Well, there you go. You have no right to defend yourself in the United Kingdom. In fact I believe they sent some poor sod up the river a few years ago for having the nerve to shoot the kids that were breaking into his house. Even the most liberal/left-wing American states still give you the right to defend your home with deadly force. Hell, even Canada still lets you do that.
*shrug*, it's listed under the powers of Congress, not the Executive. Lincoln overreached. Not even sure why he had to do it, seeing as how he had a Congress full of Republicans that would likely have gone along with him....
You asked what the disadvantage was of not having a 2nd amendment equivalent. The disadvantage is plain -- your Government took away your right to keep and bear arms. Saying that you can own shotguns and rifles rather misses the point. Besides which, my understanding is that you have to give up other rights in order to be able to own those shotguns and rifles. It's not a "right" if you have to submit to police inspections of your home in order to exercise it.
I like guns as much as the next guy, but our lack of a second amendment equivalent really doesn't put us at as much of a disadvantage as people seem to think.
Sure it does. Your Government took away your right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self and state. Your lack of a second amendment equivalent put you at a HUGE disadvantage with regards to keeping a right that your countryman had enjoyed for hundreds of years.
Find me some evidence that the mandate was a compromise with conservatives. You've provided some links that say a few Republicans supported the idea back in the 90s. That has zero relevance on the debate that occurred in 2009 and doesn't even address my request for evidence that conservatives desired such a mandate.
Irrelevant. The Federal Government has no business telling me that I must buy a product from private enterprise as a condition of being an American citizen.
Besides which, there was no reason to do away with the pre-existing conditions clause other than as a feel good move. No other insurance product provides coverage for damages incurred before coverage went into effect. Why the hell should health insurance operate any differently?
"Yeah, hello Mr. Insurance Agent, can you add collision coverage to my policy? My car was totaled yesterday and I want to file a claim."
You're the one positing that there's some sort of secrecy attached to the bill.
I posited nothing of the kind. I just pointed out that the bill was WRITTEN behind closed doors and the fact that Nancy Pelosi was quoted as saying "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it"
What in Obama's stated positions or legislative record makes you think that he ISN'T a centrist?
His expressed desire for a single payer health care system? His apologies for the United States on the global stage? His desire to impose a carbon tax that will increase the price of every consumer good in the United States? The "stimulus" bill that sent hundreds of billions of dollars to his friends in the public sector unions? His extreme hostility towards the 2nd amendment as a state legislator?
His eventual health-care plan is ridiculously tame
Nobody outside of the progressive movement thinks that the HCR legislation was "ridiculously tame". The Federal Government is taking away my ability to determine for myself whether or not I need health insurance and what kind I want to buy. That's stateism, pure and simple.
He's stated that he's willing to compromise heavily over the Bush tax cuts.
No he hasn't. He has defaulted to his campaign position of raising taxes on the "rich" (arbitrarily defined as $250,000) while leaving them the same on everybody else.
Obama is a centrist, a moderate, pro-business Democrat.
Pro-business politicians do not advocate policies that would impose massive cost increases on every business in the country. Pro-business politicians do not threaten to punish and/or try to intimidate private enterprise for refusing to toe the party line.
Stop claiming that he's Ralph bleeping Nader or something
You have a real talent for making up shit that I've never said.
that anything left of Ronald Reagan is unacceptable, because you won't accept a centrist compromise.
I'm not a big fan of Reagan. I'm socially moderate to liberal (depending on the issue) and fiscally conservative. Not much I would have agreed with Reagan on, though it's a moot point since I wasn't old enough to vote (or even understand the issues) when he was in office. Got another box you want to try and pigeonhole me into?
As I said earlier, the mandate was a compromise with conservatives, as much as they claim none were made.
You are either lying or misinformed. Which is it? Find me a single shred of evidence that suggests that the individual mandate was a "compromise" with conservatives, nearly all of whom opposed to it.
The individual mandate came from Nancy Pelosi and the House leadership. Obama claimed to be against it during the campaign and in fact used it to beat Hillary over the head with during the primary. Once he assumed office he flip-flopped on the issue, just as he flip-flopped on his promise not to raise taxes on those earning <$250,000.
I remember the anger, they were yelling about "death panels" and other nonsense instilled fear from right wing propoganda that the democrats foolishly ignored thinking that people would a) know better, and b) realize the results were actually good later and be happy.
It's cute how you worry about the "propaganda" while ignoring the fact that a huge majority of people (even according to left-wing pollsters like Nate Sliver) were opposed to the notion of an individual mandate. That's enough basis right there for people to oppose the HCR legislation and seek to end the political careers of those that championed it.
There is nothing in Obama's record as a legislator, author or executive that would convince me he is a centrist. I do get the impression that he isn't entirely comfortable playing the role of a Democratic partisan but his belief system definitely has a leftward tilt to it by American standards.
Regarding the HCR legislation, it WAS written behind closed doors and the rank and file had next to no input on it. The "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it" remark is not something I made up, it was uttered by none other than Nancy Pelosi. The final bill was not made available to the general public (or even the Congress-critters that would be voting on it) until near the end of the process. If you think I'm lying and/or misinformed about any of these facts I invite you to dispute them with credible outside sources.
What congress can do, make laws that put CEO's and board members of banks and businesses that pull the crap that caused an economic collapse. but we keep voting in idiots that are either rich guys that dont like putting rich guys in jail, or they are friends of these scumbags that cause the problems.
How can Congress make laws that put CEOs in jail for "causing" the economic collapse? If you believe that existing laws were broken that's one thing but you want them to pass new laws to put people in jail for actions that happened in the past? You might want to read the US Constitution, specifically Article I, Section IX, Clause III.
I stand by my statement--states are more accountable to their people.
Some states are. The largeish states (New York, California, Illinois, etc) have political machines that are every bit as corrosive and hostile towards the people as those found in Washington.
I agree with the gist of what you are saying, I've just seen Albany screw over my part of the state so many times that I'm skeptical that they'd do any better than DC. As you point out though the job is lawfully theirs and at least I wouldn't have to drive as far to bitch at my supposed representatives....
Wrong. Bush did a small temporary bailout to keep the car companies from going under. Then after they pissed away that money, Obama flat out used government money to BUY the damn companies.
You left out the part where Obama ignored the rule of law (the US Bankruptcy Code) and made up his own schedule for which debtors would be favored in the Chapter 11 proceedings.
If you want to talk about a left-wing partisan presidency, look no further than Lyndon Johnson. That guy was as left-wing as they come (Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, the War on Poverty, starting the withdrawal from Vietnam, etc, etc)
LBJ was the one who escalated Vietnam. Two of those items (Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act) are not a left/right wing issue.
NOTHING from "Obamacare" has gone into effect yet.
False. The mandates that insurance companies cover dependents until age 26 and children regardless of preexisting conditions have already gone into effect. When you mandate that a company provide more services that cost money it's obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of economics that they will have to charge more money.
At least PART of the premium increases can be blamed on the HCR legislation. To say or imply otherwise is disingenuous.
If insurance companies can't deny coverage based on pre-existing problems, AND there's no mandate to have insurance, what's to stop people from waiting until they're sick to have insurance?
So let them deny on pre-existing conditions. Really, what's so horrible about that? I can't buy car insurance and ask them to pay for the damage the car already has. Flood insurance has a 30 day waiting period before it covers anything. Why can't health insurance work the same way?
The notion that the Federal Government can compel me to buy a product from private enterprise is far more frightening than the notion of the same private enterprise denying me access to their product.
These are programs that are doing real good for individual Americans.
No, they are doing some good for some individual Americans. The rest of us keep seeing our benefits cut and our eligibility dates increased. We don't have the choice of opting out of the system and taking our chances with the 12.4% of our salary that we never see. Personally I know I could do better with that money than Uncle Sam ever will but I'm not even allowed to try.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoever tagged this 'welcometojurrasicpark' is my new hero.
Well, there you go. You have no right to defend yourself in the United Kingdom. In fact I believe they sent some poor sod up the river a few years ago for having the nerve to shoot the kids that were breaking into his house. Even the most liberal/left-wing American states still give you the right to defend your home with deadly force. Hell, even Canada still lets you do that.
*shrug*, it's listed under the powers of Congress, not the Executive. Lincoln overreached. Not even sure why he had to do it, seeing as how he had a Congress full of Republicans that would likely have gone along with him....
How about self-defense?
You asked what the disadvantage was of not having a 2nd amendment equivalent. The disadvantage is plain -- your Government took away your right to keep and bear arms. Saying that you can own shotguns and rifles rather misses the point. Besides which, my understanding is that you have to give up other rights in order to be able to own those shotguns and rifles. It's not a "right" if you have to submit to police inspections of your home in order to exercise it.
I like guns as much as the next guy, but our lack of a second amendment equivalent really doesn't put us at as much of a disadvantage as people seem to think.
Sure it does. Your Government took away your right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self and state. Your lack of a second amendment equivalent put you at a HUGE disadvantage with regards to keeping a right that your countryman had enjoyed for hundreds of years.
Find me some evidence that the mandate was a compromise with conservatives. You've provided some links that say a few Republicans supported the idea back in the 90s. That has zero relevance on the debate that occurred in 2009 and doesn't even address my request for evidence that conservatives desired such a mandate.
Irrelevant. The Federal Government has no business telling me that I must buy a product from private enterprise as a condition of being an American citizen.
Besides which, there was no reason to do away with the pre-existing conditions clause other than as a feel good move. No other insurance product provides coverage for damages incurred before coverage went into effect. Why the hell should health insurance operate any differently?
"Yeah, hello Mr. Insurance Agent, can you add collision coverage to my policy? My car was totaled yesterday and I want to file a claim."
I suppose being stabbed instead of shot is a huge improvement. Hooray for the UK, home to the EU's highest rate of violent crime!
You're the one positing that there's some sort of secrecy attached to the bill.
I posited nothing of the kind. I just pointed out that the bill was WRITTEN behind closed doors and the fact that Nancy Pelosi was quoted as saying "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it"
What in Obama's stated positions or legislative record makes you think that he ISN'T a centrist?
His expressed desire for a single payer health care system? His apologies for the United States on the global stage? His desire to impose a carbon tax that will increase the price of every consumer good in the United States? The "stimulus" bill that sent hundreds of billions of dollars to his friends in the public sector unions? His extreme hostility towards the 2nd amendment as a state legislator?
His eventual health-care plan is ridiculously tame
Nobody outside of the progressive movement thinks that the HCR legislation was "ridiculously tame". The Federal Government is taking away my ability to determine for myself whether or not I need health insurance and what kind I want to buy. That's stateism, pure and simple.
He's stated that he's willing to compromise heavily over the Bush tax cuts.
No he hasn't. He has defaulted to his campaign position of raising taxes on the "rich" (arbitrarily defined as $250,000) while leaving them the same on everybody else.
Obama is a centrist, a moderate, pro-business Democrat.
Pro-business politicians do not advocate policies that would impose massive cost increases on every business in the country. Pro-business politicians do not threaten to punish and/or try to intimidate private enterprise for refusing to toe the party line.
Stop claiming that he's Ralph bleeping Nader or something
You have a real talent for making up shit that I've never said.
that anything left of Ronald Reagan is unacceptable, because you won't accept a centrist compromise.
I'm not a big fan of Reagan. I'm socially moderate to liberal (depending on the issue) and fiscally conservative. Not much I would have agreed with Reagan on, though it's a moot point since I wasn't old enough to vote (or even understand the issues) when he was in office. Got another box you want to try and pigeonhole me into?
How are those gun rights working out for you chaps across the pond?
Defamation isn't illegal per say in the United States. It can get you sued but won't get you criminally charged.
As I said earlier, the mandate was a compromise with conservatives, as much as they claim none were made.
You are either lying or misinformed. Which is it? Find me a single shred of evidence that suggests that the individual mandate was a "compromise" with conservatives, nearly all of whom opposed to it.
The individual mandate came from Nancy Pelosi and the House leadership. Obama claimed to be against it during the campaign and in fact used it to beat Hillary over the head with during the primary. Once he assumed office he flip-flopped on the issue, just as he flip-flopped on his promise not to raise taxes on those earning <$250,000.
I remember the anger, they were yelling about "death panels" and other nonsense instilled fear from right wing propoganda that the democrats foolishly ignored thinking that people would a) know better, and b) realize the results were actually good later and be happy.
It's cute how you worry about the "propaganda" while ignoring the fact that a huge majority of people (even according to left-wing pollsters like Nate Sliver) were opposed to the notion of an individual mandate. That's enough basis right there for people to oppose the HCR legislation and seek to end the political careers of those that championed it.
There is nothing in Obama's record as a legislator, author or executive that would convince me he is a centrist. I do get the impression that he isn't entirely comfortable playing the role of a Democratic partisan but his belief system definitely has a leftward tilt to it by American standards.
Regarding the HCR legislation, it WAS written behind closed doors and the rank and file had next to no input on it. The "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it" remark is not something I made up, it was uttered by none other than Nancy Pelosi. The final bill was not made available to the general public (or even the Congress-critters that would be voting on it) until near the end of the process. If you think I'm lying and/or misinformed about any of these facts I invite you to dispute them with credible outside sources.
What congress can do, make laws that put CEO's and board members of banks and businesses that pull the crap that caused an economic collapse. but we keep voting in idiots that are either rich guys that dont like putting rich guys in jail, or they are friends of these scumbags that cause the problems.
How can Congress make laws that put CEOs in jail for "causing" the economic collapse? If you believe that existing laws were broken that's one thing but you want them to pass new laws to put people in jail for actions that happened in the past? You might want to read the US Constitution, specifically Article I, Section IX, Clause III.
I think we can safely say that "ending wars" ... are good for the economy.
That depends:
Rule of Acquisition #34: War is good for business.
Rule of Acquisition #35: Peace is good for business.
(Sorry to quote Star Trek in a semi-serious conversation ;)
I stand by my statement--states are more accountable to their people.
Some states are. The largeish states (New York, California, Illinois, etc) have political machines that are every bit as corrosive and hostile towards the people as those found in Washington.
I agree with the gist of what you are saying, I've just seen Albany screw over my part of the state so many times that I'm skeptical that they'd do any better than DC. As you point out though the job is lawfully theirs and at least I wouldn't have to drive as far to bitch at my supposed representatives....
Wrong. Bush did a small temporary bailout to keep the car companies from going under. Then after they pissed away that money, Obama flat out used government money to BUY the damn companies.
You left out the part where Obama ignored the rule of law (the US Bankruptcy Code) and made up his own schedule for which debtors would be favored in the Chapter 11 proceedings.
If you want to talk about a left-wing partisan presidency, look no further than Lyndon Johnson. That guy was as left-wing as they come (Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, the War on Poverty, starting the withdrawal from Vietnam, etc, etc)
LBJ was the one who escalated Vietnam. Two of those items (Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act) are not a left/right wing issue.
NOTHING from "Obamacare" has gone into effect yet.
False. The mandates that insurance companies cover dependents until age 26 and children regardless of preexisting conditions have already gone into effect. When you mandate that a company provide more services that cost money it's obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of economics that they will have to charge more money.
At least PART of the premium increases can be blamed on the HCR legislation. To say or imply otherwise is disingenuous.
They did exactly what they said they were going to try to do when they were campaigning to be voted into office
Obama was against the notion of an individual mandate when he was running for office.....
If insurance companies can't deny coverage based on pre-existing problems, AND there's no mandate to have insurance, what's to stop people from waiting until they're sick to have insurance?
So let them deny on pre-existing conditions. Really, what's so horrible about that? I can't buy car insurance and ask them to pay for the damage the car already has. Flood insurance has a 30 day waiting period before it covers anything. Why can't health insurance work the same way?
The notion that the Federal Government can compel me to buy a product from private enterprise is far more frightening than the notion of the same private enterprise denying me access to their product.
These are programs that are doing real good for individual Americans.
No, they are doing some good for some individual Americans. The rest of us keep seeing our benefits cut and our eligibility dates increased. We don't have the choice of opting out of the system and taking our chances with the 12.4% of our salary that we never see. Personally I know I could do better with that money than Uncle Sam ever will but I'm not even allowed to try.
The problem with social security is that it has become a ponzi scheme
FTFY