The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality - Page 9

The video tapes they made were educational, riiight.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/liv...nt.php?ref=fpa
Meanwhile "Chris" said,

Where have I heard that before.

And went on to say,

Paranoid much, or something worse.
Maybe paranoid is enough, nothing like a bit of paranoia and have easy access to a gun.


Not a no, not a yes, a maybe.
Depends on how things go, or if they make me do it or someone whispers in my ear, or head or, fucking hell they're out to get me.

Dumb Fuck.

The way I read that, it sounds more like whether the Tree would be watered with his own blood, not by someone else's.

Yeah, let's hope he puts a bullet in his head before he takes out his frustrations on someone who's happy with their life.

And he's on a watch list, the dumb fuck.

Are you happy with your life?

Absolutely, but what's that got to do with anything.

Talk about missing the point. While I have never owned a firearm and have no desire to do so, this guy probably sees himself as an American patriot trying to secure his right to bear arms along with keeping the government as far as possible out of everyone's pockets. He threatened no one.

Angry leftists overturn cars and bring out riot police regularly. For all these angry town hall meetings we keep hearing about, there has been next to no property damage, law enforcement bills, arrests or criminal proceedings.

A bunch of wingnut socialists have to resort to calling opponents 'nazis' and 'racists' and trumping up charges of violent intent because they don't understand the implications of their own health care bills, and then they wonder why they're losing the debate.

You seem to be pleased that he's probably on a watch list. Am I misreading you?

So tell me, how would the tree get watered with his blood, your read on it, if he didn't shoot himself.
He was alright until he opened his mouth.

Regularly? At Town Hall meetings?

And a bunch of wingnuts on the right spread lies, misinformation and fear.

He made it easy for those on the lookout for potential trouble and when they heard what he was saying I would think there was no question of him being on a watch list.

I didn't ask if you thought he was on some watch list. You've made your opinion on that probability quite clear. But you didn't answer my question. You seem to be pleased with the prospect that me might now be on some kind of government "watch list" for exercising his 1st and 2nd amendment rights. Am I misreading you on this?

You give your opponents an over-the-top ideological label ("socialists"), while complaining about them labeling their opponents with an over-the-top ideological label ("nazis").

Calling someone a Nazi isn't even comparable to calling someone a socialist.

Anyway, I didn't want to say 'Democrats' because not all the Dems are marching lock step with Obama's health care makeover, and only a vocal few have gone to bat with the leadership's talking points of claiming the town hall protesters are violent, racist thugs.

How so, exactly?

It may not be directly equivalent, especially in terms of offensiveness, but it's fairly comparable nonetheless. Either one is an extreme exaggeration of the left or right tendencies of those to which the labels are applied.


Would you say it's more, or less, than the proportion of Republicans throwing around the "socialism" label?

How would you define socialism?

No dictionary, your definition.

Anyone can feel free to answer.

Since you're asking, would you mind starting?

In a socialistic system, the government controls production and distribution of a good or service, and equal access to those goods or services to it's citizens.

An example would be setting wages for the field workers, controlling what gets planted, setting prices for the food, then making the food available to all it's citizens.

OR, government setting wages for doctors and hospitals, controlling what care is made available and what it will cost, sponsoring a public health care insurance program, and making health care available to all it's citizens.

(come on, you didn't think I'd let an opportunity pass to make that point, did you? )

Pretty much the opposite of a laissez-faire system (which means "leave business the hell alone!", loosely)...which is why I have an issue with it. Innovation thrives when folks have incentive, and no other system provides more incentive than capitalism.

Why wouldn't I be.
Why wouldn't any sane person.

Barney Frank had a question posed by an idiot at his town meeting, and he put the lady in her place.

Q "Why are you supporting this Nazi policy?"

A "On what planet do you spend most of your time?"

After suggesting that it was a great country and that she was free to say what she did, he continued:

"Trying to have a conversation with you would be like arguing with a dining room table."



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_262682.html

Because I would think that putting people on government "watch lists" for exercising their constitutional rights would be offensive and repugnant to anyone who values liberty, the constitution and, particularly, the Bill of Rights.

But maybe it's only offensive and repugnant when Republicans are in control.

You come armed to an event where the president is and say to those around you,

And you think it's offensive for those charged with protecting the public and those that serve the public, in perceiving him as a possible threat worth keeping tabs on.

I think it would be insane not to have him on a watch list.

I understand your position. Declaring freedom and exercising rights are appropriate government "watch listable" activities.


Also, you might notice in the statement:


The word resist. I see nothing in this statement that suggests inciting, initiating or instigating violence. Only resisting affronts to their liberty.

You might also remember that one of the core purposes of the form of government established in these United States was intended to protect minorities from majorities.

Yeah, Palin was way off with her 'Death Panels' comment.

The Obama administration would never, ever hitch their wagon to that sort of thing.

I'm 56 and I'm not afraid Obama's going to enact death panels!

Sheesh!

This response is the kind of insightful, fact-based reasoning that makes everyone trust the Democrats.

What a bunch of fear mongering. And you wander why you lost the election. This is only going to make your chances of gaining seats harder as the fears die down.

How many people in the US are denied care at the moment when they need it most, thousands. How many lives will be saved by a government run healthcare system, thousands. But you would rather stamp your feet for profit than for lives. Truly sick.

Forcefully you just ignore.
An armed man is supposed to be seen as passively resisting huh?

So you arm yourselves and dare anyone to make you go along with whatever it is that most people are for and you aren't.

How would the founding fathers have handled your grievances today and what would they have you do about it.
Be honest.

And he's a Canadian.
I thought we were all labeled as socialists.

No I didn't. And I didn't even suggest the resistance would be passive. But I don't know why it must be. There's a philosophy that passive resistance is preferred. But whether passive or forceful is best is a matter of debate.



Call it a "dare" if you like. I'd call it a declaration of a line in the sand. He's saying "don't cross this line".



Personally I believe some of the grievances that exist today (for example the level of taxation) far exceed some of the grievances listed at that time. Other grievances listed then are not applicable today and may never be. There might be different ones today.

How would they handle it? Well I think we can look at their example for the answer to that question, they took up arms to defend what they viewed as their rights. In fact in some ways it can be argued they actually instigated and initiated hostilities (though I suppose it depends on how you look at it), which I personally don't advocate. But I fully support anyone's right to defend their rights, and forcefully if necessary.

In summary I believe the American people have submitted to far too much already (though, clearly, some don't agree with me on that). I support anyone who declares a line to not be crossed and their right to forcefully (or passively as they chose) resist (aka defend) any further incursions against them and their rights.

Is being willing to suffer the consequences for living by some particular philosophy such a sick thing? Are you willing to die for your philosophies? I know I'd be willing to, if that's what it took.

There are millions of millions of people alive today because of advances made possible by researchers and organizations who did what they did for personal gain - one of the most honest incentives there is.

It takes lots of school time to be a researcher, and education isn't cheap... that expense has to be paid somehow. Personal gain allows for security, for the individual and for their family. The possibility of personal gain encourages risk taking, and without risk there can be no progress.

The funny thing is that so many people think that if we have a government run system that the motive of personal gain will be gone, banished as opposed to simply being channeled and manifested in different forms and ways.

If Obama's admin keeps getting linked to hare-core abortion and euthanasia advocacy and delivery, those fears probably won't be dying down anytime soon.


Look, I LIVE IN CANADA. While our system does have the advantage of covering everyone, there are plenty of people who are being denied care up here. There are waiting lists and our ERs are as swamped as anywhere in the States, probably more. If you think the lack of competition or lack of a profit incentive creates better health care delivery, you are badly mistaken.

Furthermore, Canada doesn't have ten million unregistered immigrants to think about, or a land border with Central America that will burst at the seams the minute after America adopts universal health care. Canada has one tenth the population of America. Though Canadians crow about single-tier health care and the banning of a parallel private system, we all know the existence of the open U.S. system acts as our own parallel private system.

Simply trying to emulate the Canadian or British systems in America will result in catastrophic failure. Right now America has best-of-class health care that a significant number of citizens can't afford to access. Nationalizing health care in the U.S. will rapidly diminish the quality of care and leave many of the same Americans still unable to access the system because of funding shortages and waiting lists.

The problem is, there will be nowhere for regular people to go once that happens.
The elite will get care and access just as they do now (or fly to other countries for it.)

In essence then you support Tim McVeighs use of force.

In essence...No. But it appears you've figured out some way to twist what I said into that conclusion. Bravo!

Let me try to be more clear and explicit. I do not advocate the initiation of force or violence except and only when it may be required as a defensive action due to a real, credible and imminent threat of violence or force by another.

Is that more clear?

Ever see someone channel someone else ... enable someone else to be inspired.. to be creative.. to be inventive?

It requires freedom of thought, freedom to risk, freedom to follow individual patterns, not being directed by the government in some particular pattern of behavior and business.

I've done it "my way". I've gotten where I am because of bargains I've struck, agreements I've made, and there were times I was offered very sweet deals - if I would put aside my goals and assume goals others set for me. I thanked them kindly and went my own way.

I suck at jobs where folks try to direct me. Really, REALLY suck at them. I'm not someone who can be micro-managed... or even managed. Give me a responsibility and let me decide how to fulfill it.

I've been happiest since going my own way, 15 or so years ago, becoming an independent consultant. I get paid by the hour and if I don't work, I don't get paid. I pay my own insurance. I am richly rewarded.

I work with people that rely on their jobs as their means of support, I rely on my career. Those folks generally aren't happy with their jobs, I'm fucking ecstatic with my career.

I suggest people try being independent, it's the best thing since sliced bread. Thing is, you can't be independent if you're dependent...and being independent and being taken care of by the government are mutually exclusive.

Agreed 100%.

Never said you would advocate use of force.
You said you would support some ones decision,

McVeigh's line got crossed, people died, for what.

Now you take it as an affront to liberty when some one who closely thinks the same things as McVeigh did and publicly said them, may be on a watch list.

In a true tyrannical government what would have happened to him.

Good, glad you are clear on that.



...to resist...to act in defense.



You seem to be trying to either twist the meaning of what I've said or the meaning of what McVeigh did (and his reasons) to fit into some picture you have of me supporting McVeigh-like actions. Have fun with that.



Your attempts to tie this guy to McVeigh and McVeigh's actions and motives aside, I do believe that government watch lists are an affront to liberty. And Liberal Democrats used to as well. Don't know if they do now that they are in charge of the watch lists.



You seem to be implying that tyranny is either a yes or no, on or off, black or white kind of thing with no concept of degrees or a gradual path from from total freedom to total tyranny.

As someone who is trying to get into a position where I don't have to work under the direction of someone else and become financially independent, I have observed what has happened over my short 28 year lifetime - under Republican and Democrat control alike - and I am seeing the opportunities that will allow me to achieve my dreams slowly (and now not so slowly) eroding away.

I am trying to achieve something that my president and government do not want me to achieve: self sufficiency and financial independence.

I believe that if I want something bad enough, it is my responsibility to work hard and persevere, to do all I can to obtain it.

However, I see more and more people becoming dependent on an ever-growing government and on the charity of others.

Because I was laid off for couple months this past Dec - January, I now have a house in foreclosure. I am doing all I can to work with the bank to do a short sale. We've submitted and resubmitted any and all paperwork they have requested. Our realtor found a buyer. The bank has been "working on this" - reassigning our case various times (so they say) and repeatedly telling us that we would see some resolution within 2-3 weeks. That was 6 months ago.

We have since moved into a small condo that we own, but we travel to our old house once a week to maintain the property. We continue to pay HOA dues and whatever utilities are required to keep the landscaping looking good. We are doing all we possibly can within our means to be responsible and take accountability for our own financial failings.

We are frustrated and upset when we talk to friends - a married couple with a baby boy - who also had to walk away from their home due to financial hardship. They just walked away, abandoned the property entirely and let it rot. They filed for bankruptcy and made all their debt go away. They are on government subsidized health insurance through the state of Arizona, and neither of them work.

They live rent-free in a nice home one of their relatives owns. They just put new laminate-wood flooring in, and have a nice big flat-screen LCD TV. He's going to school full-time - that has to be government subsidized or paid for by someone else. They have 2 cars. I think someone else buys them groceries and gas for their cars. They are completely dependent on others for their survival.

Now, we are all dependent on others for our survival to some degree.

But I can't help but look at my friends and ask myself what the heck I am doing, trying to be responsible for my own family and be self-sufficient.

I've dreamed about going back to school and earning a degree, but I've never wanted to go into debt to do it. It's so enticing to just quit my job, file for bankruptcy, and live off the government and the charity of others.

But I quickly remind myself that it is more enticing to me to be self-sufficient and financially independent. I want to be in a position to help others when they truly need it - and to help others reduce their dependency on government and employers.

I'm fortunate to have a good job with good benefits. But I don't want to be working for someone else for the rest of my life. I want to be the guy that others work for. Is it wrong for me to want that? Is it wrong for me to be ambitious? Is it wrong for me to want to be financially independent - to be wealthy?

</rambling rant>

Arming yourselves and daring the government to make you comply with the law isn't the most intelligent way to resist.

It's all part of the same anti government radical philosophy.

Keeping tabs on a potential threat is the wise thing to do.
You may not like it but there are a lot of nutbars out there.

I get that, what I'm saying is there are better ways than arming yourself and daring to resist, forcibly.

It's a lose situation in these times.

I guess we see his actions differently. But even if it's exactly as you say, I still have no problem with it if the law to be complied with is considered inappropriate, immoral or otherwise an inappropriate and unconstitutional affront to liberty. You must remember that tyranny happens (usually) in small "baby" steps) and at some point someone (or more than one) stand up and say "This step is one too many! Enough!"



But you seem to be jumping to the conclusion that people who share a philosophy also share a vision on the actions to be taken and tactics to be used. This is a fallacy plain and simple. I am quite anti-government in my own thinking, but I'm not planning to blow up any buildings or kill anyone because of it. I may arm myself for defensive purposes at some point (sadly I'm not right now). But this doesn't mean I intend to kill anyone or assassinate the president. Government is the primary and most comprehensive initiator of violence in our world, you should look more carefully at it.



The problem is that the "watch lists" (and the criteria to add someone to it) end up becoming the tools for much more egregious tyranny by governments. This has happened so many times throughout history it's almost a proverb.



Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe the other ways have been exhausted and found to be ineffective in "these times". But the fundamental fact still remains that he was peacefully exercising his rights under the constitution. When someone doing so is considered a "terrorist" or "offensive" or even "unwise" act perhaps we have already reached an unacceptable level of tyranny.



Possibly. Even probably. But what price silent, passive compliance?


P.S. I agree, my own tactics would be different. I would be less likely to "poke the bear" so to speak. But if pushed far enough, who know, I might. And there are some who think that the most patriotic (patriotic to the core, founding principles of this great country) thing to do is to "poke the bear".