Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Just so you know ...

10 Quotes By Barack Hussain Obama About Islam

#1 "Islam has always been part of America"

#2 "we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities"

#3 "These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common,
and Islam's role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the
dignity of all human beings."

#4 "America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in
competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of
justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."

#5 "So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the
region where it was first revealed"

#6 "Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and
racial equality"

#7 "As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found
dignity and peace in their Muslim faith."

#8 "I look forward to hosting an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan here
at the White House later this week, and wish you a blessed month."

#9 "That experience guides my conviction that partnership between
America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't.
And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United
States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they
appear."

#10 "I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's
story."

--------------

10 Quotes By Barack Obama About Christianity

#1 "Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation"

#2 "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation."

#3 "Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy?
Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that
eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy,
which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?"

#4 "Even those who claim the Bible's inerrancy make distinctions
between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages – the Ten
Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ's divinity – are central to
Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be
modified to accommodate modern life."

#5 "The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the
majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed
to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment
to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in
counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in
their politics."

#6 From Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope: "I am not willing to have
the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent
rights on such basic matters as hospital visitation or health
insurance coverage simply because the people they love are of the same
sex—nor am I willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers
an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the
Sermon on the Mount."

#7 "I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of
the world to hell. I can't imagine that my God would allow some
little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith
to somehow burn for all eternity. That's just not part of my
religious makeup."

#8 "Those opposed to abortion cannot simply invoke God's will–they
have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is
accessible to people of all faiths."

#9 On his support for civil unions for gay couples: "If people find
that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the
Mount."

#10 "I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that
is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are
connected as a people."

--
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.

Pics about Liberals (5)




 

--
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.

Quotes About Firearms




Quotes About Firearms

twg2a PitBull | February 1, 2011 at 10:52 | Categories: Miscellaneous | URL: http://wp.me/pMJTI-Kc

…the people have a right to keep and bear arms. — Patrick Henry,George Mason    This [Second Amendment] may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest [...]

Read more of this post

Add a comment to this post


WordPress

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Reach out to your own subscribers with WordPress.com.

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.

Thanks to ObamaCare, Aetna will stop selling new individual health policies and terminate existing ones in 2012




Thanks to ObamaCare, Aetna will stop selling new individual health policies and terminate existing ones in 2012

The intended consequences of government's takeover of our health care system. Progressives want to bankrupt insurance companies and get Americans off of employer-paid health benefits. They said so themselves...

Thanks to ObamaCare, they are getting closer to getting their progressive wish.

Denver Business Journal reports:

A spokeswoman for Aetna confirmed Monday that the insurer will no longer sell new individual-market health insurance policies in Colorado and will terminate current policies held by state residents no later than July 31, 2012.

The change represents Aetna’s third major recent pull-back on health-insurance offerings in Colorado. The Hartford, Conn.-based company announced in the second half of 2010 that it will also stop selling new small-group and child-only individual-market policies.

Anjie Coplin, Aetna’s regional director of communications, did not specify in an email to the Denver Business Journal why the company had decided to end its presence in Colorado’s individual health market.

But she noted that the company will continue to sell large-group plans and dental and life products and said that officials “believe we remain competitive in these markets.â€

And in a Dec. 21 letter to the Colorado Division of Insurance, Aetna General Counsel Mary Anderson said that Aetna “can no longer meet the needs of its customers while remaining competitive in the Colorado individual health insurance market.â€

“As a result, please consider this letter formal notification that Aetna will stop offering and will withdraw its individual policies from the Colorado market effective February 1, 2011,†Anderson wrote.

Insurers have complained that federal health care reform has made offering their product more expensive. Major changes have included the end of lifetime coverage limits, a ban on rejecting policies to children because of pre-existing conditions and a requirement that 80 percent of individual health policy premiums must go to health care rather than to the companies.

Read more: Aetna retrenches in Colorado | Denver Business Journal

Add a comment to this post


WordPress

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Express yourself. Start a blog.

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.

Re: More Violence and Threats Of Murder From The RACIST Leftists.... And the beat goes on and on and on......

Tommy,

I hardly see where this is original. To recap; a right leaning author
is stupid, and all (or, in this case, 'most') of the hate, racism,
<whatever>phobes, and un-American talking heads come from the right.
You sound like all the other far-lefties.

But glad to see you're at least thinking about posting original work.


On Feb 2, 1:04 pm, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wrong again, Travis dear. This author's sense of direction and
> understanding of politics is quite poor, just as yours is.
>
> Most hate comes from the Right, not the Left.
> There are haters at both extremes, but far more racists, islamophobes,
> homophobes, immigrantphobes, and mysogynists, neocons, and gun
> weilding "patriots", and un-American pundits come from the Right wing.
>
> To Frank- These are my original thought and opinions. Yes, they are.
>
> On 2/2/11, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >     <http://twg2a.wordpress.com/author/twg2a/> More Violence and Threats Of
> > Murder From The RACIST Leftists.... And the beat goes on and on and
> > on......<http://twg2a.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/more-violence-and-threats-of-mu...>
> > *twg2a PitBull <http://twg2a.wordpress.com/author/twg2a/>* | February 2,
> > 2011 at 07:53 | Categories:
> > Communism/Marxism/Racism<http://twg2a.wordpress.com/?category_name=communismmarxismracism>,
> > hatriot speech <http://twg2a.wordpress.com/?category_name=hatriot-speech>,
> > Miscellaneous <http://twg2a.wordpress.com/?category_name=miscellaneous> |
> > URL:http://wp.me/pMJTI-Kq
>
> > This has got to be one of the most vitriolic, hateful, VIOLENT, bigoted and
> > racist videos I have ever had to endure.   Please watch it.  It important to
> > know thy enemy and how they view America-Loving, peaceful, generous,
> > responsible humans who possess integrity and the ability to think for
> > themseves. This sounds to me like a [...]
>
> > Read more of this
> > post<http://twg2a.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/more-violence-and-threats-of-mu...>
>
> > Add a comment to this
> > post<http://twg2a.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/more-violence-and-threats-of-mu...>
> >  <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gocomments/twg2a.wordpress.com/2878/>
> > <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/godelicious/twg2a.wordpress.com/2878/>
> > <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gofacebook/twg2a.wordpress.com/2878/>
> > <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gotwitter/twg2a.wordpress.com/2878/>
> > <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gostumble/twg2a.wordpress.com/2878/>
> > <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/godigg/twg2a.wordpress.com/2878/>
> > <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/goreddit/twg2a.wordpress.com/2878/>
>
> >   [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&...>|
> > Publish text, photos, music, and videos by email using our Post
> > by Email <http://support.wordpress.com/post-by-email/> feature.
>
> > *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 seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> --
> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> Have a great day,
> Tommy

--
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: The Mission Of The Muslim Brotherhood For AMERICA

Eenie, meenie, miney, mo,
Catch a muzzie by the toe.
Put a bullet in back of head,
Only good muzzie is one that's dead.

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Keith In Köln <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
Once again, more hatred and spew from Lil' Tommie.   Tom doesn't even know anything about Islam. He generously slings around, "phobias"  as if they were the norm,  yet it is those who have a fairly well versed, educated understanding of Islam that understand its threat, especially to the West.

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Tommy News <tommysnews@gmail.com> wrote:
Your Islamophobia is showing, people.

On 2/2/11, Keith In Köln <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
> <Grin>!!
>
> Okay,  touche'......
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Getting islam into the 21st century would effectively destroy it.
>>
>>   On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Keith In Köln
>> <keithintampa@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>   Hey Travis,
>>>
>>> Actually, you and I disagree here.   There is a real solution, and that
>>> is
>>> the Islam, much like Christianity and Judaism has done countless times,
>>> must
>>> reform, and bring itself into the 21st Century.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Islam is the enemy of everything including itself.  The only solution
>>>> is the elemination of Islam from the planet.
>>>>
>>>>   On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 4:39 AM, Keith In Köln
>>>> <keithintampa@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>   The Muslim Brotherhood In America should scare you Studio.  I see
>>>>> what is happening here in Europe.  It's not the Europe of thirty years
>>>>> ago.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> KeithInKöln
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 5:58 AM, studio <tlack@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 1, 6:28 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >   [WAKE UP, AMERICA!  These "things" have terrorist training
>>>>>> compounds
>>>>>> > scattered all across this country, and they're POURING in by the
>>>>>> hundreds of
>>>>>> > thousands across our borders with Canada, and mostly with Mexico.
>>>>>>  They're
>>>>>> > preparing for the ultimate Jihad, and we are in for one HELL of a
>>>>>> fight.  I
>>>>>> > suggest those of you who [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First I've heard of it...
>>>>>> I'm really scared now lol.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It reminds me of the old Howard Stern Show where he used to play the
>>>>>> weekly KKK radio address...
>>>>>> the KKK guy would always start off with; "Wake up America..."
>>>>>> as though he was the only conscious in America that could be
>>>>>> completely trusted... lol.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 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/<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/<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/<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/<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/<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.


--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
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.

--
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.

--
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: You Have A Constitutional Obligation To Arm Yourselves!

Let's take this concept national and watch Tommy and his friends squirm.

On 2/2/2011 10:12 AM, Travis wrote:



You Have A Constitutional Obligation To Arm Yourselves!

twg2a PitBull | February 2, 2011 at 10:32 | Categories: Miscellaneous | URL: http://wp.me/pMJTI-Kt

‎THIS MAY MAKE YOUR DAY! Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Vermont 's own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere. Maslack recently proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners" and require them [...]

Read more of this post

Add a comment to this post


WordPress

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Publish text, photos, music, and videos by email using our Post by Email feature.

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.

--
For less than the cost of one hour with most lawyers, you can learn how to control judges and lawyers yourself!

Muslim finds proof of allah, in a tomato




Tell Obama to drop his drawers, bend over, and spread his cheeks.  I bet I can see a picture of Allah or Mohammad there.


 
 


--
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: Tommy, You are now on moderation.

No Tommy, Your inability to follow a simple rule that is pretty much a standard of all forums after it was carefully and inextricably spelt out for you is all that this confirms.

first time moderation will last for at least 3 days....more if you continue in your unfounded rants and raves.  

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Tommy News <tommysnews@gmail.com> wrote:
Well this confirms that Markie Mark is indeed a fascist dictator just
as I said before.
You have just confirmed it wioth your hateful action.


ARE YOU STUPID OR JUST DENSE MARKIE MARK?????


On 2/1/11, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tommy,
>
> Just this morning I gave you a warning (your second) on using
> identical posts on multiple threads.
>
> ARE YOU STUPID OR JUST DENSE ????
>
> Exactly what part of that warning or its reasons were unclear??
>
> --
> 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.


--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
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.



--
Mark M. Kahle H.

--
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.

Fwd: she lives inside their heads rent free

    Dana lasted a long time with what he pledged.  Guess the libs just can't help themselves.  A day without Palin is like a day without sunshine.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: she lives inside their heads rent free
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 18:42:11 -0500 (EST)
From: claguerra245@aol.com
To: Rhomp2002@earthlink.net



Dana Milbank Doesn't Last A Day!

Major fail for poor Dana.  Dana, was it something we said?
This is what Dana said several days ago:
Washington Post Journalist Dana Milbank wrote this:
"And so, I hereby pledge that, beginning on Feb. 1, 2011, I will not mention Sarah Palin — in print, online or on television — for one month. Furthermore, I call on others in the news media to join me in this pledge of a Palin-free February. With enough support, I believe we may even be able to extend the moratorium beyond one month, but we are up against a powerful compulsion, and we must take this struggle day by day."
"A week ago, on his CNN show, "Reliable Sources," I was complaining about the over-coverage of Palin when I found myself saying that "the best thing would be — it's impossible, of course — that we in the media should declare some sort of a Sarah Palin moratorium."
"And so I pledge to you: Sarah Palin's name will not cross my lips — or my keyboard — for the entire month of February. Who's with me?"
And this is what he did today.  He couldn't even last a day!  Lib men!

Re: Tommy, You are now on moderation.

amen

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:31 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:
No response ??

On Feb 1, 5:09 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tommy,
>
> Just this morning I gave you a warning (your second) on using
> identical posts on multiple threads.
>
> ARE YOU STUPID OR JUST DENSE ????
>
> Exactly what part of that warning or its reasons were unclear??

--
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.

--
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: Tommy, You are now on moderation.

No response ??

On Feb 1, 5:09 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tommy,
>
> Just this morning I gave you a warning (your second) on using
> identical posts on multiple threads.
>
> ARE YOU STUPID OR JUST DENSE ????
>
> Exactly what part of that warning or its reasons were unclear??

--
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: Tommy, You are now on moderation.

Well this confirms that Markie Mark is indeed a fascist dictator just
as I said before.
You have just confirmed it wioth your hateful action.


ARE YOU STUPID OR JUST DENSE MARKIE MARK?????


On 2/1/11, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tommy,
>
> Just this morning I gave you a warning (your second) on using
> identical posts on multiple threads.
>
> ARE YOU STUPID OR JUST DENSE ????
>
> Exactly what part of that warning or its reasons were unclear??
>
> --
> 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.


--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
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.

The Egyptian masses won't play ally to Israel

The Egyptian masses won't play ally to Israel
As long as the masses in Egypt and in the entire Arab world continue seeing the images of tyranny and violence from the occupied territories, Israel will not be able to be accepted, even it is acceptable to a few regimes.
By Gideon Levy

Three or four days ago, Egypt was still in our hands. The army of pundits, including our top expert on Egypt, Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, said that "everything is under control," that Cairo is not Tunis and that Mubarak is strong. Ben-Eliezer said that he had spoken on the phone with a senior Egyptian official, and he assured him that there's nothing to worry about. You can count on Fuad and Hosni, both about to become has-beens.

On Friday night everything changed. It turned out that the Israeli intelligence estimates, which were recited ad nauseum by the court analysts, were again, shall we say, not the epitome of accuracy. The people of Egypt had their say, and had the nerve not to fall in line with Israeli wishes. A moment before Mubarak's fate is sealed, the time has come for drawing the Israeli conclusions.

Not a plague of darkness in Egypt but the light of the Nile: the end of a regime propped up by bayonets is foretold. It can go on for years, and the downfall sometimes comes at the least expected time, but in the end it will happen. Not only Damascus and Amman, Tripoli and Rabat, Tehran and Pyongyang: Ramallah and Gaza are also destined to be shaken.

The hypocritical and sanctimonious division of countries by the U.S. and the West between the "axis of evil" on the one hand, and the "moderates" on the other, has collapsed. If there is an axis of evil, then it includes all the non-democratic regimes, including the "moderates" and the "stable" and the "pro-Western." Today Egypt, tomorrow Palestine. Yesterday Tunis, tomorrow Gaza.

Not only is the Fatah regime in Ramallah and the Hamas regime in Gaza destined to fall, but perhaps also, one day, the Israeli occupation, which certainly meets all the criteria of criminal tyranny and an evil regime. It too relies only on guns. It too is hated by all levels of the ruled people, even if they stands helpless, unorganized and unequipped, facing a big army. The first conclusion: Better to end it well, with agreements based on justice and not on power, a moment before the masses have their say and succeed in banishing the darkness.

A second, no less important conclusion: Alliances with unpopular regimes can be torn up overnight. As long as the masses in Egypt and in the entire Arab world continue seeing the images of tyranny and violence from the occupied territories, Israel will not be able to be accepted, even it is acceptable to a few regimes.

The Egyptian regime became an ally of the Israeli occupation. The joint siege of Gaza is irrefutable proof of that. The Egyptian people didn't like it. They never liked the peace agreement with Israel, in which Israel committed itself to "respect the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people" but never kept its word. Instead, the people of Egypt got the scenes of Operation Cast Lead.

It is not enough to have a handful of embassies in order to be accepted in the region. There also have to be embassies of goodwill, a just image and a state that is not an occupier. Israel has to make its way into the hearts of the Arab peoples, who will never agree to the continued repression of their brothers, even if their intelligence ministers will continue to cooperate with Israel.

If there's one thing shared by all factions of the Egyptian opposition, it is their seething hatred of Israel. Now their representatives will rise to power, and Israel will find itself in a difficult situation. Neither will anything remain of the virtual achievement that Netanyahu often paraded - the alliance with the "moderate" Arab regimes against Iran. A real alliance with Egypt and its sister-states can only be based on the end of the occupation, as desired by the Egyptian people, and not on a common enemy, as an interest of its regime.

The masses of the Egyptian people - please note: on all levels - took their fate in their hands. There is something impressive and cheering in that. No power, not even that of Mubarak, who Ben-Eliezer likes so much, can overcome them. In Washington the gravity of the moment has already been understood, and they were quick to dissociate from Mubarak and tried to find favor in the eyes of his people. That should happen at some point in Jerusalem.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-egyptian-masses-won-t-play-ally-to-israel-1.340080

Re: The Dire Consequences of Health Care Reform Repeal, But Republican Hypocrites With Government Coverage Do Not Care

Tommy,

> But conservatives say they believe in the sanctity of life. Oh
> right, the sanctity of rich people's lives. The rest of us don't
> matter.

So Medicare, Medicaid, SSD insurance, Emergency Room / Hospital care
via EMTALA, etc., is all made available to 'the rest of us' because we
don't matter? How many hundreds of billions of dollars does all this
"free" health care cost the taxpayer? This class warfare bullshit you
keep trying to incite is tiring. Sorry dude, but I can oppose the HCR
for many reasons, none of which is because I'm a cold, heartless
bastard.

On Feb 1, 6:52 pm, frankg <fran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, still not an original thought, but not a silly, pointless quote
> either.
>
> The premise of this article is, however, chilling. Katz's argument is
> that the framers of the Constitution could not predict issues the
> country would face more than 200 years after it was drafted, and
> therefore it's up to the judge to determine they got something wrong
> and correct it from the bench. That is not how our system works. The
> Judge was asked only to determine if the mandate to purchase health
> insurance was constitutional or not. He was NOT asked to determine
> whether it was a good idea or not. He is not empowered to modify the
> Constitution, only to interpret it. If you disagree with the ruling,
> then argue how it is an incorrect interpretation. Do not argue based
> on the repercussions.
>
> Aside from the fact that Katz's entire argument is built around an
> invalid premise, it's also fundamentally flawed. If we should make
> 'health' insurance Federally mandated, even though not explicitly
> allowed by the Constitution, because not doing so is too costly, then
> why shouldn't we make 'life' insurance mandatory as well. As Katz
> writes; "Alrighty, then; what about involuntarily bleeding to death?".
> Well yes, David, what about that?  Health insurance will do nothing
> for someone who has involuntarily bled to death, yet there are
> definite financial repercussions to someone dying without having life
> insurance in place. Who will pay for any outstanding debt on the
> estate?  What if there are dependents who will now be forced into the
> 'system' at the public's expense? Why should WE have to pay for this
> because the person dying didn't think to carry life insurance?  So
> lets mandate that as well. How many more things should the government
> mandate of us?  This is precisely what the Constitution protects us
> from.
>
> On Feb 1, 4:57 pm, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Wrong again.
>
> > Health Care Law: What the US Constitution Meant to Say
>
> > -by David Katz, MD
>
> > Here is a passage lifted ver batim from The New York Times coverage of
> > the decision by a federal judge in Virginia that the Obama
> > Administration's health care reform legislation was in parts
> > unconstitutional:
>
> > "Thus far, judges appointed by Republican presidents have ruled
> > consistently against the Obama administration, while Democratic
> > appointees have found for it."
>
> > Richmond, we have a problem. The contents of the U.S. Constitution
> > shouldn't change when seen through a red lens, or blue. That the
> > meaning of the Constitution varies diametrically when seen from the
> > left or seen from the right is, in a word, wrong. It makes reading the
> > Constitution sound like reading tea leaves.
>
> > In the case of the controversial provision -- the requirement that
> > everyone buy health insurance or be penalized -- what DID the
> > Constitution mean to say?
>
> > Almost certainly: not a thing! When our Constitution was drafted,
> > health insurance wasn't on anybody's radar (neither, for that matter,
> > was radar). Medicine was primitive; hospitals were all but
> > nonexistent; long-term care institutions did not exist. There was no
> > dialysis, no organ transplantation, no open heart surgery, no
> > angioplasty. Acute threat to life or limb generally meant...loss of
> > life or limb. And when the medical services of the day were required
> > and of any use, the barter system took care of the costs more often
> > than not.
>
> > One need not be a Constitutional scholar (and I hasten to note: I am
> > not!) to know that the Constitution was silent on health care
> > insurance for the same reason it was silent on inter-stellar travel.
> > Such concerns were not part of the world in which the document was
> > drafted.
>
> > So the Constitution is silent on health insurance per se. But it is
> > not silent, of course, on government powers and their limits, and
> > that's where the controversial interpretations pertaining to health
> > care reform originate.
>
> > The U.S. Constitution says the government can't force you to buy
> > anything. Or at least, it says something like that.
>
> > The states can force you to buy auto insurance if you drive a car.
> > But, they can't force you to drive -- or own -- a car. So, free will
> > prevails! The Constitution is OK with this.
>
> > The state can't force you to buy or rent an abode. But the authorities
> > can hassle you interminably if you attempt to rest your head in just
> > about any alternative place -- just ask a homeless person in any major
> > city. Let's call this one a bit gray.
>
> > The controversy now is: What about health care, and the insurance that
> > generally pays for it?
>
> > The decision in Virginia suggests that health insurance is like any
> > other commodity, and the federal government does not have the
> > authority to force us to buy it. Specifically, Judge Hudson stated
> > that the government lacks authority "... to compel an individual to
> > involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity
> > in the private market."
>
> > The crux of the matter, then, is involuntarily entering the stream of commerce.
>
> > Alrighty, then; what about involuntarily bleeding to death? What about
> > a case of involuntary HIV? What about involuntary meningitis, or heart
> > failure? Few people I know volunteer for medical calamities. Medical
> > calamities are, quite predictably, involuntary. And there's the rub.
>
> > On any given day, any of us can be involuntarily thrust into the
> > "stream" of health care commerce by an involuntary disaster. Then the
> > only question is: will we, or won't we, have a paddle?
>
> > When life and limb are imperiled, we intervene -- and worry about the
> > bill afterward. Human decency requires nothing less.
>
> > But afterward, there IS a bill -- and someone has to pay it. Leaving
> > out the details, that someone will be us. It will be paid through our
> > taxes, or paid in our health premiums. In other words, we, the
> > insured, ARE being forced to 'enter the stream of commerce'
> > involuntarily, to pay the bills of those who opted out. Bad enough to
> > be forced to buy something for yourself -- how about being forced to
> > buy something for the other guy, who opted out of the system and left
> > the bill to you and me?
>
> > That's the problem with thinking of health care -- and the insurance
> > to pay for it -- as if it were any other commodity. People can just
> > say no to any other commodity. They can't say 'no' to resuscitation
> > from cardiac arrest -- at least not until after they are a beneficiary
> > of it!
>
> > And worse than that- the only bills we pay on behalf of those who
> > choose not to play are the high-cost, post-calamity bills. We don't
> > pay for preventive care, so those opting out don't get it. They won't
> > get their cholesterol checked, but they will get CPR. They get, and we
> > pay for, the worst kind of care: post-catastrophe, high-cost,
> > questionable outcome, totally involuntary care.
>
> > These are facts, readily substantiated. So where do they leave us?
>
> > In doubt, perhaps, about what the Constitution meant to say. But maybe
> > the Constitution did not mean to say anything about health insurance,
> > because health insurance is not like any other 'commodity.' It flows
> > in a current quite apart from the prevailing 'stream of commerce.'
>
> > My personal opinion is that health care access should be in the
> > Constitution as a case apart. Namely, it should be codified in the
> > Bill of Rights as an amendment: everyone has a right to acute medical
> > care at a time of crisis. I have made that case before. How can we
> > rally around a right to bear arms, but not protect the arms that do
> > the bearing? How can we protect the right to assemble, without
> > protecting the limbs that carry us to the assembly? Life and limb
> > would seem to qualify as priority items, and their protection a public
> > good, with widespread public support.
>
> > But the Bill of Rights, for now, includes no such entry. In the
> > absence of such a constitutional right, perhaps we need the 'No Label'
> > movement to help us see the Constitution through a lens that is
> > neither blue nor red. Perhaps an uncolored lens would show us more
> > clearly what the Constitution meant to say in this case.
>
> > While waiting for the politics to play out, while waiting to see if
> > the prevailing view of the Constitution is to left or to right, I
> > maintain that inconsistent access to health care is wrong.
>
> > Our modern politics, and the polarization that currently prevails, is
> > inviting us to infer what the Constitution meant to say yesterday.
> > That it is open to interpretation and changes when viewed from left or
> > right seems to indicate we are far from sure. We are putting words
> > never spoken into the mouths of our Founders.
>
> > Maybe they just didn't answer this question for us, and we are left to
> > figure out for ourselves what constitutes the right thing to do.
>
> > More:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/left-right-wrong-health-c...
>
> > On 2/1/11, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > > That Conservatives often confuse 'sanctity of
> > > life' with slavery notwithstanding ...
>
> > > What this Abelson person is saying is (within
> > > your assertion) the 'santity of life' for those
> > > who will have their health care provided by
> > > others ... and that those who will be FORCED to pay do not matter.
>
> > > EVERYONE has a right to life; their OWN life;
> > > self-ownership.  Legitimate Government serves to SECURE this right.
>
> > > Regard$,
> > > --MJ
>
> > > "If a man has the right to self-ownership, to the
> > > control of his life, then in the real world he
> > > must also have the right to sustain his life by
> > > grappling with and transforming resources; he
> > > must be able to own the ground and the resources
> > > on which he stands and which he must use; in
> > > short, to sustain his human right" -- Murray
>
> ...
>
> read 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.

Re: The Dire Consequences of Health Care Reform Repeal, But Republican Hypocrites With Government Coverage Do Not Care

You will need to elaborate on what you imagine is wrong.
Here is a RUBRIC for you:

<Insert statement> is wrong because of <Insert Reason(s)>

Regard$,
--MJ

"Human rights are an aspect of natural law, a consequence
of the way the universe works, as solid and as real as
photons or the concept of pi. The idea of self-ownership
is the equivalent of Pythagoras' theorem, of evolution by
natural selection, of general relativity, and of quantum theory.
Before humankind discovered any of these, it suffered, to
varying degrees, in misery and ignorance. Where they are
suppressed or disregarded today, people still suffer.
When Pythagoras, Darwin, Einstein, Bohr, and Rand each
made his or her uniquely valuable discovery about the way
the universe works, mankind took another step away from
savagery, toward lasting safety, comfort, pleasure, and
convenience." -- L. Neil Smith

>Wrong again.

> >
> > That Conservatives often confuse 'sanctity of
> > life' with slavery notwithstanding ...
> >
> > What this Abelson person is saying is (within
> > your assertion) the 'santity of life' for those
> > who will have their health care provided by
> > others ... and that those who will be FORCED to pay do not matter.
> >
> > EVERYONE has a right to life; their OWN life;
> > self-ownership. Legitimate Government serves to SECURE this right.
> >
> > Regard$,
> > --MJ
> >
> > "If a man has the right to self-ownership, to the
> > control of his life, then in the real world he
> > must also have the right to sustain his life by
> > grappling with and transforming resources; he
> > must be able to own the ground and the resources
> > on which he stands and which he must use; in
> > short, to sustain his human right" -- Murray Rothbard.
> >

--
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: The Neocon Take on Egypt

On Jan 31, 12:49 am, studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 9:22 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:> The Neocon Take on EgyptPosted byThomas DiLorenzoon January 30, 2011 08:19 PM
> > FOX News recently rolled out its expert on diplomacy, neocon John Bolton (the guy with the white Hitler mustache) to explain to us Rubes why the U.S. military may have to intervene in Egypt.  It would not be in our national interest to have a hostile government in Egypt., he said.

Bolton calls the protesters "radicals".

Where did this guy get his credentials from?
Out of a box of cereal?

What a complete and utter dick this guy is.
How pathetic is it that Fox Dictator News puts this guy on air at all?

--
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: The Dire Consequences of Health Care Reform Repeal, But Republican Hypocrites With Government Coverage Do Not Care

>
>My personal opinion is that health care access should be in the
>Constitution as a case apart. Namely, it should be codified in the
>Bill of Rights as an amendment: everyone has a right to acute medical
>care at a time of crisis. I have made that case before. How can we
>rally around a right to bear arms, but not protect the arms that do
>the bearing? How can we protect the right to assemble, without
>protecting the limbs that carry us to the assembly? Life and limb
>would seem to qualify as priority items, and their protection a public
>good, with widespread public support.


Everyone has a 'RIGHT' to steal from others? Huh?

This guy has no clue about the Constitution NOR the intent of the
Federal Government.

Regard$,
--MJ

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution
to the federal government are few and defined.
Those which are to remain in the State governments
are numerous and indefinite. The former will be
exercised principally on external objects, as war,
peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with
which last the power of taxation will, for the
most part, be connected. The powers reserved to
the several States will extend to all the objects
which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern
the lives, liberties, and properties of the people,
and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity
of the State. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers

--
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: The Dire Consequences of Health Care Reform Repeal, But Republican Hypocrites With Government Coverage Do Not Care

Well, still not an original thought, but not a silly, pointless quote
either.

The premise of this article is, however, chilling. Katz's argument is
that the framers of the Constitution could not predict issues the
country would face more than 200 years after it was drafted, and
therefore it's up to the judge to determine they got something wrong
and correct it from the bench. That is not how our system works. The
Judge was asked only to determine if the mandate to purchase health
insurance was constitutional or not. He was NOT asked to determine
whether it was a good idea or not. He is not empowered to modify the
Constitution, only to interpret it. If you disagree with the ruling,
then argue how it is an incorrect interpretation. Do not argue based
on the repercussions.

Aside from the fact that Katz's entire argument is built around an
invalid premise, it's also fundamentally flawed. If we should make
'health' insurance Federally mandated, even though not explicitly
allowed by the Constitution, because not doing so is too costly, then
why shouldn't we make 'life' insurance mandatory as well. As Katz
writes; "Alrighty, then; what about involuntarily bleeding to death?".
Well yes, David, what about that? Health insurance will do nothing
for someone who has involuntarily bled to death, yet there are
definite financial repercussions to someone dying without having life
insurance in place. Who will pay for any outstanding debt on the
estate? What if there are dependents who will now be forced into the
'system' at the public's expense? Why should WE have to pay for this
because the person dying didn't think to carry life insurance? So
lets mandate that as well. How many more things should the government
mandate of us? This is precisely what the Constitution protects us
from.


On Feb 1, 4:57 pm, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wrong again.
>
> Health Care Law: What the US Constitution Meant to Say
>
> -by David Katz, MD
>
> Here is a passage lifted ver batim from The New York Times coverage of
> the decision by a federal judge in Virginia that the Obama
> Administration's health care reform legislation was in parts
> unconstitutional:
>
> "Thus far, judges appointed by Republican presidents have ruled
> consistently against the Obama administration, while Democratic
> appointees have found for it."
>
> Richmond, we have a problem. The contents of the U.S. Constitution
> shouldn't change when seen through a red lens, or blue. That the
> meaning of the Constitution varies diametrically when seen from the
> left or seen from the right is, in a word, wrong. It makes reading the
> Constitution sound like reading tea leaves.
>
> In the case of the controversial provision -- the requirement that
> everyone buy health insurance or be penalized -- what DID the
> Constitution mean to say?
>
> Almost certainly: not a thing! When our Constitution was drafted,
> health insurance wasn't on anybody's radar (neither, for that matter,
> was radar). Medicine was primitive; hospitals were all but
> nonexistent; long-term care institutions did not exist. There was no
> dialysis, no organ transplantation, no open heart surgery, no
> angioplasty. Acute threat to life or limb generally meant...loss of
> life or limb. And when the medical services of the day were required
> and of any use, the barter system took care of the costs more often
> than not.
>
> One need not be a Constitutional scholar (and I hasten to note: I am
> not!) to know that the Constitution was silent on health care
> insurance for the same reason it was silent on inter-stellar travel.
> Such concerns were not part of the world in which the document was
> drafted.
>
> So the Constitution is silent on health insurance per se. But it is
> not silent, of course, on government powers and their limits, and
> that's where the controversial interpretations pertaining to health
> care reform originate.
>
> The U.S. Constitution says the government can't force you to buy
> anything. Or at least, it says something like that.
>
> The states can force you to buy auto insurance if you drive a car.
> But, they can't force you to drive -- or own -- a car. So, free will
> prevails! The Constitution is OK with this.
>
> The state can't force you to buy or rent an abode. But the authorities
> can hassle you interminably if you attempt to rest your head in just
> about any alternative place -- just ask a homeless person in any major
> city. Let's call this one a bit gray.
>
> The controversy now is: What about health care, and the insurance that
> generally pays for it?
>
> The decision in Virginia suggests that health insurance is like any
> other commodity, and the federal government does not have the
> authority to force us to buy it. Specifically, Judge Hudson stated
> that the government lacks authority "... to compel an individual to
> involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity
> in the private market."
>
> The crux of the matter, then, is involuntarily entering the stream of commerce.
>
> Alrighty, then; what about involuntarily bleeding to death? What about
> a case of involuntary HIV? What about involuntary meningitis, or heart
> failure? Few people I know volunteer for medical calamities. Medical
> calamities are, quite predictably, involuntary. And there's the rub.
>
> On any given day, any of us can be involuntarily thrust into the
> "stream" of health care commerce by an involuntary disaster. Then the
> only question is: will we, or won't we, have a paddle?
>
> When life and limb are imperiled, we intervene -- and worry about the
> bill afterward. Human decency requires nothing less.
>
> But afterward, there IS a bill -- and someone has to pay it. Leaving
> out the details, that someone will be us. It will be paid through our
> taxes, or paid in our health premiums. In other words, we, the
> insured, ARE being forced to 'enter the stream of commerce'
> involuntarily, to pay the bills of those who opted out. Bad enough to
> be forced to buy something for yourself -- how about being forced to
> buy something for the other guy, who opted out of the system and left
> the bill to you and me?
>
> That's the problem with thinking of health care -- and the insurance
> to pay for it -- as if it were any other commodity. People can just
> say no to any other commodity. They can't say 'no' to resuscitation
> from cardiac arrest -- at least not until after they are a beneficiary
> of it!
>
> And worse than that- the only bills we pay on behalf of those who
> choose not to play are the high-cost, post-calamity bills. We don't
> pay for preventive care, so those opting out don't get it. They won't
> get their cholesterol checked, but they will get CPR. They get, and we
> pay for, the worst kind of care: post-catastrophe, high-cost,
> questionable outcome, totally involuntary care.
>
> These are facts, readily substantiated. So where do they leave us?
>
> In doubt, perhaps, about what the Constitution meant to say. But maybe
> the Constitution did not mean to say anything about health insurance,
> because health insurance is not like any other 'commodity.' It flows
> in a current quite apart from the prevailing 'stream of commerce.'
>
> My personal opinion is that health care access should be in the
> Constitution as a case apart. Namely, it should be codified in the
> Bill of Rights as an amendment: everyone has a right to acute medical
> care at a time of crisis. I have made that case before. How can we
> rally around a right to bear arms, but not protect the arms that do
> the bearing? How can we protect the right to assemble, without
> protecting the limbs that carry us to the assembly? Life and limb
> would seem to qualify as priority items, and their protection a public
> good, with widespread public support.
>
> But the Bill of Rights, for now, includes no such entry. In the
> absence of such a constitutional right, perhaps we need the 'No Label'
> movement to help us see the Constitution through a lens that is
> neither blue nor red. Perhaps an uncolored lens would show us more
> clearly what the Constitution meant to say in this case.
>
> While waiting for the politics to play out, while waiting to see if
> the prevailing view of the Constitution is to left or to right, I
> maintain that inconsistent access to health care is wrong.
>
> Our modern politics, and the polarization that currently prevails, is
> inviting us to infer what the Constitution meant to say yesterday.
> That it is open to interpretation and changes when viewed from left or
> right seems to indicate we are far from sure. We are putting words
> never spoken into the mouths of our Founders.
>
> Maybe they just didn't answer this question for us, and we are left to
> figure out for ourselves what constitutes the right thing to do.
>
> More:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/left-right-wrong-health-c...
>
> On 2/1/11, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > That Conservatives often confuse 'sanctity of
> > life' with slavery notwithstanding ...
>
> > What this Abelson person is saying is (within
> > your assertion) the 'santity of life' for those
> > who will have their health care provided by
> > others ... and that those who will be FORCED to pay do not matter.
>
> > EVERYONE has a right to life; their OWN life;
> > self-ownership.  Legitimate Government serves to SECURE this right.
>
> > Regard$,
> > --MJ
>
> > "If a man has the right to self-ownership, to the
> > control of his life, then in the real world he
> > must also have the right to sustain his life by
> > grappling with and transforming resources; he
> > must be able to own the ground and the resources
> > on which he stands and which he must use; in
> > short, to sustain his human right" -- Murray Rothbard.
>
> > At 04:08 PM 2/1/2011, you wrote:
> >>But conservatives  say they believe in the sanctity of life.  Oh
> >>right, the sanctity of rich people's lives.  The rest of us don't
> >>matter.
>
> >>On 2/1/11, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> >> > REED ABELSON
> >> >    Federal Judge Rules That Health Law Violates Constitution (February
> >> > 1,
> >> >    2011) The legislation put an end to lifetime limits on coverage for
> >> >    the first time, erasing the financial burdens, including personal
> >> >     bankruptcy, that had affected many ailing Americans.
> >> > MJ
> >> > So OTHER PEOPLE should be FORCED and ENSLAVED
> >> to provide payment for 'care'.
>
> >> > REED ABELSON
> >> >    For example, Hillary St. Pierre, a 28-year-old former registered
> >> > nurse
> >> >    who has Hodgkin's lymphoma, had expected to reach her insurance
> >> > plan's
> >> >     $2 million limit this year. Under the new law, the cap was
> >> > eliminated
> >> >     when the policy she gets through her husband's employer was renewed
> >> >     this year.
> >> > Bastiat
> >> > "But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if
> >> > the
> >> > law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other
> >> > persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen
> >> > at
> >> > the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do
> >> > without
> >> > committing a crime.
>
> >> > "Then abolish this law without delay, for it
> >> is not only an evil itself, but
> >> > also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites
> >> > reprisals.
> >> > If such a law ­ which may be an isolated case ­ is not abolished
> >> > immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.
>
> >> > "The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending
> >> > his
> >> > acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect
> >> > and
> >> > encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the
> >> > state
> >> > because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay
> >> > higher
> >> > wages to the poor workingmen.
>
> >> > "Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of
> >> > these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact,
> >> > this
> >> > has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich
>
> ...
>
> read 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.