Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

This is how Progressive Libs allways get it done OR at Least attempt to

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by DMax, Dec 27, 2011.

  1. DMax

    DMax Yamhill Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,667
    Likes Received:
    2,322
    pokerace and (deleted member) like this.
  2. Phillyfan

    Phillyfan Oregon City, Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,351
    Likes Received:
    336
    I don't want to get into a huge debate here, but this article makes the same mistake so many others do when they try too hard to prove a point. They don't let the facts do the talking. This is so one sided and biased that it does a diservice to those armed with real facts and data to make their argument. So many assumptions as to why certain types of research was being done, and assuming they were trying to prove something.

    Oh, and this:

    " While most Americans presume federally funded medical research projects focus on cancer, Alzheimer’s, heart disease and other difficult health issues, the NIH - the agency tasked with this mission - instead has wasted more than $5 million since 2002 in an effort to strengthen gun-control laws."

    Who was president in 2002?

    I am all for keeping our gun rights safe, but we don't have to stack the deck to do it. That's what the other side has to resort to.
     
  3. iusmc2002

    iusmc2002 Colville, WA Active Member

    Messages:
    577
    Likes Received:
    207
    What does the president have to do with anything? 5 million, since 2002, do you honestly think the prez is concerned with something THAT trivial? Obama's Christmas vacation cost that much, so why would 5 mil. over the course of 9 years mean anything?
     
  4. Phillyfan

    Phillyfan Oregon City, Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,351
    Likes Received:
    336
    OP brought Obama into it, that's why I mentioned it.
     
  5. Phillyfan

    Phillyfan Oregon City, Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,351
    Likes Received:
    336
    " While most Americans presume federally funded medical research projects focus on cancer, Alzheimer’s, heart disease and other difficult health issues, the NIH - the agency tasked with this mission - instead has wasted more than $5 million since 2002 in an effort to strengthen gun-control laws."
     
  6. rufus

    rufus State of Jefferson Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,585
    Likes Received:
    930
    I often read here about how there is no difference between the demos and the repubs, puppet this and that, and random anti-corporate blather. Well, this is one example of how the repubs have your liberal gun-love'n backs. The facts of the matter are the demos, who many of you no doubt vote for time and time again, are the ones that want to take you guns away, and they will stoop to any low to do it. The big question now is how many of you libs are going to continue to support these clowns?
     
    fuhr52 and (deleted member) like this.
  7. Jamie6.5

    Jamie6.5 Western OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,206
    Likes Received:
    4,439
    Now that there is a federally mandated and funded health care and and insurance scheme, the NIH has become an essential tool in the fight for gun control. The more the dotgov pays for insurance, prevention and treatment, the more they can justify otherwise undue influence against gun ownership.

    I agree wholeheartedly with the article, and it's just one reason I was against the dotgov being directly involved with healthcare from the beginning.

    If you can't see the potential for anti-gun influence in government healthcare, you just aren't paying attention. It's easy to associate gunshot wounds with increased healthcare costs. Trauma wards and their operation are expensive.
    I expect the overseers to exploit that as we progress into the implementation of the health care law that obama, pelosi and reid are so proud of.
    I also expect the "findings" of the NIH and their studies to be a fundamental tool of said overseers.

    Best to de-fund them now, as it will be impossible to do so later on.
     
  8. FarmerTed1971

    FarmerTed1971 Portland, Oregon, United States Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    266
    Seems to me the clowns have been debating every week or so now. Until the Right gets a candidate worthy of my vote I will continue to vote Progressive... But, I am leaning more and more towards Dr. Paul these days.

    There are plenty on the Right who are against guns as well, you just don't hear about it near as much in the media and their party stifles their voices on the subjust. It's not good for the party as a whole. You cannot just generalize and say Right = Pro Gun and Left = Anti-Gun. Sure, it seems that way because of the media spin, and I would venture to guess that by and large the scales are tipped that way, but keep in mind that there are plenty of Pro Gun lefties that keep their opinions on the down low because it's not good for them politically as well.

    Politics are a game, a big game where we get to watch from the sidelines and are forced to suffer the effects without much say at all. It's tough to find a candidate that agrees with our personal stances on anything so we are, yet again, forced to vote "for the less of two evils". Problem is what we are left with is still evil.
     
    korntera and (deleted member) like this.
  9. CharonPDX

    CharonPDX Portland, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    523
    Likes Received:
    214
    Well, I'm a progressive liberal, and I abhor the idea that the government would try to take away guns in the name of "public health". But at the same time, guns *ARE* a "public safety/heath" issue, and so I have no problem with doctors ASKING about them to advise you as a patient/parent-of-patient of the health consequences. I just have a problem with the doctor SHARING that bit of information with *ANYONE*.

    rufus has it close: Gun control has nothing to do with direct political ideology, and everything to do with desire for power. Too many liberals have been convinced that it is in the public good to have gun control as well - convinced by those with a desire for power. Most gun control laws started under conservative/authoritarian leadership (see Reagan's gun control measures in California!) but sadly the torch was taken up in the name of "bleeding heart" liberalism. I am absolutely a "bleeding heart" and have open enough eyes to see that gun control and liberalism are actually OPPOSED. (And I try to show other liberals the light.)
     
    Kevatc and (deleted member) like this.
  10. FarmerTed1971

    FarmerTed1971 Portland, Oregon, United States Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    266
    Oh, and Obamacare is a joke... Just a profit stream for Insurance companies. Until we get single payer by state or by nation, I will not support a mandate that just make private industries richer. Health care should not be a for profit industry IMHO.
     
    locobob, korntera, Kevatc and 3 others like this.
  11. Jamie6.5

    Jamie6.5 Western OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,206
    Likes Received:
    4,439
    Gee Ted, why not just hand them the keys to the kingdom?

    When the dotgov can dictate healthcare policy to the extent required with dotgov-single-payer, the war on guns from the health care side will ensue.
    Imagine for a minute their justification of an ammunition surcharge tax to cover the cost of gunshot treatments in hospitals and trauma wards.
    Sound far-fetched? Not to me.
    That's how their minds work when seeking revenue for their causes.

    Back in the day, the Pittman-Robertson act was implemented so that sportsmen that participated in shooting and hunting sports would contribute to the management costs of public lands and game species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife).

    In the same vein, the implementation of single payer would kick the door down for tax surcharges on every aspect of the self defense gun/ammo market, and open the door for things like restrictions on ammo that cause the most trauma.

    Be careful what you wish for.
     
  12. FarmerTed1971

    FarmerTed1971 Portland, Oregon, United States Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    266
    Perhaps, but I doubt it.
     
  13. Jamie6.5

    Jamie6.5 Western OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,206
    Likes Received:
    4,439
    I'll bet you doubted:
    Before you voted for him last time.
    See where progressive *thinking* will get ya?!?

    And if you'd quit listening to the lefty-pundits like charlie rose and really watch/listen to a few debates, you'd quit thinking they are all "boobs" like your "news sources" tell you they are.
     
  14. FarmerTed1971

    FarmerTed1971 Portland, Oregon, United States Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    266
    They ARE boobs. I've watched every debate so far. Beginning to wonder why I'm wasting my time.
    Have not watched Charlie Rose for a LONG time.
     
    Kevatc and (deleted member) like this.
  15. deen_ad

    deen_ad Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Likes Received:
    1,310
    So, if you drive a car (which kill far more people than guns) you're going to have to pay more for health care? Or maybe if you smoke you should pay more? Or maybe if you have knives in your home you should pay more? And if you might have a fire you should pay more?

    See where that thinking can lead!
     
  16. CharonPDX

    CharonPDX Portland, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    523
    Likes Received:
    214
    No, but your doctor should be able to ask you if you buckle your seat belt, and give you advice that you should if you don't. But the doctor shouldn't be able to give THAT information to insurance companies, just as I said (in the very next sentence of mine - which you did not quote) that they shouldn't be allowed to share gun ownership information with anyone else.

    A doctor's duty is to understand the health implications of his patient's life - and advise/assist in making the patient healthier. Sharing *ANY* information with the insurance company should not be a part of that, other than the information absolutely necessary to process payment.

    My thinking doesn't lead anywhere except a doctor advising a patient. Don't go not-fully-quoting me then try to twist my meaning.
     
  17. Jamie6.5

    Jamie6.5 Western OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,206
    Likes Received:
    4,439
    Okay Charon, but what happens when the InsCo, possibly the dotgov, says to the Dr.
    "The patient questionnaire MUST be filled out in it's entirety to receive payment."

    And said questionnaire asks for gun ownership info.
    That is the problem with the whole scheme. It removes the Doctor's ability for discretion.
     
  18. rufus

    rufus State of Jefferson Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,585
    Likes Received:
    930
    Do not progressive liberals see government health care (notice I did not say socialized medicine) as a desire for power, just like gun control? Also, if we get single payer (state or nation), what if the state and/or national government wants to know who has guns? Should doctors then share that info? And if they don't?
     
  19. iusmc2002

    iusmc2002 Colville, WA Active Member

    Messages:
    577
    Likes Received:
    207
    Sorry man, it's none of a Dr's damn business whether I wear a seat belt or not. It's not his job to advise me to wear one, nor is it his "job" to advise me on anything other than what I'm there to see him for. Unsolilcited "advice" is just an excuse to get into areas they have no business being in.
     
  20. kev1

    kev1 seabeck,wa Member

    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    13
    I know this thread has wondered but I cant help myself....anyone that thinks a goverment should pull strings on there health care is nuts. I fear the day my doctors office has to release my families records to dc. They cant even keep a post office afloat.