Saturday, October 16, 2010

Re: Obama to Let Insurers Raise Fees for Sick Children

When you can test a baby and find over two hundred chemicals in that
one baby, the majority of those chemicals being neurotoxins or
carcinogens, YES, EVERY taxpayer that votes in lawmakers that allow
this to happen, to innocent children should at least pay for the
childs medical bills.


If you dont like it, Than I would suggest you start electing people
that will fight environmental poisoning in American children.

As of right now, According to the CDC and American Pediatrics...One
out of six children in the U.S has some form of developmental
disorder, this does NOT include epidemics of children with Asthma,
cancer, diabetes, kidney diseases etc, etc...


And for the "scientist" on the forum that make the claim "The dose
makes the poison" That might be true if you only had one poison, add
in 200 and see what that does to a babies health!

On Oct 16, 2:40 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> My house burned down.  Will you sell me insurance NOW that will
> provide for its rebuild?
>
> Any idea WHY health care is expensive?
>
> Yeah, let's not 'punish' the families who have these children, INSTEAD,
> let's force everyone else to provide for them.
>
> Regard$,
> --MJ
>
> ...wonders how long it will be before Republicans are campaigning as
> defenders of Obamacare, just as they campaign now as defenders of the
> Department of Education and other programs they once pledged to
> abolish. -- Dan McCarthy
>
> At 02:22 PM 10/16/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>
> >They dont want to insure sick kids and will only use this as a loop-
> >hole charging more than the family can afford. Leaving the sick child
> >uninsured. Which will result in the family being fined?
>
> >More and more families with sick kids are thrown into the poverty
> >level, Because its VERY expensive having a chronically sick child.
> >There are many out of pocket cost that even with the best insurance
> >doesnt cover. Very sad that we cant take care of the needs of all
> >children in this country without punishing the family financially.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Obama to Let Insurers Raise Fees for Sick Children

My house burned down. Will you sell me insurance NOW that will
provide for its rebuild?

Any idea WHY health care is expensive?

Yeah, let's not 'punish' the families who have these children, INSTEAD,
let's force everyone else to provide for them.

Regard$,
--MJ

...wonders how long it will be before Republicans are campaigning as
defenders of Obamacare, just as they campaign now as defenders of the
Department of Education and other programs they once pledged to
abolish. -- Dan McCarthy

At 02:22 PM 10/16/2010, you wrote:
>They dont want to insure sick kids and will only use this as a loop-
>hole charging more than the family can afford. Leaving the sick child
>uninsured. Which will result in the family being fined?
>
>
>More and more families with sick kids are thrown into the poverty
>level, Because its VERY expensive having a chronically sick child.
>There are many out of pocket cost that even with the best insurance
>doesnt cover. Very sad that we cant take care of the needs of all
>children in this country without punishing the family financially.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Obama to Let Insurers Raise Fees for Sick Children

They dont want to insure sick kids and will only use this as a loop-
hole charging more than the family can afford. Leaving the sick child
uninsured. Which will result in the family being fined?


More and more families with sick kids are thrown into the poverty
level, Because its VERY expensive having a chronically sick child.
There are many out of pocket cost that even with the best insurance
doesnt cover. Very sad that we cant take care of the needs of all
children in this country without punishing the family financially.

On Oct 15, 12:10 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>     <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/author/scottystarnes/> Obama to Let
> Insurers Raise Fees for Sick
> Children<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/obama-to-let-insurers-r...>
> *Scotty Starnes
> <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/author/scottystarnes/>*| October
> 15, 2010 at 8:00 AM | Tags: Chief
> Actuary for The Center for Medicare and Medicaid
> Services<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/tag/chief-actuary-for-the-center-f...>,
> Democrats <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/tag/democrats/>, health care
> premiums <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/tag/health-care-premiums/>,
> Kathleen
> Sebelius <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/tag/kathleen-sebelius/>,
> Obamacare <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/tag/obamacare/>, President
> Obama <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/tag/president-obama/>, raise fees
> on sick children<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/tag/raise-fees-on-sick-children/>,
> Robert Foster <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/tag/robert-foster/> |
> Categories: Uncategorized<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized/>|
> URL:http://wp.me/pvnFC-353
>
> Now who is it again that continues to reward those so-called evil insurance
> companies? Obama potentially gave them 40+ million new clients along with
> higher insurance premiums and now he is allowing insurers to raise fees for
> sick children? More side effects from ObamaCare.
>
> The New York Times
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/health/policy/14health.html>reports:
>
> *The Obama administration, aiming to encourage health insurance companies to
> offer child-only policies, said Wednesday that they could charge higher
> premiums for coverage of children with serious medical problems, if state
> law allowed it.*
>
> Earlier this year, major insurers, faced with an unprofitable business,
> stopped issuing new child-only policies. They said that *the Obama
> administration's interpretation of the new health care law would allow
> families to buy such coverage at the last minute, when children became ill
> and were headed to the hospital.*
>
> In September, the administration said that insurers could establish
> open-enrollment periods — for example, one month a year — during which they
> would accept all children.
>
> Now, on Wednesday, the administration, answering a question raised by many
> insurers, said they could charge higher premiums to sick children outside
> the open-enrollment period, if state laws allowed such underwriting, as many
> do.
>
> *Insurers "can adjust their rates based on health status until 2014, to the
> extent state law allows," said Jay Angoff, director of the Office of
> Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at the Department of Health and
> Human Services*.
>
> The difficulty in preserving access to child-only insurance policies is *the
> latest example of unintended consequences of the new law, the Patient
> Protection and Affordable Care Act. *The problem may be solved in 2014. If
> Democrats can beat back Republican efforts to dismantle the law, *most
> Americans will be required to carry health insurance*, starting in 2014, and
> *insurers will be required* to accept all applicants, regardless of
> pre-existing conditions.
>
> The new policy statement, issued Wednesday by Kathleen Sebelius, the
> secretary of health and human services, came with a *fresh blast of
> criticism of the insurance industry*.
>
> "Unfortunately," Ms. Sebelius said, "some insurers have decided to stop
> writing new business in the child-only insurance market, reneging on a
> previous commitment made in a March letter to 'make pre-existing condition
> exclusions a thing of the past.' "
>
> This is what happens when politicians refuse to read the bill before voting
> it into law. Robert Foster, the Chief Actuary of the Center for Medicare and
> Medicaid Services has informed America that medical costs and insurance
> premiums are going up, not down as Obama and the Democrats claim.
>
> Now they are attacking the insurance companies again for the "unintended
> consequences" of their own ObamaCare law. Obama's cost curve continues to go
> UP, not down. Kathleen Sebelius needs to hurry up and re-educate the
> citizens.
>
> Add a comment to this
> post<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/obama-to-let-insurers-r...>
> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gocomments/scottystarnes.wordpress.com...>
> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/godelicious/scottystarnes.wordpress.co...>
> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gofacebook/scottystarnes.wordpress.com...>
> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gotwitter/scottystarnes.wordpress.com/...>
> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gostumble/scottystarnes.wordpress.com/...>
> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/godigg/scottystarnes.wordpress.com/11845/>
> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/goreddit/scottystarnes.wordpress.com/1...>
>
>   [image: WordPress]
>
> WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/> | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
> Manage Subscriptions<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=5d39acfd19218362d540a3fc3dc3315d&...>|
> Unsubscribe<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=5d39acfd19218362d540a3fc3dc3315d&...>|
> Reach
> out to your own subscribers with
> WordPress.com.<http://wordpress.com/signup/?ref=email>
>
> *Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:*http://subscribe.wordpress.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Obama, Gilbert, & Sullivan

Hey Travis?  Did you post this already??
 
One observation:  I think all politicians should be required to sing!!
 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

DVDs Delivered to your Doorstep in just 45 Minutes


eMarketing by Connect Marketing Services (275,261 Email Addresses - 98% All Over Pakistan)



This email is Broadcast by a marketing agency "Connect Marketing Services". If you no longer

 wish to receive promotion emails, please click to unsubscribe. For customer service inquiry please email or call us.
We are not responsible for any commitment made by the advertiser. Connect Marketing Services will be fully responsible for this activity only.
 
©2010 Connect Marketing Services -All rights reserved. Terms and Prices are subject to change.

Re: A Friday Night Perspective On Islam

United Arab Emirates....... Saudi Arabia ....sort of "debunks" "some"
of your assertions about Islam hating Western influence......

There are good people Muslims and there are bad people Muslims... just
like everyone else.....nothing more and nothing less.....IMO

Are you an Islamophobe?.... I dunno... are you scared to the point of
crapping your pants over every single Muslim?... if so... probably.

On Oct 16, 11:11 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good Morning Mark!
>
> I actually agree with you, and I should have expounded a little more in that
> paragraph.  There are actually two different issues that we are touching
> upon.
>
> Those who are "movers and shakers" within Islam, hate everything that is
> Western.  This includes our music, our Levis, our brightly lit and brightly
> colored fast food restaurants, as well as fast food restaurants in
> general.   They hate Western Culture!  They resent it and see it as being
> intrusive upon their own culture.
>
> We, as "Westerners" in general, and when I say "Westerners";  I mean
> Europeans, and to some extend even Israelis,  for the most part don't even
> see our culture as being intrusive on other cultures.
>
> But it is.   Our songs are catchy, (I guess, even Rap songs!!)   our clothes
> are good looking, (as are our women)  and most everything is designed from a
> marketing standpoint, to make it attractive to buy, or to shop, or to eat,
> or to wear, or to ride on/travel; etc., etc., etc.
>
> I think the point you are making, is that Islam hates this.
>
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 11:13 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > Keith,
>
> > After being 100 meters from a moslem on moslem (fundamental vs.
> > moderate) car bombing a couple of weeks ago on the Gaza border I find
> > what you wrote to be well thought out yet simplified.
>
> > The area that concerns me most is this:
>
> > ****Many "Liberals";  or those who are not well informed on the all
> > encompassing aspects of Islam, tend to blame the United States  and
> > Western
> > Culture in general,  for "oppressing" Muslims, forcing the Islamic
> > faithful
> > to take extreme action to defend their cultures and beliefs from
> > "Western
> > imperialism".   This is really far from true, and I will try and
> > demonstrate
> > as succinctly as possible. ****
>
> > It is definitely not oppression that bothers them it is the very fact
> > that western culture exists at all and is more attractive to the
> > younger generations. It does cause the very same young men to be even
> > harder on the women and gays in their society as we all know one thing
> > to be true... give a woman an iota of freedom or liberty and she wants
> > the whole thing.... it is a source of constant irritation and
> > hypocrisy for the men and requires harsher penalties for the women.
>
> > On Oct 15, 8:52 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It was about 1991, when I started discovering what Islam was really all
> > > about.
>
> > > If anything, today, we have a government that refuses to acknowledge the
> > > dangers of Islam, and keeps trying to sell the American public that its
> > only
> > > a few, "Radical, Fundamentalist"  Muslims that somehow pose a threat.
>
> > > These purportedly few "Radical Fundamentalist Muslims"  have caused us
> > all
> > > to change our very lifestyle.  They have caused both pseudo conservative
> > > Republicans and liberal Socialist-Elitist Democrats to pass laws
> > curtailing
> > > our very liberties and freedoms.
>
> > > No, if our government were to realistically portray Islam as the danger
> > that
> > > it really is;  a danger that it rightfully portrayed of the former Soviet
> > > Communist Empire, then we would have long ago closed up shop on every
> > Mosque
> > > in this Nation, and sent those Non-American Muslims packing.
>
> > > On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:14 PM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Until 1991 the US Government had most Americans fearful of a "communist
> > > > under every bed".  A replacement was  needed.  This time there is no
> > country
> > > > to muck things up by going bankrupt.
>
> > > > Regard$,
> > > > --MJ
>
> > > > War has all the characteristics of socialism most conservatives hate:
> > > > Centralized power, state planning, false rationalism, restricted
> > liberties,
> > > > foolish optimism about intended results, and blindness to unintended
> > > > secondary results. -- Joseph Sobran
>
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > <http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> >  > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Terror Threat to DC Restaurants

You've "been here, done this" of course but never have "been there,
done that"!

Are you threatening with the power of the US gummint' in order to shut
me up ? Well, threaten away! You havent't shot any holes in my
arguments, at least none larger than a pinhole and that one,
imaginary!

I can prove jewish ownership of the media, as I've already begun to
do. Want more? It's coming, but right now, I am preparing to attend a
party held by those Europeans who see things with their own eyes,
instead of Mortimer Zuckerman's et. Co.

A true American patriot will always care about how his gummint' screws
America's image in the eyes of the rest of the world.

On Oct 16, 6:02 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good Morning TruthOut!
>
> Been Here....Done This....
>
> As I mentioned the other day, in another thread, I used to think that I
> could communicate well, with the "Tax Protest/Militiamen/Freemen/Patriot"
> community.  Somewhere along the line, I have lost my touch.....
>
> I will say this.  That I have looked at almost each and every argument that
> you, and folks like you have brought to the table.  I can shoot bullets in
> each and every one of the arguments, just as I did two days ago, with your,
> "Jews Own The Media" argument.  No, they don't, and two questions that I
> asked totally blew your theory away.   The same for your Immigration
> argument.   Ted Kennedy, and a number of Socialist-Elitists are primarily
> responsible for our immigration laws as they are today....Not Jews.
>
> The point being, is that if I can shoot holes in your arguments and
> theories, rest assured that a United States Attorney can shoot holes in
> them.  (Not that I am suggesting that you have done anything that could be
> construed as illicit....This was mainly for my "Tax Protest" friends, who
> also hold similar arguments)
>
> PlainOlAmerican:  Meet TruthOut;  TruthOut:  Meet PlainOl'...
>
> At any rate, I find your posts interesting, and I hope that you will
> continue to share your views here in Political Forum!
>
> Have a great Weekend!
>
> KeithInTampa
>
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Truthout <quexo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It's quite simple actually: american media at least, should be owned
> > by ...Americans!  To those who responded with the usual tripe: "you
> > hate the suucessfull", "Hitler re-visited", "bring proof that the
> > stockholders are jewish",  one word: wake up and smell the coffe!
>
> > Those bent on destroying the United States have almost done their job
> > and will complete it, while there are enough of us naive enough to
> > fall for their stories
> >  ( are you freemasons, perhaps? Then it's understandable, 'cause
> > that's how the jews get their orders carried out, through the
> > lodge. ).
>
> > Just look at the facts I have offered about who opened America's
> > borders to "the huddled masses"!  Go visit the statue of liberty and
> > read the plaque at it's bottom - you'll find out whose gift it was and
> > to whom: french freemasons to american ones and all of them just
> > happenned to be jewish!
>
> > Don't bitch about Obama's free entitlements for illegal aliens - these
> > are just the results of the free for all immigration laws, which
> > neither I, nor my grandparents have written and passed!  Next thing I
> > know, you might start defending the architects of this incredible
> > financial meltdown/recession/disaster, which has been exported
> > throuout the world. I travel a lot: do you have any ideea how our
> > country's image has sufferred since this last planned misadventure ?
>
> > On Oct 14, 10:31 pm, euwe <machgie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > ---------
> > > Who should own the world's media? Arabs? Or Germans? American Indians?
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Principled Nonvoting: The Beginning of Disengaging From the State


"Dupes --- a large class, no doubt --- each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a "free man," a "sovereign"; that this is "a free government"; "a government of equal rights," "the best government on earth," and such like absurdities."


Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Principled Nonvoting: The Beginning of Disengaging From the State
Darren Wolfe

Labor day has come and gone, and there is an election this November. The campaign season is on. The airwaves, the internet, and what's left of the print media are saturated with political ads. All of this leads many Americans to wonder who they're going to vote for. Quite a few realize that the choice is essentially limited to the Democratic scoundrel or the Republican scoundrel. Regardless, to too many people voting is seen as a patriotic, almost sacred duty. Clichés abound about how our forefathers gave their lives so we can have the right to vote today. A lot of people see voting as a way to control the government and preserve our liberties. "If you don't vote don't complain", they say. In this article, however, I will explain why none of these positive things attributed to voting are true. In fact the very opposite is usually the case.

What should have been clear for generations is made ridiculously obvious after a year and a half of the Obama administration, namely that elections have failed as a means of controlling or changing the government. The almost seamless continuity of policy from the Bush administration to Obama's presidency is undeniable and represents only the victory of the special interests in thwarting the people's will.

After more than two centuries of elections the system has become quite good at this. In 1870 Lysander Spooner wrote in "NO TREASON, No. VI., THE CONSTITUTION OF NO AUTHORITY.":
Dupes --- a large class, no doubt --- each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a "free man," a "sovereign"; that this is "a free government"; "a government of equal rights," "the best government on earth," and such like absurdities.

Unfortunately, that is the perception, that voting equates to freedom. The reality is that nothing could be further from the truth. The fact that we are allowed to choose our dictators doesn't make us any freer. It merely gives voters the feeling of power and the illusion of control. All the while they are being manipulated into supporting a government that implements policies detrimental to their well being.

What better way is there to get people to follow the law and pay taxes than to convince them that these things are their will? What better way is there to get people to tolerate the government's evils than by convincing them that the situation is temporary and that they can change the government at the next election? What better way is there to get people to respect elected officials than to convince them that they, the people, chose these scoundrels to represent them? (A mandate, it's called.) None of these things are true, but the fraud works. Democracy is held to be the best form of government yet devised. The question is best for whom? Certainly not the people.

It does work best for the ruling elites who can hide their evil plans behind a smiling democratic facade. The formula is to give people just enough freedom to feel free but not so much that the government loses control of them. To assure that the people will put up with their laws, antics, and taxes the ruling class must keep the citizens involved. Most will take the easy route and go along, especially when the economy is doing well and they feel prosperous. Thomas Paine warned of this over two centuries ago:
…the portion of liberty enjoyed in England is just enough to enslave a country more productively than by despotism, and that as the real object of all despotism is revenue, a government so formed obtains more than it could do either by direct despotism, or in a full state of freedom…

Does all this sound far fetched to you? According to a Georgetown University professor of history Carroll Quigley:
The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.

Unfortunately, he thought this is how the system should work. Dr. Quigley was not some fringe radical either. He was one of President Bill Clinton's professors and was cited by him as a major influence.

It is past time for people to face the reality of what voting really is, an endorsement of the evils that governments commit. I call on you not to take part in this fraud any more. Withhold your consent! Have the courage to join us in principled nonvoting and commit not to vote ever again. Remember, if you vote don't complain!

http://theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/2010/09/principled-nonvoting-beginning-of.html

Re: Republicans Don’t Trust Americans


You have several things working against you.

Not only does Amendment I apply (Congress shall make no law ... free speech),
there is no Power provided the Congress within the Constitution to 'regulate' or
'restrict' or otherwise 'campaigns'.

Money is most certainly speech -- whether it consists of 'hiring' someone to
best spread your message OR the measure for the success of a business or
enterprise.

Regard$,
--MJ

You should see what the law professors on the H-LAW mailing list are saying about yesterday's Supreme Court First Amendment decision. Allowing people to purchase political ads and make political films without government regulation is, it seems, the end of the world. -- Kevin Gutzman on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission




At 12:41 PM 10/16/2010, you wrote:
This is a close call.... mike.....Freedom of Speech is Freedom of
Speech..... but, like I said elsewhere... political donations...
money... is not speech (in my opinion). I would think that, as long as
the "person" doing the speech is an "individual" then the money end
(advertising access costs) associated with his/her political speech
need not be disclosed... but when the "individual" becomes a
"political advocacy group" of any sort, then where the money comes
from should be disclosed...But, of course, there's a Criminally
Crooked Supreme Court Majority to contend with.....currently.
http://van-ezproxy.vancouver.wsu.edu/pag/index.html
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
http://www.uschamber.org
E-Mail: mbrsvcs@uschamber.org
1615 H St. NW
Washington, DC 20062-2000
Phone: 202-659-6000, 800-638-6582
Fax: 202-463-3190 "We protect and represent you so your business can
grow and prosper in a free market economy."
( http://www.uschamber.org)

Then there's Karl Rove...
http://prairieweather.typepad.com/big_blue_stem/2010/10/suing-one-of-karl-roves-groups.html
http://politics.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/10/06/karl-rove-backed-group-spends-as-much-as-political-parties.html



On Oct 16, 10:41 am, "mike [ proud to be a liberal ] 532 !"
<littlemike...@gmail.com> wrote:
> the court has opened the door for other governments to chose our
> leaders .
>
> On Oct 16, 10:37 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > That s what Republican campaign fund-raising groups are doing by
> > concealing their donors from the public.
> > ROTFLMAO!
> > Individuals, of course, have a right to privacy.
> > BOTH Republicans AND Democrats fo not trust Americans, but
> > it is with their lives (of course they are Peddling Pull to maintain
> > their Power).
> > Regard$,
> > --MJYou should see what the law professors on the H-LAW mailing list are saying about yesterday's Supreme Court First Amendment decision. Allowing people to purchase political ads and make political films without government regulation is, it seems, the end of the world. -- Kevin Gutzman on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Republicans Don’t Trust Americans

This is a close call.... mike.....Freedom of Speech is Freedom of
Speech..... but, like I said elsewhere... political donations...
money... is not speech (in my opinion). I would think that, as long as
the "person" doing the speech is an "individual" then the money end
(advertising access costs) associated with his/her political speech
need not be disclosed... but when the "individual" becomes a
"political advocacy group" of any sort, then where the money comes
from should be disclosed...But, of course, there's a Criminally
Crooked Supreme Court Majority to contend with.....currently.
http://van-ezproxy.vancouver.wsu.edu/pag/index.html
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
http://www.uschamber.org
E-Mail: mbrsvcs@uschamber.org
1615 H St. NW
Washington, DC 20062-2000
Phone: 202-659-6000, 800-638-6582
Fax: 202-463-3190 "We protect and represent you so your business can
grow and prosper in a free market economy."
(http://www.uschamber.org)

Then there's Karl Rove...
http://prairieweather.typepad.com/big_blue_stem/2010/10/suing-one-of-karl-roves-groups.html
http://politics.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/10/06/karl-rove-backed-group-spends-as-much-as-political-parties.html

On Oct 16, 10:41 am, "mike [ proud to be a liberal ] 532 !"
<littlemike...@gmail.com> wrote:
> the court has opened the door for other governments to chose our
> leaders .
>
> On Oct 16, 10:37 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > That s what Republican campaign fund-raising groups are doing by
> > concealing their donors from the public.
> > ROTFLMAO!
> > Individuals, of course, have a right to privacy.
> > BOTH Republicans AND Democrats fo not trust Americans, but
> > it is with their lives (of course they are Peddling Pull to maintain
> > their Power). 
> > Regard$,
> > --MJYou should see what the law professors on the H-LAW mailing list are saying about yesterday's Supreme Court First Amendment decision. Allowing people to purchase political ads and make political films without government regulation is, it seems, the end of the world. -- Kevin Gutzman on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

LIVE & WORK IN UK / UK VISA SERVICES

eMarketing by Connect Marketing Services (275,261 Email Addresses - 98% All Over Pakistan)


Dear Friends,

 

IMR International is an Immigration and Education consultancy Firm dealing in UK and Australian Immigration. We have expert consultants who help you prepare, lodge and follow up on your Visa Applications for UK. We have a successful track record of UK Visas and of our Clients' Satisfaction.

 

We have contacts with OISC certified Uk immigration consultants and can help you with IMMIGRANT AND NON IMMIGRANT VISAS FOR UK and following are some of the popular visa categories we can help you with:

 

General Visitor Visa

Family Visitor Visa

Business Visitor

Family Settlement

Tier 1 General

Tier 1 Post Study Work

Tier 4 Student

Tier 1 & 4 Dependents

 

For Personalized assessment and queries Please feel free to contact:

 

IMR INTERNATIONAL

Off No. 1&2 Second Floor Ufone Plaza

Near Lane No.7 Peshawar Road

Rawalpindi.

Ph: 051-5465637

      051-5469423

Cell: 0321-5366015

Email: imrinternational@yahoo.com

    info@imrinternational.co.uk


This email is Broadcast by a marketing agency "Connect Marketing Services". If you no longer

 wish to receive promotion emails, please click to unsubscribe. For customer service inquiry please email or call us.
We are not responsible for any commitment made by the advertiser. Connect Marketing Services will be fully responsible for this activity only.
 
©2010 Connect Marketing Services -All rights reserved. Terms and Prices are subject to change.

Re: 3 Reasons Why You Can’t Trust a Christian or a Jew

hi mike.....
nominal9

On Oct 16, 10:03 am, "mike [ proud to be a liberal ] 532 !"
<littlemike...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i do not believe in organized religion or "the Church" i believe they
> are inventions of men to control other men !
>
> On Oct 16, 8:12 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 3 Reasons Why You Can't Trust a Christian or a Jewby Allan Stevo"Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple."
> > Where's this quote come from? A jihadist manual on terror? One of the Surahs of the Koran? Maybe Mao's little red book? Was it spoken by the terrorist prophet himself, Mohammed? No, it comes from the Gospel of Luke.
> > It was read to millions of Christians a few Sundays ago in churches around the world. I wonder how many people in the pews heard it and thought "Wow, that really wouldn't sound too good as a sound-bite in the media of the Muslim world" (or in atheist media, or even secular media for that matter). In the same way that lines from the Quran are taken out of context, lines from the Bible can also be taken out of context.Do Christians hate life?Christians that I know personally do not behave as if they hate life. As an industrialized country with such a high level of church attendance, the U.S. is a statistical anomaly. Many Americans identify themselves as Christian, 78% according tothis Gallup poll.We are by multiple measures a Christian country.
> > This Christian country of ours has a very high illegal murder rate, especially when compared to other industrialized countries. Preventing those murders is an issue of much contention. This Christian country of ours also has a very high rate of "legal" extraterritorial murder in undeclared war zones all over the world. Those murders are not so difficult to avoid. For example, if an American soldier is not outside of the U.S., that American soldier will not be able to shoot or be shot by anyone outside of the U.S. In reality, despite my loved ones showing no outward signs of hating life, the argument can be made that Christian Americans do hate life based on the behavior of the society in which we live. We Americans tacitly agree to extraterritorial "legal" murders.
> > Murder is the ending of life. Surely a case can be made for Christians, at least American Christians, not realizing the gravity of life. I'm unable to argue that life is "hated" as opposed to "disliked" or even worse, simply not appreciated. Or maybe it's just the value of other people's lives that is the problem. I suspect an American does tend to recognize the importance of his or her own life.
> > I know quite a few people who call themselves Christians and quite a few who aren't Christians and I don't see a clear hatred of life among the one group more than the other. At its surface, those people I know don't seem to have very effectively followed Jesus' command to "hate…life itself."
> > It's a strongly worded statement written in the Bible that doesn't look good as a sound-bite taken out of context, away from the centuries of schools of Biblical scholarship that exists and that many of us now read the Bible through. Perhaps it's intellectually lazy of a person to try to do the same thing with the Quran and to speak like some kind of Quranic scholar because he knows a few ideas from the Quran that he read inUSA Today. I supposed in general we all know better than to trust self-proclaimed authorities. However, the fact that a single person watches the network news or buys a major newspaper indicates that there are many people who are comfortable with putting faith in those self-proclaimed authorities.
> > On Sept 19, again Christians heard another confusing verse. It can quite effectively be taken out of context when one imagines the corporatist American government, like a greedy octopus, slithering around the world taking things by force."And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of dishonest wealth so that when it is gone, they may welcome you into the eternal homes."~ Luke 16:9
> > Christians agree that Jesus actually said that.
> > This upcoming Sunday, the many Christian churches that use the Revised Common Lectionary will hear a reading from the book of Genesis where the patriarch Jacob wrestles with God. During this reading, God changes the unfortunately named Jacob's name to "Israel." Jacob, one of the patriarchs to which Judaism and Christianity trace their faith, literally means "he who grasps the heal." Figuratively, this name has an even worse meaning: "He who deceives." Israel, his new and improved name, means: "he struggles with God."
> > To me, there can be a beauty in a faith that lets you struggle with God. At the same time, it's easy to take this out of context. To struggle with God is to be opposed to God, to challenge the Almighty and His ways. This presents a rather unflattering talking point about Israel. The word Israel, the name of the most problematic state in the Middle East, was chosen by leaders of that country as a way to present itself to the world – "struggle with God." For the billions of people out there who believe in a God that's about the worst name you can come up with for a country.
> > Let me just restate all that in a nine-second talking point about Judeo-Christian culture:Jacob means "he who deceives"; Israel means "struggles with God"; Jesus commands his followers to be dishonest and to hate life. Are these the professed values of a good people? What more does one need to know distrust Christians and Jews?Do these facts make me not want to go to church? No, they just make me realize how important it is to never trust the media about anything. Nine-second sound-bites are alluring and deceptive. Just like my religious proclivities seem very strange to others when taken out of context, the religious, political, athletic, emotional, and physical proclivities of nearly any person seem strange when taken out of context. For shock value, the hate mongers of American society love taking religion out of context, as long as Christianity's not that religion.Filter the MediaOnalltopics there is an agenda. Base your understanding of situations on your relationship with people. Use the media to try to challenge yourself and to seek out differing perspectives.Never let your own experience be overshadowed by the words you read from some unknown journalist.I've sat down with enough respected journalists to realize that they are not as critically questioning and decent as their readers seem to believe.Slovak-Hungarian Hatred?In Slovakia Hungarians are said to be hated. There's a long history in which Hungarians (Magyars) controlled the land known today as Slovakia. That history spanned a good thousand years and had some very ugly moments, akin to a soft genocide, that sought to snuff out the existence of Slovaks.
> > It is said that Slovaks hate Hungarians. I can attest that some do.
> > However, when I am invited to visit a Slovak family that has Hungarian neighbors, I recognize that relations between Slovak and Hungarian neighbors tend to be quite hospitable. Just as hospitable as with any other neighbor.
> > The media and the whispers of popular culture, especially around election time, are quick to tell ugly stories about how bad those ethnic relations are. This no doubt actually influences some relationships. However, experience in the intimate relationships of a handful of diverse people tells me that the media is likely incorrect in this matter. I choose only to speak from my own experience on this topic, which also has its shortcomings, but is far more honest than pretending myself an expert just because I've read lots of work from some far-off journalists.
> > When it comes to neighbors, my Slovak acquaintances tend to be quite welcoming to the Hungarian minority that still live in Slovakia. Forced language is a sign of oppression. The Hungarian authorities used to force Hungarian language on Slovaks and understandably that period in history still impassions many Slovaks today. Freely spoken language, on the other hand, is a way to build a bridge into a friendship. I often hear Slovaks throw around a few Hungarian phrases with their Hungarian neighbors. Such relationships are in the best interest of neighbors.Good relations are not in the best interest of those who 1. want to sell papers, 2. are filled with hate, and/or 3. have no other issues on which to win an election.The nationalist parties of Slovakia and Hungary don't like these amicable relationships among Slovaks and Hungarians. They like to poke at the very real wounds of the past. The more they can get people to foremost remember those wounds, the more they can get their audience to forget that these are living breathing people they are asking them to hate and to mistreat, the more votes, the more media time, the more influence, the more money there is for those nationalist parties. They have a formula and they wield it effectively.
> > A political consultant by the name of Mike Rothfeld,linked to here, gives a great speech on political participation that I saw at the Leadership Institute in Arlington, VA. In his speech, Rothfeld makes a request of his audience:Whenever you listen to a speech, whenever you read a newspaper, whenever you are watching TV, or even just talking face-to-face and see someone trying to get you to believe something, you've got to ask yourself 'How does it benefit this person if I believe what he's saying?'Cui bono? In whose interest? Is the old concept that he restates. We all know that people don't often exert great effort just for the heck of it. Receiving communication through the media, from some person you don't know intimately, let alone have never met face to face, makes the answering of that question considerably harder.The Effective Stereotype of the MuslimAre all Muslims secretly terrorist time-bombs waiting to go off? I don't know, I can't answer that one for you, but I can tell you that it's a pretty
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.