spending and procurement issues.
Did the bill pass? Yes. Voting No is seen as nothing more then a protest vote against once again a democratically controlled government pissing on tradition to ram thru any thing they want.
Ted Kennedy voted against going to war with Iraq and yet he is standing on the Capitol Hill steps nodding in agreement when several senators of both parties issued a statement that they had seen the evidence and that “Its time for the rule of Saddam Hussein to end.”
His vote was symbolic. Its a tradition as old as government to cast protest votes on a bill that is going to pass.
@Alabama Moderate, I went through this with Kaye in another post, so I’ll just re-cap. The republicans did not vote against victims of gang rape in any way, manner, or form, and you know that as well as everyone else here does.
The most troubling part is how the left refuses to see the bill for what it will really cause. More money for the lawyers, and they will be the only ones who win in the end.
The worst part is, you democrats don’t even realize what your party did to you with this legislation.
Now you get to fight – your lawyer against the corporations lawyers – instead of using an arbiter.
As I said before, employees win more cases that go to arbitration than they do in court.
“Reporting from Washington – The Obama administration on Monday told federal authorities not to arrest or prosecute medical marijuana users and suppliers who aren’t violating local laws, paving the way for some states to allow dispensaries to provide the drug as relief for some maladies.”
Some are hailing this as a triumph for States Rights.
I would say more about the money and pandering to a large part of his base than states rights. I don’t think anyone in or connected to the White House gives a fart in a tornado about states rights.
Holders wording, and the timeing of this, make me suspect that this administration is looking to weaken the 14th Amendment. The anti-civil rights crowd lost in Heller. Now, with the USSC taking the McDonald case, and with the 9th Circuit (the most left leaning court in our Republic) ruling in Nordyke (decision from the en banc rehearing held until after SCOTUS rules on McDonald), they may be afraid that all of the Bill of Rights will be incorporated against the states.
I’ve never understood how that worked. Why does there have to be a ruling on every amendment? The 14th Amendment says “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ” At the time the amendment was written, this was seen as extending the rights, such as freedom of speech or freedom from unreasonable searches, to protect citizens against state and local officials. If it applies to one, it should apply to all. Contrarywise, if one protectection of the BoR may be abridged by the states, then all may be. Of course, it also does NOT say “rights” but rather “privileges or immunities.” And the BoR deals with curbing government restriction of rights, not privileges or immunities.
Well, let’s do another emotion-laden post here:
“SAFE SCHOOLS” CZAR PRAISES NAMBLA SUPPORTER.
That’s right folks, the man who is in charge of keeping our kids safe thinks supporting NAMBLA is just fine.
Not only that, he decided that it was OK for him to not follow the law and did not report to authorities that a FIFTEEN YEAR OLD was having sex with an older man. Yep. Decided it wasn’t his business, so he effectilvy gave shelter to a paedophile.
(Hey, posting blatanly emontional stuff like this is FUN! No wonder the Dems and other leftists do it so often.)
@Joe Lovell, While I had no problem with Franken’s amendment, in fact, it sounded good to me, you make an excellent point about the Safe Schools Czar, I guess some people who condemn Republicans for being in favor of rape in one case are the same who are ok with it in another.
@Mike 300 Spartans,thank you. As you maybe can tell, the way AM (and many others) spin that vote, damn near making it sound like they held her down while she was raped, kind of sets me off.
@Joe Lovell, And the difference being that you’re comparing apples to oranges. If you’ll remember correctly, everyone (including Dems) came down on ACORN. Remember that outrage over a fictional crime? Short memory.
Wheras in this case, you’re referring to the actions of one or a few individuals rather than the acting policy of an entire organization. To be honest, I haven’t even heard of the incident you’re referring to.
@Joe Lovell, And now I know why I haven’t heard it on the news. It’s not true:
http://mediamattersaction.org/smears/200910020003
I think that might explain the lack of outrage. On the other hand, I can see how twisting some vague connection into something it’s not might be somewhat similar to an actually GANG RAPE that really happened. I can understand how that might be confusing.
@Alabama Moderate, Jennings says he is inspired by the man who said”
“[I]f the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world.”
Now, admittedly he does not say that it was those words that inspire him. But he does say that he is inspired by his activism. And part of that activism was trying to get NAMBLA accepted by the GLBT community. Part of that activism was marching in a Pride parade holding a sign “NAMBLA Walks With Me.”
And, Jennings did not report to authorities the what that (underage) 15 year old boy said about having sex with an adult male.
So, yes, jennings didn’t say the he was inspired by the support that Hay gave to NAMBLA. He was just inspired by the activism, which just by happenstance gave support to NAMBLA. Nice splitting of hairs.
By the say, Mediamatters is about as unbiased as HuffPo or MoveOn.
Top priority with We the People.
Can you guess? Is it the ‘healt care crisis’? Nope.
Is it Iraq? Nope.
Oh, then it MUST be Global Warming…um, I mean Climate Change, right? WRONG
It’s the ECONOMY (stupid). http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2009/10/20/hey-washington-its-still-the-economy/
Yeppers, a whopping 45% seem to think that getting the old economy back on its feet beats out everything else. But hey, health care and global warming gotta be right up there, eh? Ummm…..no.
–45 percent consider the economy the most important issue in deciding their vote.
–21 percent chose government spending.
–20 percent picked a U.S. healthcare overhaul.
–9 percent chose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as their big issues.
–4 percent picked climate change.
Geez – only TWENTY PERCENT think health care is THE issue. And, looky there – a whole FOUR PERCENT think climate change is a big deal.
By the by, the former ACORN workers approval rating is close to 50%. That is down by close to a third isn’t it?
Hey GTL, while you gave props yesterday to the photo shop skill of another site (well earned I might add), I have to give you credit for your own photo shop skills on this post, sticking your head on that buff body to make it look like yours. Did you cut and paste the tattoos on the photo too? (Ok, I admit, I’m just pandering, but well it seemed more fun than trying to dispute with people that try to sell perpetual motion machines. Have they been on the “Coast to Coast” radio show yet?)
@Mike 300 Spartans, LMFAO Mike — no, it’s really MOI and those are really my tatts and that’s really my head on that body without photoshop skills. That dry eraser board on the other hand — totally photoshopped bro
“Nearly seven in 10 say they think that any health-care measure would increase the federal budget deficit, a possible concern for Obama,” it also says. “But nearly half of those who see the legislation as growing the deficit also say the increase would be ‘worth it.’”
I can only shake my head at this as I stand in line at the local Subway and watch the kids ahead of me paying for their 5 dollar foot long with a credit card.
@GawdDayumAmerica, credit card or debit card?
Here’s a real good one: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/20/justice-dept-blocks-ncs-nonpartisan-vote/?feat=article_top10_commented&
USDOJ Sez Blacks Too Stupid To Pick Candidates
KINSTON, N.C. | Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.
The Justice Department’s ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their “candidates of choice” – identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.
———————————————————
The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters’ right to elect the candidates they want.
———————————————————–
The decision, made by the same Justice official who ordered the dismissal of a voting rights case against members of the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia, has irritated other locals as well. They bristle at federal interference in this city of nearly 23,000 people, two-thirds of whom are black.
——————————————————-
“Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office,” Loretta King, who at the time was the acting head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, wrote in a letter to the city.
Ms. King wrote that voters in Kinston vote more along racial than party lines and without the potential for voting a straight Democratic ticket, “the limited remaining support from white voters for a black Democratic candidate will diminish even more.”
============================================================================================================================================
MY COMMENTS:
So, according to the US DOJ blacks are too stupid and too lazy to bother to find out anything about the candidates. And this comes from a DOJ headed by a black man and operating under a black president. How about we require that photos of the candidates appear on the ballot, maybe without names. That way they can just vote for the blacks.
Yep, the Cult of Victimhood lives on.
Can you imagine if they had said that they need the party listed so whites could identify GOP candidates?
@Joe Lovell, As sick and retarded as the DOJ’s ruling is, their stated logic (which IMO is completely illogical) is to get white voters to vote for black candidates, it has, according to the reasons stated, nothing to do with black voters. Still, it is just infuriating to see the DOJ trying to promote one party over another.
@Mike 300 Spartans, are you sure? See: “The Justice Department’s ruling,…, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their “candidates of choice” – BLACK voters.
And: “that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party. ” – Black voters.
@Joe Lovell, I think we are in a quandary of trying to make sense of nonsense, but I’m keying in on this part:”The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid..” I take this to mean that the DOJ is saying the party labels are necessary to get whites to vote for blacks, because if the whites would refuse to vote for any black candidate, that would skewer the results so much that the blacks, who are in the majority in that town, still wouldn’t get the candidate that they wanted. If the black vote split between A and B was 55% to 45% for Joe over Jack, but the white vote did a block vote for Jack, then Jack would win, and the Black’s choice (a majority within the majority population) would be nullified by the unity of the white vote. Thus, label the candidates in a way that breaks up the white vote. Crazy, but that’s how I read it.
@Mike 300 Spartans, I don’know, Mike. When you have a statement like this: “Justice Department spokesman Alejandro Miyar denied that the decision was intended to help the Democratic Party. He said the ruling was based on “what the facts are in a particular jurisdiction” and how it affects blacks’ ability to elect the candidates they favor.”
I find it real hard to see it as having anything to do with whites. The racial makeup of the city was 35.27% White, 62.64% African American. So the white vote is pretty much a non-issue.
Or should be. It seems that the REAL problem is that blacks there don’t get out and vote:
“Ms. King’s letter in the Kinston case states that because of the low turnout black voters must be “viewed as a minority for analytical purposes,” and that “minority turnout is relevant” to determining whether the Justice Department should be allowed a change to election protocol.
Black voters account for 9,702 of the city’s 15,402 registered voters but typically don’t vote at the rates whites do.
As a result of the low turnout, Ms. King wrote, “black voters have had limited success in electing candidates of choice during recent municipal elections.”
So, about 2/3 of the population of the city is black. About 2/3 of the registered voters are black. But blacks have “limited success in electing candidates of choice during recent municipal elections.” I do like that phrase that keeps popping up “electing candidates of choice.” How the hell does the DOJ know that they didn’t elect the “candidates of choice” to the various offices? Is it because there are not enough blacks, according to USDOJ, on the city council? Could it maybe be that some of the blacks voted for whites because they thought the white candidates were more qualified? Nah…can’t be that.
But, it seems that it really won’t matter to the Dems there anyway: “Others noted the absurdity of partisan elections since Kinston is essentially a one-party city anyway; no one among more than a half-dozen city officials and local residents was able to recall a Republican winning office here.”
Now, maybe I’m kind of stupid, but this seems to be all about colour. I thought that law and politics was supposed to be blind to that. That character was more important than colour. Even if this decision is as Mike says, and to get whites to vote for blacks, it is STILL all about colour. And that, my friends is by definition racism.
@Joe Lovell, I’m agreeing with you on the conclusion. IMO it is very racist, the logic used extremely prejudicial.
Beautiful HEATHER GRAHAM supports the Public Option http://bit.ly/12sRYD
Why A Strong Public Option Is Essential – By jacksmith – Working Class
Robert Reich explains the pubic option: http://bit.ly/dDYSJ http://bit.ly/SAQ7a
Hollywood Supports The Public Option
http://bit.ly/3XLwPi
It’s not just because more than two thirds of the American people want a single payer health care system. And if they cant have a single payer system 77% of all Americans want a strong government-run public option on day one (86% of democrats, 75% of independents, and 72% republicans). Basically everyone.
It’s not just because according to a new AARP POLL: 86 percent of seniors want universal healthcare security for All, including 93% of Democrats, 87% of Independents, and 78% of Republicans. With 79% of seniors supporting creating a new strong Government-run public option plan, available immediately. Including 89% of Democrats, 80% of Independents, and 61% of Republicans, STUNNING!!
It’s not just because it will lower cost. Because a strong public option will dramatically lower cost for everyone. And dramatically improved the quality of care everyone receives in America and around the World. Rich, middle class, and poor a like.
It’s not just because it will save trillions of dollars and prevent the needless deaths of millions more of YOU, caused by a rush to profit by the DISGRACEFUL, GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX!
It’s not just because every expert in every field, including economist, and Nobel laureates all agree that free market based healthcare systems don’t work. Never have and never will. The US has the only truly free market based healthcare system in the World. And as you all know now, IT IS A DISASTER!
It’s not just because providing or denying medically necessary care for profit motivations is wrong. Because it is WRONG! It’s professionally, ethically, and morally REPUGNANT!, Animalistic, VILE and EVIL.
THE REASON THE PUBLIC OPTION IS ESSENTIAL:
The public option is ESSENTIAL because over 200 million of you are trapped in the forest of the wolves. Which is the forest of the DISGRACEFUL, GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX! With no way out except through needless inhumane suffering, and DEATH. While the wolves tear at your flesh, and rip you limb from lib. Then feast on your lifeless bodies like a dead carcase for transplant parts.
At the most vulnerable times of your lives (when you were sick and hurting), millions of you have had to fight and loose cruel, but heroic battles. Fighting against the big guns of the DISGRACEFUL, GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX! in the forest of the wolves. All because you have no place else to go. You have no other CHOICE!
But the PUBLIC OPTION will give you someplace safe to go. And it will give us someplace safe to take you. The public option will be your refugium (your refuge). Where the wolves cannot get at you when your down, hurting, and vulnerable. Where everyone who needs it can find rest, security, comfort and the care they need. Protected by the BIG GUNS of We The People Of The United States. THE MOST POWERFUL PEOPLE AND COUNTRY ON EARTH.
This is why it is so critical that we do not lead another 50 million vulnerable, uninsured Americans into the forest of the wolves, without the protections of a Strong Government-run MEDICARE like public option. We The People Of The United States MUST NOT LET THAT HAPPEN to any more of our fellow Americans. If healthcare reform does not contain a strong MEDICARE like public option on day one. YOU MUST! KILL IT. Or you will do far more harm than good. And millions more will die needlessly. Rich, middle class, and poor a like.
To those who would continue to obstruct good and true healthcare reform for the American people, and who seek to trap millions more vulnerable Americans in the forest of the wolves. We will continue to fight you. We are prepared to wage all out war against you, and will eagerly DESTROY! you. Time…is…UP! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! No Co-op’s! No Triggers! NO INDIVIDUAL MANDATES! without a Strong MEDICARE like public option on day one.
Healthcare reform can be the GREATEST! Accomplishment of our time and century. A time when future generations may say of us, that we were all, AMERICAS GREATEST GENERATIONS.
BUT WE MUST ACT!
I therefore call on all my fellow Americans and the peoples of the World. To join us in this fight so that we may finish becoming the better America that we aspire to be for everyone.
SPREAD THE WORD!
I have been privileged to be witness as many of you fought, and struggled to take your first breath, and your last breath on this earth. Rich, middle class, and poor a like. Life is precious.
Whatever the cost. WE! MUST SUCCEED.
God Bless You My Fellow Human Beings
jacksmith – Working Class
ATTENTION!! Congress Has The Votes Needed To Pass A Public Option – TODAY http://bit.ly/TCq7O
Things You Can Do To Help NOW! http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2009/09/tired_of_watching_people_die_n.html
A majority of voters would rather have a Democrats only bill with a Public Option. Than a bipartisan bill without a Public Option.
A state based insurance plan is NOT!! a Public Option. Nor is it a Strong, National, Medicare like Public Option.
No Triggers! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-rosenbaum/a-trigger-for-the-public_b_277910.html
Triggers http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/weve-seen-these-triggers_b_283583.html
Krugman on heathcare (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/)
Senator Bernie Sanders on healthcare (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSM8t_cLZgk&feature=player_embedded)
John Garamendi on the Public Option and the Grassroots: http://bit.ly/TJMty
Howard Dean on the Public Option http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SKfW2dUnow&feature=player_embedded
We’re Number 37! in quality of health care http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4&feature=player_embedded
Twitter search (#welovethenhs #NHS #hc09 #hcr #healthcar #obama #p2 #topprog #) Check it out.
I’m pressed for time so I’m going to let Ron Paul opine for me on this one with his Oct 19 Column.
http://www.house.gov/paul/
Have a great day everyone in GTL land!
Steve
Are you stimulated yet?
http://www.citizenlink.org/Stoplight/A000011274.cfm
@Joe Lovell, Nice one- Especially after a subject touching on racial demographics, I wonder what the demographics of purchasers of subsidized golf carts are.
@Mike 300 Spartans, Rough guess? About 110% over 50 and white. Of course, that has nothing to do with the US DOJ overturning the will of the people for racial reasons.
@Joe Lovell, You are right about it not being connected to the DOJ but it is just another example of how the Democrats with all their reputation of being for the poor and minorities, pass laws either unwittingly or by design that do little or no good for the very groups they supposedly advocate.
@Mike 300 Spartans, Ah! Bit on the ass by the Law of Unintended Consequences, you mean. Yeah. Kind of happens a lot when pathos and the percieved need to Do Something takes over.
Whether it be Twain, Wilde, or someone else altogether, I’d say that the old adage “Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel (or in this case bytes by the gigabyte)” might be wise advice.
What I find interesting is that thus far and in spite of the traditional actions of “join ranks” when under administrative fire, other news organizations haven’t yet figured out that they might also wind up in the line of fire should they step out of line.
Courtesy of the American Thinker (conservative blog), here is more information regarding GTL’s poll.
Actual wording of the question that had 57% support:
8. Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
—Notice the word “public option” is not there…hmmmm.
—Now check this out:
6. Overall, given what you know about them, would you say you support or oppose the proposed changes to the health care system being developed by (Congress) and (the Obama administration)? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
The results to that question are 48 percent net oppose to 45 percent net support. Forty-eight percent net oppose and 36 percent strongly oppose ObamaCare.
—So, in the same poll which the chearleading media hails the 57%, the overall Health reform plan(s) is OPPOSED 48-45.
Interesting…
@SJ, There is really nothing interesting at all in GTL’s spin of a poll. We can all do it.
Overall the American people are opposed to government run health care. The democrats must be careful in order to LIE to the American people. Deceive them. Abuse their trust. COOK the facts. Look at the Data and change it around a bit to support their case.
YOU KNOW……….LIKE THEY ACCUSED CHENEY OF DOING!!!
How GTL can support this is unfathomable given his outrage at Cheney and Bush but well this is the 21st century and even Independent Libertarians are still either Liberal or Conservative.
The facts are that if this was Bush and the GOP doing this sort of thing with anything……the Liberal press and blogsphere would be all over it like stink on sheet. Because its a liberal agenda……..they are busy digging up dirt on Glen Beck.
http://nationaljuggernaut.blogspot.com/2009/09/this-cartoon-seemed-far-fetched-in-1948.html
After watching that, think about which side of the aisle consistantly harps on race and class, constantly finding new ways to divide us and create more and mroe hyphenated Americans, and which side insists that we are all just plain Americans equally.
After seeing and hearing all the rhetoric coming from the democrats over the past few years, I have come to understand more than ever why some animals eat their young.