Being Goofy Fringe-Right Hurts Gun Rights

[PMKN_PI]

We talk about the Leftwing and the Rightwing. But, who are the RIGHTWINGERS? Today's Rightwingers are yesterday's "MIDDLE OF THE ROAD 'MODERATES'"! The horrible things that the Right is accused of such as being "Pro-America, Pro-gun, Pro-Anti-abortion, Pro-Constitution, Pro-Limited government, Pro-Christian ethics and morals, Pro-marriage before having children, Pro-No filthy language on TV or radio, Pro-Anti-pornography, Pro-No special rights for anybody based on their sexual preference, " and so forth, were All MAINSTREAM AMERICA as late as the 1950's. America has shifted so far to the left that one time Moderates are now Rightwing extremists! The long time heritage of America was drastically changed starting during the 1960's and has turned this country into a degenerate nation where the old standards are today considered extremism.

Exactly right. Repbulicans that are PRO- CAP-AND-TRADE and Government HEALTH CARE are USING THEIR TITLE to SCREW true CONSERVATIVES. Party hacks that vote for people just because they have an 'R' by their name are just gonna hand over the country to the one-party current oligarchy. The need to HEAR LOUD AND CLEAR we will not tolerate being called EXTREMEST just because we dont want to destroy the capitalist system and believe in things like THE 2ND AMENDMENT.

 

[bugeye]

Before I go cook dinner, what would the impact be if we threw out the current bills on health care and stuck with tort reform, open interstate purchase of policies and were able to successfully reduce ins. fraud, private as well as in Gov. funded programs..?

Rev. Jim II

p.s. Does anyone think the current bills being tossed about have any designs on limiting the 2A? Take into account the info requests on intake forms in some medical offices and the liability forecasts suggested by ins. companies in the same vein as smoking or other hazerdous lifestyle choices.

The list of changes you threw out there wouldn't save enough to keep our system viable.

Agreed the current bill is inadequate to solve the health care cost problems, it's only a start, and by the time it gets back from the senate it will have even less teeth. Our political process is a mess. Way too much lobby activitiy, way too much money influencing these votes. Congress voted some time ago that unspent campaign contributions are allowed to be kept as personal wealth. Our system is sort of a blueprint for corruption.

The sad part is that we can no longer solve our problems, and that makes me think we are dinosaurs looking up at the asteroid. Lobbys are one of the factors, but the polemic is another, powerful interests are polarizing the citizens to the extent that we don't have a single voice, we have millions yelling at each other. A lot of entrenched money is influencing these divisions while owning the media. NO change means the entrenched stay even more entrenched.

The secret part of this health care bill is that any resulting cost are to be paid by taxes on people that make more than half a million a year. They, of course, want to keep the middle paying for the health care system, but the middle can't afford it anymore. Increases in health care ate any economic gains the middle made in the last 8 years!

I see this playing out from my perspective of economic classes. Basically, Who is going to get stuck with the bill and who is stuck with it now. Others see it from the perspective of power, they see the gov taking on more power, they see the gov being huge, inhuman and inefficient, so they can't see anything good ever coming from these reforms. Others see it as yet another welfare program in which lazy, useless people will be getting care at their expense.

It seems we no longer care for each other as a people. Maybe it takes some monumental event like WW2, a massive struggle for our very survival, to create that envelope of unity? Without a unifying event, it just seems like we really don't like each other anymore, and we demonize each other over almost nothing.

Is it possible that this disunity and hatred are the real reasons behind the deaths of great empires? I can't imagine anyone that could unite us, we are all so full of hate.

 

[PMKN_PI]

Way too much lobby activitiy, way too much money influencing these votes.

Some lobbying is good. The NRA is a Lobby. Should we end that? There are others like it, too , that do good.

 

[Jamie6.5]

The point made about tort costs is only valid in terms of actual costs of the lawsuits themselves. It fails to take into account the premium increases the insurance industry imposes, and the minimums for malpractice coverage.
If you read the links I posted earlier Zach, you will find that the insurance companies have raised premiums for MP insurance beyond the providers ability to forecast increases. These have been proven to be unfounded in terms of tort payouts, and have been part of revenue recovery on the part of the insurance companies.
Again, we need to prevent insurance companies from selling policies on both ends of the system.
I contend that is the definition of price fixing.

As for the issue of do we care for our people, and can we cover their healthcare needs, I believe there is a way for Gov't to intervene, cover the needy and still remain within the free market system.

The first would be to enforce immigration laws. Illegal immigrants have overwhelmed the system in most large cities, particularly in the southern areas like LA, El Paso and Phoenix etc.

The next would be to tweak the Student Loan program to assist with gov't run clinics.
If someone requires a student loan from the gov't. for med school, they work 1-2 days per week in a "free clinic" style facility for the first 2 or 3 years after completion of their schooling. These could be free or nominal fee schedule treatment centers. Work there would contribute to paying off debt accrued for schooling.
The idea of heading to the emergency ward for minor problems would be alleviated and free up funds and exam rooms that are needed for true hospital required treatment.

 

[bugeye]

Things are the way they are because the politicions made it so. The people of America in general are good people, it's the politicions that ruin our lives. You in turn vote for that to happen and relish in the fact.

If we had a conservative government and they would follow the constitution then we wouldn't be in this mess. The Liberal progressives have done this to us and are about to do more. Who do you believe in the founding fathers or Obama?

jj

Things are the way they are in health care because they have had no negative feedback, government should be providing that as they are the only instutitution we have to do that. Based on what you're saying health care needs no such supervision, and that obviously isn't working for us.

The constitution is a wonderful short document but it is just a core, around it are past decisions and millions of laws. This is what we have to work with, if we did away with them we would have anarchy.

I know these easy answers sound good to you, heck they sound good to me, but things are way to complex for this and the the political evolution of this country has created all these extra parts. It's just way to easy to say things when we have no responsibility for them. One of my crackpot ideas is that we leave Afganistan ASAP but before we do we arm the women with easy to conceal handguns. When the taliban come back they shoot them, problem solved.

 

[el gringo loco]

I love how CEF1959 loves to pull the pin on the grenade, toss it in the room, and then sit back and watch as everyone tries to throw the other guy on top of it. An inflammatory first post (which I agree with by the way), and nothing since, has generated 15 pages of Glenn Beck quotes, mindless political rhetoric, borderline hate speech, and, well, a bunch of people unwittingly proving CEF1959's original statement correct. AWESOME!

 

[bugeye]

42

1.2 trillion over ten year estimate of the not yet passed health care bill is by the congressional budget office. The fact this does not include deals made to lower private costs are not included because they aren't federal expenditures.

My at least 12% more overhead for private insurance companies vs, the gov as they run medicare insurance, is a figure I worked out myself. The left claims this figure to be 30%, but if you look at the privates paying taxes and then take into consideration that the part of the gov that does medicare relies on parts of the gov not on its budget that do services for it, like the IRS that collects the money, you see that the figure for medicade overhead is BS. I can claim this 12% to be conservative and true, so I use it.

30 million getting health care insurance is the figure used by the people who have argued out this bill, I don't know how true that is, and it isn't worth it to evaluate because this isn't law yet.

Once in a while I throw out a bad figure like the 30% mentioned above, when this was questioned I did a reevalutation and changed it. I don't use bad numbers to confuse or win arguments. I figure that even if your ends justifiy the means, what really happens is that the means become the ends, so from BS you can only get more BS.

 

[bugeye]

The point made about tort costs is only valid in terms of actual costs of the lawsuits themselves. It fails to take into account the premium increases the insurance industry imposes, and the minimums for malpractice coverage.
If you read the links I posted earlier Zach, you will find that the insurance companies have raised premiums for MP insurance beyond the providers ability to forecast increases. These have been proven to be unfounded in terms of tort payouts, and have been part of revenue recovery on the part of the insurance companies.
Again, we need to prevent insurance companies from selling policies on both ends of the system.
I contend that is the definition of price fixing.

As for the issue of do we care for our people, and can we cover their healthcare needs, I believe there is a way for Gov't to intervene, cover the needy and still remain within the free market system.

The first would be to enforce immigration laws. Illegal immigrants have overwhelmed the system in most large cities, particularly in the southern areas like LA, El Paso and Phoenix etc.

The next would be to tweak the Student Loan program to assist with gov't run clinics.
If someone requires a student loan from the gov't. for med school, they work 1-2 days per week in a "free clinic" style facility for the first 2 or 3 years after completion of their schooling. These could be free or nominal fee schedule treatment centers. Work there would contribute to paying off debt accrued for schooling.
The idea of heading to the emergency ward for minor problems would be alleviated and free up funds and exam rooms that are needed for true hospital required treatment.

OK, you've got some good ideas there, the problem is that good ideas aren't enough these days, compromise beyond compromise is the way to get a bill into law.

The actual costs benefits of tort reform is a complex issue. I don't buy the low figure put out by the left, as you say it fails to take into consideration too many factors. I'm willing to accept a figure as high as 10 percent for legal related costs of our medical system, however realistically only about half of that could ever be removed by any legislation that stood a chance of passing. Still, even if we could save an additional 2.5% that would be great. Now I think the GOP could have gotten this in the current bill if they had agreed to cooperate. Politically, I think they felt is was in their interests to not participate, add features, or support this bill at all. Maybe that was smart for them as a party, but it isn't smart for us the people who are left as shills in this game and will end up paying more for less.

On the other side, the lack of real reform in this bill is pretty bad, the odds of getting it pased meant that they made all sorts of deals with big business, and this results in us paying more too.

But you know, any solution to this problem has to be so miserably compromised in order to become real, that maybe we need to examine the process that makes our government no longer capable of solving problems. I say we start with the lobbys.

Another original crackpot idea: The Liberty Abatement Tax, Since Lobbys routinely give money in the form of campaign contributions to elected officals of the Local, State, and Federal Governments of the USA, and since these payments have to be seen as an attempt to influence the votes, or actions, of these officals, and since this contradicts their intended purpose as representatives of the will of the people, that these lobbys be required to pay 50 times the amount of the contribution as special taxes that can only be used to pay down any budget deficts in the scope of the offical who gets these contributions.

I think this is more than reasonable, after all the constitution does not contain the word lobby at all, let alone give it special status as the most powerful branch of our government!

I think if you really want to defend the constitution my crackpot idea is a pretty good one. Now what do you suppose the odds of passing such a law are? I'm thinking zero!

 

[Partsproduction]

I love how CEF1959 loves to pull the pin on the grenade, toss it in the room, and then sit back and watch as everyone tries to throw the other guy on top of it. An inflammatory first post (which I agree with by the way), and nothing since, has generated 15 pages of Glenn Beck quotes, mindless political rhetoric, borderline hate speech, and, well, a bunch of people unwittingly proving CEF1959's original statement correct. AWESOME!

And what did you expect? If someone called your heros whackos would you just sit and take it?
I assume your heros would be Karl Marx and Che.

Oh!! Have I misrepresented you? So sorry! You get it back in kind.

 

[PMKN_PI]

And what did you expect? If someone called your heros whackos would you just sit and take it?
I assume your heros would be Karl Marx and Che.

Oh!! Have I misrepresented you? So sorry! You get it back in kind.

Well said.

 

[Captain Question]

As for the issue of do we care for our people, and can we cover their healthcare needs, I believe there is a way for Gov't to intervene, cover the needy and still remain within the free market system.

The first would be to enforce immigration laws. Illegal immigrants have overwhelmed the system in most large cities, particularly in the southern areas like LA, El Paso and Phoenix etc.

The next would be to tweak the Student Loan program to assist with gov't run clinics.
If someone requires a student loan from the gov't. for med school, they work 1-2 days per week in a "free clinic" style facility for the first 2 or 3 years after completion of their schooling. These could be free or nominal fee schedule treatment centers. Work there would contribute to paying off debt accrued for schooling.
The idea of heading to the emergency ward for minor problems would be alleviated and free up funds and exam rooms that are needed for true hospital required treatment.

The two phrases in bold up there are incompatible. Once you have the State intervene, it's no longer a free market. Which is not to say you're not free to call for very limited State intervention - just don't misuse the term "free market" while doing so. Or at least append an adjective like "sort of," "relative," "mostly" or "partly" so as to comply with Truth In Advertising laws.

And just for giggles - postulate the effect of a "free" clinic and the number of users it would attract. cf. "emergency room" if you need hints. Not to mention the issue of essentially imposing a "student loan surcharge" on doctors - seems to me that it would only be fair to impose the equivalent upon any recipient of a student loan, n'est pas? Either pay in kind, or pay into a pool with cash if your particular degree isn't one that's of Actual Value. Looks to me like you're wanting a tax rate of about 40% there...

I don't suppose you'd consider an actual free market solution, would you? It's called "pay for services." Out of vogue, I know, but with enough of us pushing for it it could make a comeback! And if you can't afford services, then charity is your best bet - or determine if you REALLY need them, perhaps?

 

[bugeye]

Some lobbying is good. The NRA is a Lobby. Should we end that? There are others like it, too , that do good.

OK, you have one lobby that servers your interest when there are a thousand that don't. you can't win here unless you have the money and then you can buy all the lobbys you want. Get the point?

 

[el gringo loco]

And what did you expect? If someone called your heros whackos would you just sit and take it?
I assume your heros would be Karl Marx and Che.

Oh!! Have I misrepresented you? So sorry! You get it back in kind.

I feel sorry for you if Sarah, Rush and Glenn are your heroes. There are plenty of intelligent, coherent, thoughtful conservatives to look up to without having to settle for those moronic nutballs.

While Karl and Che aren't everyone's cup of tea, I think the argument can be made that being Goofy Fringe Left (as opposed to Goofy Fringe Right) actually kind of helps gun rights.

My point, which you seemed to miss, was that I was amazed at how easily the original poster could stir the pot.

 

[RevJimII]

The list of changes you threw out there wouldn't save enough to keep our system viable.

Agreed the current bill is inadequate to solve the health care cost problems, it's only a start, and by the time it gets back from the senate it will have even less teeth. Our political process is a mess. Way too much lobby activitiy, way too much money influencing these votes. Congress voted some time ago that unspent campaign contributions are allowed to be kept as personal wealth. Our system is sort of a blueprint for corruption.

The sad part is that we can no longer solve our problems, and that makes me think we are dinosaurs looking up at the asteroid. Lobbys are one of the factors, but the polemic is another, powerful interests are polarizing the citizens to the extent that we don't have a single voice, we have millions yelling at each other. A lot of entrenched money is influencing these divisions while owning the media. NO change means the entrenched stay even more entrenched.

The secret part of this health care bill is that any resulting cost are to be paid by taxes on people that make more than half a million a year. They, of course, want to keep the middle paying for the health care system, but the middle can't afford it anymore. Increases in health care ate any economic gains the middle made in the last 8 years!

I see this playing out from my perspective of economic classes. Basically, Who is going to get stuck with the bill and who is stuck with it now. Others see it from the perspective of power, they see the gov taking on more power, they see the gov being huge, inhuman and inefficient, so they can't see anything good ever coming from these reforms. Others see it as yet another welfare program in which lazy, useless people will be getting care at their expense.

It seems we no longer care for each other as a people. Maybe it takes some monumental event like WW2, a massive struggle for our very survival, to create that envelope of unity? Without a unifying event, it just seems like we really don't like each other anymore, and we demonize each other over almost nothing.

Is it possible that this disunity and hatred are the real reasons behind the deaths of great empires? I can't imagine anyone that could unite us, we are all so full of hate.

My suggestions were just the first line from common threads I have been hearing. I guess I was going towards a minimalist point in starting with a few broken aspects of the system instead of a complete revamp of the entire engine.

In trying to evaluate this entire issue, I have tried to simplify my questions and answers to keep things compartmentized. We have heard many arguments for and against the various forms of Health Care bills and a lot of it is valid and thought out. By trying to fit everything into a super sized bill compromised by lobbyists, agenda driven politicians, special interests and whoever else has the slightest pull in the matter we are going to end up with a large ineffective pile of dung that is going to be nothing but a burden on society.

The one thing that bothers me most about this entire affair is the speed at which they want to pass these through Congress, all the bailouts and healthcare have to be pushed through so fast we don't have time to debate and come up with something that will function in a decent manner. If we were to take the time to get it right, it would make up for the time by being more efficient.

Just for giggles I would like to see some of the Founders sit down and read these monsters and give their take on it..

Rev. Jim II

p.s. I appreciate and enjoy the intelligent debate amongst the members of this forum. While this thread is not directly related to the sites subject, it has a lot of impact on the 2A and the manufacturing industry in general. Not to mention the impact of anti-gunners who might actually try to utilize some aspect of healthcare to inhibit our natural rights.

 

[RevJimII]

I feel sorry for you if Sarah, Rush and Glenn are your heroes. There are plenty of intelligent, coherent, thoughtful conservatives to look up to without having to settle for those moronic nutballs.

While Karl and Che aren't everyone's cup of tea, I think the argument can be made that being Goofy Fringe Left (as opposed to Goofy Fringe Right) actually kind of helps gun rights.

My point, which you seemed to miss, was that I was amazed at how easily the original poster could stir the pot.

I personally spread my attention around as much as possible to get the whole picture. I even (gasp) listen to liberal advocates and moderates as well. While not here to defend those listed, I would like to point out that Mrs. Palin has done a pretty fair job of running the State of Alaska while in office. She is quite an easy target for ridicule but I don't see that she is due the title of 'moronic nutball'.

Rush is here to opine/entertain. He thrives on being controversial and stirring the pot. Now, Glenn Beck uses visuals and sarcasm to hammer home the points he tries to make. He is a self professed clown who says he shouldn't be the one out there championing the causes of freedom and liberty. He fills a niche that has been left empty. I enjoy watching his show and have even read a couple of his books and find them to be entertaining as well as fairly well informed. I believe that Fox News uses research teams to attempt to verify what they broadcast.

I have seen them refuse to release information on many occasions till they were able to authenticate the data with reputable sources despite being 'scooped' by other stations. Sure a lot of his theories are stretched a bit, but did not the President say something about if you want to know his policies look to the people he hangs out with? Are not most of them tied to no less than mildly radical facist/socialist/progressive/communist groups or ideals?

There are a lot of good books out there to read, and I would like suggestions from others on books I might not have read yet that would give good insight.

Liberty and Tyranny - Mark Levin
Common Sense - Thomas Paine
Federalist Papers
Anti-Federalist Papers
New Federalist Papers
Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand

Guns, Crime, and Freedom
Shooting Straight: Telling the Truth About Guns in America
Guns, Freedom, and Terrorism
The Global War on Your Guns
The Essential Second Amendment Guide
- Wayne LaPierre

These are just a few interesting reads..

Rev Jim II

 

[bugeye]

My suggestions were just the first line from common threads I have been hearing. I guess I was going towards a minimalist point in starting with a few broken aspects of the system instead of a complete revamp of the entire engine.

In trying to evaluate this entire issue, I have tried to simplify my questions and answers to keep things compartmentized. We have heard many arguments for and against the various forms of Health Care bills and a lot of it is valid and thought out. By trying to fit everything into a super sized bill compromised by lobbyists, agenda driven politicians, special interests and whoever else has the slightest pull in the matter we are going to end up with a large ineffective pile of dung that is going to be nothing but a burden on society.

The one thing that bothers me most about this entire affair is the speed at which they want to pass these through Congress, all the bailouts and healthcare have to be pushed through so fast we don't have time to debate and come up with something that will function in a decent manner. If we were to take the time to get it right, it would make up for the time by being more efficient.

Just for giggles I would like to see some of the Founders sit down and read these monsters and give their take on it..

Rev. Jim II

p.s. I appreciate and enjoy the intelligent debate amongst the members of this forum. While this thread is not directly related to the sites subject, it has a lot of impact on the 2A and the manufacturing industry in general. Not to mention the impact of anti-gunners who might actually try to utilize some aspect of healthcare to inhibit our natural rights.

The bailouts had to go fast, when the private sector and the gov failed to save Lehman Brothers, the CDS insurance on them became payable and AIG was sitting on over 60 billion of it, so they would have gone next and the domino effect would have leveled the worlds financial markets for at least 10 years, no joke! Nothing has changed in the regulation of these deriviatives either, and that is another reform the gov needs to take up and fight.

I'm not sure we are going to get any health care reform bill passed, let alone if it was put on the back burner. The bill also has to be big in order to be worth making all the deals over it. My fear is that it is just too much work to make any changes given this structure. And not making changes is the sure road to extinction.

The health care bill is paid for by people making more than 500K$, the rest of us are going to get lower insurance rates, and the uninsured are going to get some coverage, if this bill passes. Obviously there are a lot of interests involved here, in my conspiracy hypothesis, the rich, who don't want to pay (no blame here just human nature) have contracted with the media to condition people to not support this bill even though it is in their best interests.

For ammo, they have the generality about the gov being inefficient and corrupt. But the gov is far more efficient that private insurance companies as far as doing the actual work of administering the funds and payments, and is probably less corrupt too, since this work is done by mid grade government employees who are held to much higher standards than people with similar jobs in the private sector.

Then they have the big government boogeyman that wants to control every aspect of their lives, taking over everything. Another emotional argument that really has little basis, no one wants that much control of you, honest. I joke that my wife has ten times more control of me than the gov ever has, and not even she can stand to have any more..

So, we are left with no unity, and inablility to promote our own interests, so the foxes are left in control of the henhouse. I can only do politics from my perspective and that is best defined by 'money makes the world go round'. Money = power = control = influence = need to protect the flow that has put it in my hands in the first place. That seems pretty tame as far as conspiracy theories go?

 

[ZeroRing]

I feel sorry for you if Sarah, Rush and Glenn are your heroes. There are plenty of intelligent, coherent, thoughtful conservatives to look up to without having to settle for those moronic nutballs.

Care to share who you have in mind here??

While Karl and Che aren't everyone's cup of tea, I think the argument can be made that being Goofy Fringe Left (as opposed to Goofy Fringe Right) actually kind of helps gun rights.

No arguement there! The Goofy Fringe Left's ideas vis-à-vis gun control is the best motivator out there.

My point, which you seemed to miss, was that I was amazed at how easily the original poster could stir the pot.

Indeed (good analogy BTW). I'm glad I'm not to only one to notice that.

 

[Partsproduction]

I feel sorry for you if Sarah, Rush and Glenn are your heroes.

And I feel sorry for you, because you don't seem to have a clue about the ideals that the founders of this once great country reflected when they did so. Hint hint, they would almost certainly have agreed with the three who you call moronic.

I'm totally mystified as to how someone who agrees with obummer could own firearms and not be ashamed of themselves, but maybe it's just a case of cognizant dissonance. Nothing about the left's "thinking" processes really surprises me, it used to. But lately I've come to expect several outrages per day But how you take two and two and make three somehow is mystifying, I mean, the actual process. But maybe it's caused by chaos of the mind?

 

[Just Jim]

I came back to continue but after catching up with the reading common sense tells me it's a lost cause

jj

 

[el gringo loco]

Originally Posted by el gringo loco
I feel sorry for you if Sarah, Rush and Glenn are your heroes. There are plenty of intelligent, coherent, thoughtful conservatives to look up to without having to settle for those moronic nutballs.

Care to share who you have in mind here??

Granted, most of them are dead or have been pushed out of the mainstream Republican party. While I don't agree with most of them, I have to say that these folks make (or made) cogent arguments often using abstract concepts--concepts foreign to the likes of Glenn Beck--like "logic" or "facts" to support their beliefs.

Not all inclusive, but people that I, as a pro-labor pseudo-lefty, feel are (were) at least intellectually honest:
-Barry Goldwater
-William F. Buckley (Sr. and Jr.)
-Ron Paul (a little wacky, but there is a logic to a lot of what he says)
-Michael Medved
-Alex Castellanos
-John Stossel
-James Baker
-Dinesh D'Souza
-George Will

Even Lars Larson is more intellectually honest and willing to support his arguments with facts than Palin, Limbaugh or Beck.