Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: Letter

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1

    Post imported post

    Hi guys, i am writing a letter to the editior of a local editior. Currently i live in Pa, and been thinking of open carrying and trying to educate the public about their rights. I wrote this letter to remind myself i am doing nothing wrong, and hopefully i will be able to open carry. Any suggestions (positive/negative) comments, anyhing about this letter will be appreciated.
    I live in Pa, if you need to know what statre im comming from.

    Now heres the letter i hope-

    Why do I not see more people practicing their right to bear arms in Erie?

    Ever since starting my education at the college level, I began to wonder why I have to give up my right to carry a concealed weapon just to receive my college education. Like countless people before me, I gave 4 years of my life to serving the country, and protecting those so called rights that we all live by since the Constitution was written.

    If I was a bad guy I would be less likely to attack someone with a plain sight weapon, knowing he could get his weapon out faster then I could getting my concealed weapon out. Let me remind you I am a law abiding citizen. There a numerous posts on these websites that I have been too saying something like man carrying a weapon deters bank robbery, man with gun deters mugging, etc. I think more people should not be afraid of the anti gun critics and carry their firearms with pride and support the Constitution.

    If you are reading this, and would like more information on this topic I suggest you go to OpenCarry.org - A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost!, http://www.defensivecarry.com, and Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association. I think their members for sharing their information and experiences with me. The main reason why I do not open carry in the city of Erie is because going to Walmart that one time and having some insane crazy woman screaming GUN, GUN, GUN. Having her calling the local PD, and having them showing up and detaining me, that sounds so exciting that I would have to pass. To those anti gun aka “sheep”, not everyone with a weapon is a bad guy. We actually take our Constitution seriously and live by what it says. To those individuals that do not feel safe around our weapons. Sure you can go to a manger saying you feel unsafe around me because I have a weapon. I will go outside and conceal my weapon then come back in. But will you be OK when I tell a manager I feel unsafe around you because you look like a shady character., or when I tell the manager I feel unsafe around your knife that is hanging on your belt? I can go on and on with reasons why someone should report to a manager for countless reasons why they feel unsafe around someone else. To the store owners that do not display a “no guns allowed,” save your time and our time and post a sign, so we can just conceal our weapons and carry them in your stores anyways. To the stores that support the right to bear arms by citizens good job, I will conduct my business and give you my money any day you want.

    I have no experience dealing with local police when open carrying. I have not read anything on the internet, nor heard anything from my fellow gun activists. All I can say to those gun owners who are scared on dealing with the police, just be honest, straight forward, follow the officers instructions. You are doing nothing wrong, therefor they can not charge you with anything. The main reason why I have not heard anything about police misconduct when it comes to “open carrying”it must be because the police are update on the state gun laws, and do not hassle anyone about open carrying.

    Being pro gun I urge my fellow gun carrying citizens to not be afraid of what others may do, I urge you to practice (as I will be doing) displaying your firearm on your hip or however you desire to carry in plain sight and educate others on how the man with the gun isn't always the bad guy, he./she could be the person that saves innocent life's and deter robberies/muggings.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Nikki_Black's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Saint Francisville, Louisiana, United States
    Posts
    221

    Post imported post

    I like it overall. If you are reading this, and would like more information on this topic I suggest you go to OpenCarry.org - A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost!, http://www.defensivecarry.com, and Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association. I think their members for sharing their information and experiences with me. Found an error that spell check won't catch.

    But will you be OK when I tell a manager I feel unsafe around you because you look like a shady character; semi colon here or when I tell the manager I feel unsafe around your knife that is hanging on your belt?

    Don't know if you noticed those or not, but I figured it would be helpful.

  3. #3
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164

    Post imported post

    All I can say to those gun owners who are scaredof dealing with the police, just be honest, straight forward, follow the officers instructions. <sadly, this does not always work and I would recommend some sort of personal recording device that will at least capture audio.>

    You are doing nothing wrong, therefor they can not charge you with anything. <Again, this is not always correct and you should read some of the posts here about some of the civil rights violations by police officers.>

    The main reason why I have not heard anything about police misconduct when it comes to “open carrying” it<(should be deleted)must be because the police are up to date on the state gun laws, and do not hassle anyone about open carrying. <Again, research this site a bit more before you make such an incorrect statement!>

    I recommend that you browse the Michigan State section, look into the General Topics section and I am sure the other's can recommend more specific threads.

    I don't want to discourage you, just want you to understand that there is more to the practice of Open Carry than depending upon the local police force to understand and properly uphold the Open Carry Laws of any particular state. As with any other profession, you have your good guys, and you have your jacka$$s ...



    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  4. #4
    Regular Member MatieA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Egbert, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    403

    Post imported post

    I open carried all around Erie this summer while I was there for 3 weeks in August. I even carried to a Concert downtown on the street ( sorry don't remember the name). I never had any problems at all; while downtown I even passed several officers on foot; they noticed but said nothing. I was into several stores while I was there, and the only annoying part was when I went to Warren to visit other family I couldn't take the Interstate because it went into New York. I am hoping to go back to visit family again this August...if so maybe we'll see each other. Be Safe.
    If you do not test yourself every single day,
    then it is just another wasted day.
    --Semper Fi--

  5. #5
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,754

    Post imported post

    Nice letter Darkincin....

    May I point out one little word that sets a derogatory tone?

    "Sheep"...

    If we, as gun owners, wish to educate folks then using derogatory terms to describe them puts them down right from the start and sets a negative tone to the message.

    Just my humble opinion.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Bikenut wrote:
    Nice letter Darkincin....

    May I point out one little word that sets a derogatory tone?

    "Sheep"...

    If we, as gun owners, wish to educate folks then using derogatory terms to describe them puts them down right from the start and sets a negative tone to the message.

    Just my humble opinion.
    So what else do you refer to them as? Useful Idiots? Lenin seemed to like that one... quite descriptive. Mouth breathers? I use that terma lot. What's left... 'Proles?I'm not in the education business. I don't need approval for the free exercise of a right.The negativity isn't generated by the practitoners... it's coming from the non-practitioners.Those who would deny all of us a basic civil right.

    I'm not an advocate of 'in-your-face' grandstanding with scary lookin' EBR's and other show-off nonsense; just defensive purpose, properly holstered sidearms carried w/o interference by 'all of the above' and the JBT minded LEA's. VA and PA have been OC now for a number of years and they're still gettin' hassled by these JBT types. When law abiding citizens have more to fear from their government agencies than the criminals... there's something fundamentally wrong with that dynamic.

    It's not for nothing thatI chose to make my home in Arizona (coming from the Democratik Socialist Peoples Republik of Marystan).

  7. #7
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,754

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Bikenut wrote:
    Nice letter Darkincin....

    May I point out one little word that sets a derogatory tone?

    "Sheep"...

    If we, as gun owners, wish to educate folks then using derogatory terms to describe them puts them down right from the start and sets a negative tone to the message.

    Just my humble opinion.
    So what else do you refer to them as? Useful Idiots? Lenin seemed to like that one... quite descriptive. Mouth breathers? I use that terma lot. What's left... 'Proles?I'm not in the education business. I don't need approval for the free exercise of a right.The negativity isn't generated by the practitoners... it's coming from the non-practitioners.Those who would deny all of us a basic civil right.

    I'm not an advocate of 'in-your-face' grandstanding with scary lookin' EBR's and other show-off nonsense; just defensive purpose, properly holstered sidearms carried w/o interference by 'all of the above' and the JBT minded LEA's. VA and PA have been OC now for a number of years and they're still gettin' hassled by these JBT types. When law abiding citizens have more to fear from their government agencies than the criminals... there's something fundamentally wrong with that dynamic.

    It's not for nothing thatI chose to make my home in Arizona (coming from the Democratik Socialist Peoples Republik of Marystan).
    Even if you personally aren't ... many of us are doing this open carry thing for the purpose of educating folks.... educating them on the fact that they too have this "right to keep and bear arms".

    What else do we refer to people who haven't been educated yet? How about "potential allies" instead of "sheep"?

    I personally view the whole of the population as potential allies instead of enemies. Of course there are those who's minds cannot be changed... or even entered. But the vast majority of folks out there actually do have a modicum of common sense... but don't have all the information... they are operating only on the anti gun media bias they have been exposed to for decades.

    And referring to them in a derogatory fashion with the label of "sheep" only reinforces in their own minds what the anti's have been saying about those "arrogant gun totin' tough guys".

    Basically it is nothing more than a method of interacting with people... If my neighbor came over and said to me... "Hey dork! Come over here and help me mow my lawn." (Like saying.. "Hey sheep! Help me protect the right to keep and bear arms.")

    Guess what I would say to my neighbor? Guess what the "sheep" would say about guns?

    Whether or not other people have treated me, and my beliefs/agenda, with respect in the past or present..... if I, and my beliefs/agenda, are to be respected it is much more productive to respectfully deal with other people.... especially those people who don't share my beliefs/agenda... and calling them names isn't respectful.

    Which is more productive? To fight the world all by yourself? Or to gather allies to fight at your side along with you?


    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    This is Arizona. We carry guns. It's not a novelty, it's a cultural norm. Thegeography and climatedefeats or strengthens the rest. It's the way of things. If the noobs don't like it... they can go someplace else. I'll tell 'em that too. We don't need their blesssings or acceptance. Look what happened to Florida when the Yankees took over thru complacency and aquiecence.

  9. #9
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426

    Post imported post

    Bikenut wrote:
    Howelse do we refer to people who haven't been educated yet?
    How about "currently uninformed"? Sadly uninformed? Well-meaning but uninformed?
    Not aware of current research?
    Opinionated but incorrect?
    Has opinions based on emotion, not on facts?

    One of the most useful things I've found for keeping discussions fact-based is the PDF of
    research at http://www.gunfacts.info It's about 100 pages of myths about guns knocked
    down by research WITH CITATIONS.

    So if someone says (incorrectly) that private citizens with guns will shoot innocent
    bystanders, I can respond that this study [Shall issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit
    laws
    , Clayton Cramer, David Kopel, Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994] says that 2%
    of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person, but11% ofshootings by law enforcement
    kill innocent people.

    The more factual and unemotional we can be, the better we look compared to the scaremongers
    who are afraid of guns. "Look at all this research and experience that says armed citizens
    reduce crime!"
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    MKEgal wrote:
    Bikenut wrote:
    Howelse do we refer to people who haven't been educated yet?
    How about "currently uninformed"? Sadly uninformed? Well-meaning but uninformed?
    Not aware of current research?
    Opinionated but incorrect?
    Has opinions based on emotion, not on facts?
    Definition of a Liberal

  11. #11
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426

    Post imported post

    Has opinions based on emotion, not on facts?

    Definition of a Liberal


    :X
    Here we are discussing how to get more people to see things our way, and you go
    and start bashing a large part of the population. How will that help? Sometimes people
    who self-identify as liberal want to protect themselves, and sometimes they'll even change
    their views on other issues. Self-protection isn't solely owned by white republican males.

    I used to consider myself a liberal (though not necessarily a Liberal), and in some ways
    still do, though I'm becoming more and more libertarian. I've always been a proponent of
    self-protection. Hadn't really been a supporter of carrying guns, but wasn't against it
    either, and if someone had presented me with a factual argument showing that citizens
    with weapons have good results, crime-wise, I would have been all for the idea.

    So that's the approach I take with other people - they just don't have enough information
    to make a well thought out decision on the matter. Don't let your political views get in the
    way of the bigger struggle - preserving the right of self-protection via carrying a gun.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    MKEgal wrote:
    Has opinions based on emotion, not on facts?

    Definition of a Liberal


    :X
    Here we are discussing how to get more people to see things our way, and you go
    and start bashing a large part of the population. How will that help? Sometimes people
    who self-identify as liberal want to protect themselves, and sometimes they'll even change
    their views on other issues. Self-protection isn't solely owned by white republican males.

    I used to consider myself a liberal (though not necessarily a Liberal), and in some ways
    still do, though I'm becoming more and more libertarian. I've always been a proponent of
    self-protection. Hadn't really been a supporter of carrying guns, but wasn't against it
    either, and if someone had presented me with a factual argument showing that citizens
    with weapons have good results, crime-wise, I would have been all for the idea.

    So that's the approach I take with other people - they just don't have enough information
    to make a well thought out decision on the matter. Don't let your political views get in the
    way of the bigger struggle - preserving the right of self-protection via carrying a gun.
    "WASHINGTON – Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/rossiter/index

    "Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."

    "The liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by: Creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization; Satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation; augmenting primitive feelings of envy; Rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government. "The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind,"

    Knowthy enemy; know thyself. This is not a 'political', 'race' or 'gender' view... it's a psychiatric one. Liberalism is a mental disorder. I don't care if they 'see things our way'... nor amI interested in wasting time to convert them. That in itself is generally an exercise in futility.I don't care if theychoose to defend themselves or not. What I do care about is their persistant interference with the recognized and enumerated Rightof everyone todo so.


  13. #13
    Regular Member Eeyore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    on the move
    Posts
    558

    Post imported post

    darkincin wrote:
    The main reason why I do not open carry in the city of Erie is because going to Walmart that one time and having some insane crazy woman screaming GUN, GUN, GUN. Having her calling the local PD, and having them showing up and detaining me, that sounds so exciting that I would have to pass.
    I have no experience dealing with local police when open carrying. I have not read anything on the internet, nor heard anything from my fellow gun activists.
    Do not send this as-is.

    Major logical contradictions:

    1. Which is it: did you get detained, or have you never had any dealings with police?
    2. You say you "have not read anything on the internet," but you recommendOCDO and PAcarry. So apparently you have read things on the internet.

    Many, many typos/spelling errors, sentence fragments, and punctuation errors throughout--too numerous to point them all out.
    Guns don't kill people. Drivers on cell phones do.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Ohio, ,
    Posts
    68

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    MKEgal wrote:
    Bikenut wrote:
    How*else do we refer to people who haven't been educated yet?
    How about "currently uninformed"? Sadly uninformed? Well-meaning but uninformed?
    Not aware of current research?
    Opinionated but incorrect?
    Has opinions based on emotion, not on facts?
    Definition of a Liberal

    By a Liberal, do you mean someone who is open minded (the definition of the word) and does not believe in telling others what they should or should not do, or do you mean by the political party to which the word is usually associated with and has historically stood behind the individual rights of the people? Just wondering....

  15. #15
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,754

    Post imported post

    OCforAll wrote:


    By a Liberal, do you mean someone who is open minded (the definition of the word) and does not believe in telling others what they should or should not do, or do you mean by the political party to which the word is usually associated with and has historically stood behind the individual rights of the people? Just wondering....
    I just refer to those who think it is their divine mission to tell other people what to do, where it is acceptable to do it, and how it can be done, .. as "Leftists".





    I'll be polite and leave out the other, less pc but extremely accurate, words I use to describe a "Leftist".
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Ohio, ,
    Posts
    68

    Post imported post

    Bikenut wrote:
    OCforAll wrote:


    By a Liberal, do you mean someone who is open minded (the definition of the word) and does not believe in telling others what they should or should not do, or do you mean by the political party to which the word is usually associated with and has historically stood behind the individual rights of the people? Just wondering....
    I just refer to those who think it is their divine mission to tell other people what to do, where it is acceptable to do it, and how it can be done, .. as "Leftists".





    I'll be polite and leave out the other, less pc but extremely accurate, words I use to describe a "Leftist".

    With respect, I think you may not understand the meaning of the word. "Liberals" think that one group of people should have no right telling other groups of people how they should live their life. Gay marriage, for example. What gives anyone the right to tell someone else that they can't be married? Most people will use Christianity their argument against it, yet when asked to explain how it is we went from Adam & Even to Cavemen, they're unable to even comprehend the idea that their beliefs are illogical. Not to mention the majority doesn't even understand what logic is, and take the statement as an insult. Others, such as those with Prop 8 in California will argue that the people voted on it. Well, that would be great if we were a true Democracy but fortunately, for all of us, we are not. And by "us" I mean all Americans. If we lived in a Democracy then we'd be seeing civil rights violations voted on every year.

    Health care is another "Liberal" issue. Irrespective of which propaganda news channel you watch or believe, why on earth should any one American have access to a heath care that another American does not? Filter out the bs of obesity, smokers, drug users, etc. and the concept of personal responsibility. Two people: A billionaire and an out-of-work store clerk. Both have the same exact cancer and the ex-store clerk has no money or insurance. Now, tell me why the government shouldn't provide identical care for both. Explain to me why the billionaire has the right to purchase something that the clerk doesn't.


    While I believe that you are more than likely pointing at the morons who think guns are bads, something I agree with you on, I think your statement goes down the same road of ignorance as the very ideology you and I both detest.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    OCforAll wrote:
    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    MKEgal wrote:
    Bikenut wrote:
    Howelse do we refer to people who haven't been educated yet?
    How about "currently uninformed"? Sadly uninformed? Well-meaning but uninformed?
    Not aware of current research?
    Opinionated but incorrect?
    Has opinions based on emotion, not on facts?
    Definition of a Liberal

    By a Liberal, do you mean someone who is open minded (the definition of the word) and does not believe in telling others what they should or should not do, or do you mean by the political party to which the word is usually associated with and has historically stood behind the individual rights of the people? Just wondering....
    BS! Liberals are the first group who'll tell you you can't do something... and then apply the restrictive sociological clutter masked in phony rhetoric. 'Open minded' is subjectively cherry picked as to what is 'correct' or not. Liberal is a camoflage term forever Marxist, Leninist, Socialist, Communist, Facist, Maoist, Stalinistand National Socialist front that ever existed.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Ohio, ,
    Posts
    68

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    OCforAll wrote:
    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    MKEgal wrote:
    Bikenut wrote:
    How*else do we refer to people who haven't been educated yet?
    How about "currently uninformed"? Sadly uninformed? Well-meaning but uninformed?
    Not aware of current research?
    Opinionated but incorrect?
    Has opinions based on emotion, not on facts?
    Definition of a Liberal

    By a Liberal, do you mean someone who is open minded (the definition of the word) and does not believe in telling others what they should or should not do, or do you mean by the political party to which the word is usually associated with and has historically stood behind the individual rights of the people? Just wondering....
    BS!* Liberals are the first group who'll tell you you can't do something... and then apply the restrictive sociological clutter masked in phony rhetoric.** 'Open minded' is subjectively cherry picked as to what is 'correct' or not.* Liberal is a camoflage term for*ever Marxist, Leninist, Socialist, Communist, Facist, Maoist, Stalinist*and National Socialist front that ever existed. ****

    Could you please list everything that us Liberals have told you not to do, as well as cite actual historical events and the specific civil rights that were either taken away from you personally or society as a whole.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,754

    Post imported post

    OCforAll wrote:
    Bikenut wrote:
    OCforAll wrote:


    By a Liberal, do you mean someone who is open minded (the definition of the word) and does not believe in telling others what they should or should not do, or do you mean by the political party to which the word is usually associated with and has historically stood behind the individual rights of the people? Just wondering....
    I just refer to those who think it is their divine mission to tell other people what to do, where it is acceptable to do it, and how it can be done, .. as "Leftists".





    I'll be polite and leave out the other, less pc but extremely accurate, words I use to describe a "Leftist".

    With respect, I think you may not understand the meaning of the word. "Liberals" think that one group of people should have no right telling other groups of people how they should live their life. Gay marriage, for example. What gives anyone the right to tell someone else that they can't be married? Most people will use Christianity their argument against it, yet when asked to explain how it is we went from Adam & Even to Cavemen, they're unable to even comprehend the idea that their beliefs are illogical. Not to mention the majority doesn't even understand what logic is, and take the statement as an insult. Others, such as those with Prop 8 in California will argue that the people voted on it. Well, that would be great if we were a true Democracy but fortunately, for all of us, we are not. And by "us" I mean all Americans. If we lived in a Democracy then we'd be seeing civil rights violations voted on every year.

    Health care is another "Liberal" issue. Irrespective of which propaganda news channel you watch or believe, why on earth should any one American have access to a heath care that another American does not? Filter out the bs of obesity, smokers, drug users, etc. and the concept of personal responsibility. Two people: A billionaire and an out-of-work store clerk. Both have the same exact cancer and the ex-store clerk has no money or insurance. Now, tell me why the government shouldn't provide identical care for both. Explain to me why the billionaire has the right to purchase something that the clerk doesn't.


    While I believe that you are more than likely pointing at the morons who think guns are bads, something I agree with you on, I think your statement goes down the same road of ignorance as the very ideology you and I both detest.
    Returning the respect you offered me.

    I think perhaps we have a 'net misunderstanding.....

    My post wasn't about "Liberals" because I understand what that term means.

    I was pointing out that "Leftists" are those who want to control everyone else and have them live according to the "Leftist" belief system.... and, because in their own minds, they are so much above the ordinary unwashed masses they have divine direction... and divine authority... to insist everyone do what they are told to do by the Leftist.

    A true "Liberal" according to the original meaning of the word "Liberal" could never be a "Leftist" but... over time the "Leftist" has taken and perverted the term "Liberal" in order to give themselves a semblance of respectability.

    And the confusion (not to mention the ire of true "Liberals") of what the term "Liberal" means is a somewhat recent development historically speaking.

    As for why the billionaire should be able to purchase health care to address his cancer and the store clerk shouldn't get the same health care as the billionaire because the store clerk can't afford it......... in the first place health care is not a right!!!!! health care is a commodity for sale to the highest bidder!!!!

    Now..... please explain to me why the billionaire has the responsibility to pay (through taxes to the government) for the store clerks cancer treatments? Other than the touchy feely whine that "it's not fair!" what factual logic would apply?

    Those who truly believe in this health care crap should immediately sell all their possessions and donate all their money to the nearest poor suffering person's health care... that way there will be no need for the government to bleed me dry to pay for someone else's ailments.

    The thing that bugs me is so many people (perhaps not you personally) do not understand what a "right" really is... and having the rich pay for the poor's health care, or anything, is NOT a right because it is nothing less than the poor stealing from the rich cloaked in touchy feely sanctimonious selfishness of the "poor" wanting free stuff from the rich.

    And the government isn't the knight in shining armor coming to the aid of the poor with free health care paid for by someone else without the consent of the one paying (mandated taxes is NOT consent) that it is BSing the world to think it is... The government doesn't give two farts in a windstorm about those poor suffering unfortunates... it only cares about getting control of the billions of dollars the health care industry generates every year... and the control over the people that control of the money represents.

    Health care is NOT a right!!!!!! Getting something for nothing from someone who has something without their permission is NOT a "right"... it is theft!
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Ohio, ,
    Posts
    68

    Post imported post

    Bikenut wrote:
    Returning the respect you offered me.

    I think perhaps we have a 'net misunderstanding.....

    My post wasn't about "Liberals" because I understand what that term means.

    I was pointing out that "Leftists" are those who want to control everyone else and have them live according to the "Leftist" belief system.... and, because in their own minds, they are so much above the ordinary unwashed masses they have divine direction... and divine authority... to insist everyone do what they are told to do by the Leftist.

    A true "Liberal" according to the original meaning of the word "Liberal" could never be a "Leftist" but... over time the "Leftist" has taken and perverted the term "Liberal" in order to give themselves a semblance of respectability.

    And the confusion (not to mention the ire of true "Liberals") of what the term "Liberal" means is a somewhat recent development historically speaking.

    As for why the billionaire should be able to purchase health care to address his cancer and the store clerk shouldn't get the same health care as the billionaire because the store clerk can't afford it......... in the first place health care is not a right!!!!! health care is a commodity for sale to the highest bidder!!!!

    Now..... please explain to me why the billionaire has the responsibility to pay (through taxes to the government) for the store clerks cancer treatments? Other than the touchy feely whine that "it's not fair!" what factual logic would apply?

    Those who truly believe in this health care crap should immediately sell all their possessions and donate all their money to the nearest poor suffering person's health care... that way there will be no need for the government to bleed me dry to pay for someone else's ailments.

    The thing that bugs me is so many people (perhaps not you personally) do not understand what a "right" really is... and having the rich pay for the poor's health care, or anything, is NOT a right because it is nothing less than the poor stealing from the rich cloaked in touchy feely sanctimonious selfishness of the "poor" wanting free stuff from the rich.

    And the government isn't the knight in shining armor coming to the aid of the poor with free health care paid for by someone else without the consent of the one paying (mandated taxes is NOT consent) that it is BSing the world to think it is... The government doesn't give two farts in a windstorm about those poor suffering unfortunates... it only cares about getting control of the billions of dollars the health care industry generates every year... and the control over the people that control of the money represents.

    Health care is NOT a right!!!!!! Getting something for nothing from someone who has something without their permission is NOT a "right"... it is theft!

    (I correctly guessed that would be your response.)

    Saying health care is not a right is analogous to saying guns are not a right. As you well know, the word gun is nowhere to be found in 2A. Does government protection (i.e. tax dollars) not protect our "RIGHT" to own a gun? I'll give you a phrase that I'm sure you've heard before:

    "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

    If "Arms" = AR-15 then why doesn't "Life" = health?

    If prisoners have a constitutional right to use tax dollars for health care, then why not the average citizen? Surely the founders did not foresee chemotherapy or organ transplant as being something a mass-murderer would have access to.


    As far as the argument that health care goes to the highest bidder, that theory is illogical when applied to a hierarchical society. For starters, without the bottom tier of our citizen pyramid (ditch diggers, burger flippers, store clerks, etc.) there can be no Billionaires. Without the middle class the top tier has no one to watch the store or mind the workers. While it's certainly not a zero sum game, i.e. you can get rich without someone becoming poor, if the costs of said service becomes unreachable for the lower level then no, it's most certainly not fair.


    Medicine has been designed, developed, and deployed by all classes, over thousands of years, and belongs to everyone. I've never made a million dollars in a year therefore I haven't earned the right to get an American Express Black Card. But my grandfather was a GS-15 so yes, I would deserve the same chemotherapy as Mr. Billionaire.


    The disconnect with those who think health care only goes to the highest bidder doesn't realize that Mr. Billionare didn't become Mr. Billionare because he or she isn't lazy. I assure you that Mr. Gonzales flipping burgers works many more hours in a week than Mr. Billionare does. And before anyone says it, unless you sleep in a tepee and rides horses to slay buffalo, we are ALL here illegally folks.

    Mr. Billionaire only got rich because he happened to be the right person, in the right place, at the right time, doing the right thing, during the right period of human history.
    Anyone who thinks they got rich because they're so much smarter, better, or more hardworking than the next guy is a fool. Rich get rich because of a particular and unique set of circumstances of which they did not design. Big houses, fancy cars, material goods, sure, but not that which was built on the backs of all.


    I'm sure there is an exception to the rule out there somewhere, but it always seems to be the people who have never seen the inside of bankruptcy court due to medical bills, or the lack of income one experiences when a spouse all of a sudden comes down with stage-4.

    Tell me Mr. Billionaire has more or a right to live when it's your turn feed your mother like a baby because she's so weak from the chemo that she can't lift her arm. Ever leave the room so someone can wipe your parents ass? Been there my friend, and I can assure you that it's just north of whatever idea you might have of what horrible is really all about. And after they die you get to watch the other parent live with a bankruptcy, no credit, no money.


    I never said the government is the knight in shining armor, but when you out-price the lower level of society for something that we all need, then you do have a problem.


    And as far as those who make more money paying more taxes go, see above. You can't make that money unless you have the lower class, and under our progressive tax system I personally do not see a problem with paying en extra $50 grand for the next $1M someone makes. Now if you want to argue that too many of our tax dollars are getting pissed away on useless projects and we should get rid of them, well that's an entirely different subject.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    The term "classical liberal" has come into vogue to distinguish between people who use the liberal label today and those who believe in the liberalism of the Founders. I am a conservative by today's labels and a classical liberal. I try to avoid saying that I am any kind of liberal because folks might think that I am a leftist.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,754

    Post imported post

    OCforAll wrote:
    Bikenut wrote:
    Returning the respect you offered me.

    I think perhaps we have a 'net misunderstanding.....

    My post wasn't about "Liberals" because I understand what that term means.

    I was pointing out that "Leftists" are those who want to control everyone else and have them live according to the "Leftist" belief system.... and, because in their own minds, they are so much above the ordinary unwashed masses they have divine direction... and divine authority... to insist everyone do what they are told to do by the Leftist.

    A true "Liberal" according to the original meaning of the word "Liberal" could never be a "Leftist" but... over time the "Leftist" has taken and perverted the term "Liberal" in order to give themselves a semblance of respectability.

    And the confusion (not to mention the ire of true "Liberals") of what the term "Liberal" means is a somewhat recent development historically speaking.

    As for why the billionaire should be able to purchase health care to address his cancer and the store clerk shouldn't get the same health care as the billionaire because the store clerk can't afford it......... in the first place health care is not a right!!!!! health care is a commodity for sale to the highest bidder!!!!

    Now..... please explain to me why the billionaire has the responsibility to pay (through taxes to the government) for the store clerks cancer treatments? Other than the touchy feely whine that "it's not fair!" what factual logic would apply?

    Those who truly believe in this health care crap should immediately sell all their possessions and donate all their money to the nearest poor suffering person's health care... that way there will be no need for the government to bleed me dry to pay for someone else's ailments.

    The thing that bugs me is so many people (perhaps not you personally) do not understand what a "right" really is... and having the rich pay for the poor's health care, or anything, is NOT a right because it is nothing less than the poor stealing from the rich cloaked in touchy feely sanctimonious selfishness of the "poor" wanting free stuff from the rich.

    And the government isn't the knight in shining armor coming to the aid of the poor with free health care paid for by someone else without the consent of the one paying (mandated taxes is NOT consent) that it is BSing the world to think it is... The government doesn't give two farts in a windstorm about those poor suffering unfortunates... it only cares about getting control of the billions of dollars the health care industry generates every year... and the control over the people that control of the money represents.

    Health care is NOT a right!!!!!! Getting something for nothing from someone who has something without their permission is NOT a "right"... it is theft!

    (I correctly guessed that would be your response.)

    Saying health care is not a right is analogous to saying guns are not a right. As you well know, the word gun is nowhere to be found in 2A. Does government protection (i.e. tax dollars) not protect our "RIGHT" to own a gun? I'll give you a phrase that I'm sure you've heard before:


    "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

    If "Arms" = AR-15 then why doesn't "Life" = health?

    If prisoners have a constitutional right to use tax dollars for health care, then why not the average citizen? Surely the founders did not foresee chemotherapy or organ transplant as being something a mass-murderer would have access to.


    As far as the argument that health care goes to the highest bidder, that theory is illogical when applied to a hierarchical society. For starters, without the bottom tier of our citizen pyramid (ditch diggers, burger flippers, store clerks, etc.) there can be no Billionaires. Without the middle class the top tier has no one to watch the store or mind the workers. While it's certainly not a zero sum game, i.e. you can get rich without someone becoming poor, if the costs of said service becomes unreachable for the lower level then no, it's most certainly not fair.


    Medicine has been designed, developed, and deployed by all classes, over thousands of years, and belongs to everyone. I've never made a million dollars in a year therefore I haven't earned the right to get an American Express Black Card. But my grandfather was a GS-15 so yes, I would deserve the same chemotherapy as Mr. Billionaire.


    The disconnect with those who think health care only goes to the highest bidder doesn't realize that Mr. Billionare didn't become Mr. Billionare because he or she isn't lazy. I assure you that Mr. Gonzales flipping burgers works many more hours in a week than Mr. Billionare does. And before anyone says it, unless you sleep in a tepee and rides horses to slay buffalo, we are ALL here illegally folks.

    Mr. Billionaire only got rich because he happened to be the right person, in the right place, at the right time, doing the right thing, during the right period of human history.
    Anyone who thinks they got rich because they're so much smarter, better, or more hardworking than the next guy is a fool. Rich get rich because of a particular and unique set of circumstances of which they did not design. Big houses, fancy cars, material goods, sure, but not that which was built on the backs of all.


    I'm sure there is an exception to the rule out there somewhere, but it always seems to be the people who have never seen the inside of bankruptcy court due to medical bills, or the lack of income one experiences when a spouse all of a sudden comes down with stage-4.

    Tell me Mr. Billionaire has more or a right to live when it's your turn feed your mother like a baby because she's so weak from the chemo that she can't lift her arm. Ever leave the room so someone can wipe your parents ass? Been there my friend, and I can assure you that it's just north of whatever idea you might have of what horrible is really all about. And after they die you get to watch the other parent live with a bankruptcy, no credit, no money.


    I never said the government is the knight in shining armor, but when you out-price the lower level of society for something that we all need, then you do have a problem.


    And as far as those who make more money paying more taxes go, see above. You can't make that money unless you have the lower class, and under our progressive tax system I personally do not see a problem with paying en extra $50 grand for the next $1M someone makes. Now if you want to argue that too many of our tax dollars are getting pissed away on useless projects and we should get rid of them, well that's an entirely different subject.
    The 2nd Amendment mentions "arms".
    From:

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arms

    arm2 play_w2("A0425900") (ärm)n.1. A weapon, especially a firearm:

    and no.. the government does NOT protect my right to "keep and bear" arms... we the people have told the government with the 2nd Amendment that the government cannot take away that natural born right. The government did NOT give that right to the people... the people told the government to keep it's hands off! It is clear you do not understand what a "right" is.

    "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" ... yes indeed... you have the right to go out and make enough money to make you happy with the health care you can afford. Again, it is clear you do not understand what a "right" is.

    Please give researchable cites as to the "constitutional right" of prisoners to use tax dollars for health care.

    Hierarchical society? We do not have that although the leftists dearly want it so they can be the ruling elite... the truth is... you have the right to pursue your happiness by working hard enough to climb up the ladder and make yourself a billionaire rich enough to afford health care. Those who think a billionaire just happened to get lucky and didn't work his butt off to earn his money is a fool. And I expected to see you use the whine "it's not fair" but neglect to offer a logical argument to support your position.

    I can assure you that medicine I paid to have researched, developed, manufactured, distributed, and sold... belongs to ME up to the moment it is sold. It is clear you do not understand what property rights are.

    While I sympathize with the heartache of the tragedy you suffered in your own life please do not think that you are the only one tragedy has happened to.

    I would not leave the room so someone could wipe my parent's ass.... I would be responsible and compassionate enough to do it myself! Anything less is more of the same cry baby whining of wanting someone else to do all the work while the elitist thinks they are above such things. And yes, I've wiped the asses of sick people a time or two and considered it a labor of love. And had my parents.. or even one parent.. survived long enough to not have had enough money to live or afford health care I, the son, would take them into my own home and care for them so they would live a comfortable life even with a bankruptcy, no credit, and no money because I would supply their needs and wants. As a matter of fact I'm doing something quite similar for someone who isn't a family member but is financially disadvantaged... without government assistance asked for or wanted.

    "Life (we have the right to live.. not the right to live in a manner some think they are entitled to.. or the health care some think they are entitled to), liberty (do you understand that "liberty" also means being free from other people expecting someone else to support them?), and the "pursuit of happiness" (do you understand that really means get off your ass and go earn your own billions of dollars to buy your own health care instead of expecting someone else to give it to you for free?)

    I tire of trying to have a conversation with someone who doesn't understand what a "right" is and who thinks there is a "right for life to be "fair" ... especially when "fair" means they profit from taking things from other people... There is only so much whiny self pity poor me crying wrapped in emotional arguments based in leftist selfishness I can stand.

    Have a good day Sir.

    To all the good folks who do understand what "rights" are I apologize for allowing myself to be sucked into yet another "Johnny come lately" Leftist's drivel.

    With that I'm through responding to this transparent attempt to push the leftist agenda.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Ohio, ,
    Posts
    68

    Post imported post

    Bikenut wrote:
    OCforAll wrote:
    Bikenut wrote:
    Returning the respect you offered me.

    I think perhaps we have a 'net misunderstanding.....

    My post wasn't about "Liberals" because I understand what that term means.

    I was pointing out that "Leftists" are those who want to control everyone else and have them live according to the "Leftist" belief system.... and, because in their own minds, they are so much above the ordinary unwashed masses they have divine direction... and divine authority... to insist everyone do what they are told to do by the Leftist.

    A true "Liberal" according to the original meaning of the word "Liberal" could never be a "Leftist" but... over time the "Leftist" has taken and perverted the term "Liberal" in order to give themselves a semblance of respectability.

    And the confusion (not to mention the ire of true "Liberals") of what the term "Liberal" means is a somewhat recent development historically speaking.

    As for why the billionaire should be able to purchase health care to address his cancer and the store clerk shouldn't get the same health care as the billionaire because the store clerk can't afford it......... in the first place health care is not a right!!!!! health care is a commodity for sale to the highest bidder!!!!

    Now..... please explain to me why the billionaire has the responsibility to pay (through taxes to the government) for the store clerks cancer treatments? Other than the touchy feely whine that "it's not fair!" what factual logic would apply?

    Those who truly believe in this health care crap should immediately sell all their possessions and donate all their money to the nearest poor suffering person's health care... that way there will be no need for the government to bleed me dry to pay for someone else's ailments.

    The thing that bugs me is so many people (perhaps not you personally) do not understand what a "right" really is... and having the rich pay for the poor's health care, or anything, is NOT a right because it is nothing less than the poor stealing from the rich cloaked in touchy feely sanctimonious selfishness of the "poor" wanting free stuff from the rich.

    And the government isn't the knight in shining armor coming to the aid of the poor with free health care paid for by someone else without the consent of the one paying (mandated taxes is NOT consent) that it is BSing the world to think it is... The government doesn't give two farts in a windstorm about those poor suffering unfortunates... it only cares about getting control of the billions of dollars the health care industry generates every year... and the control over the people that control of the money represents.

    Health care is NOT a right!!!!!! Getting something for nothing from someone who has something without their permission is NOT a "right"... it is theft!

    (I correctly guessed that would be your response.)

    Saying health care is not a right is analogous to saying guns are not a right. As you well know, the word gun is nowhere to be found in 2A. Does government protection (i.e. tax dollars) not protect our "RIGHT" to own a gun? I'll give you a phrase that I'm sure you've heard before:


    "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

    If "Arms" = AR-15 then why doesn't "Life" = health?

    If prisoners have a constitutional right to use tax dollars for health care, then why not the average citizen? Surely the founders did not foresee chemotherapy or organ transplant as being something a mass-murderer would have access to.


    As far as the argument that health care goes to the highest bidder, that theory is illogical when applied to a hierarchical society. For starters, without the bottom tier of our citizen pyramid (ditch diggers, burger flippers, store clerks, etc.) there can be no Billionaires. Without the middle class the top tier has no one to watch the store or mind the workers. While it's certainly not a zero sum game, i.e. you can get rich without someone becoming poor, if the costs of said service becomes unreachable for the lower level then no, it's most certainly not fair.


    Medicine has been designed, developed, and deployed by all classes, over thousands of years, and belongs to everyone. I've never made a million dollars in a year therefore I haven't earned the right to get an American Express Black Card. But my grandfather was a GS-15 so yes, I would deserve the same chemotherapy as Mr. Billionaire.


    The disconnect with those who think health care only goes to the highest bidder doesn't realize that Mr. Billionare didn't become Mr. Billionare because he or she isn't lazy. I assure you that Mr. Gonzales flipping burgers works many more hours in a week than Mr. Billionare does. And before anyone says it, unless you sleep in a tepee and rides horses to slay buffalo, we are ALL here illegally folks.

    Mr. Billionaire only got rich because he happened to be the right person, in the right place, at the right time, doing the right thing, during the right period of human history.
    Anyone who thinks they got rich because they're so much smarter, better, or more hardworking than the next guy is a fool. Rich get rich because of a particular and unique set of circumstances of which they did not design. Big houses, fancy cars, material goods, sure, but not that which was built on the backs of all.


    I'm sure there is an exception to the rule out there somewhere, but it always seems to be the people who have never seen the inside of bankruptcy court due to medical bills, or the lack of income one experiences when a spouse all of a sudden comes down with stage-4.

    Tell me Mr. Billionaire has more or a right to live when it's your turn feed your mother like a baby because she's so weak from the chemo that she can't lift her arm. Ever leave the room so someone can wipe your parents ass? Been there my friend, and I can assure you that it's just north of whatever idea you might have of what horrible is really all about. And after they die you get to watch the other parent live with a bankruptcy, no credit, no money.


    I never said the government is the knight in shining armor, but when you out-price the lower level of society for something that we all need, then you do have a problem.


    And as far as those who make more money paying more taxes go, see above. You can't make that money unless you have the lower class, and under our progressive tax system I personally do not see a problem with paying en extra $50 grand for the next $1M someone makes. Now if you want to argue that too many of our tax dollars are getting pissed away on useless projects and we should get rid of them, well that's an entirely different subject.
    The 2nd Amendment mentions "arms".
    From:

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arms

    arm*2 play_w2("A0425900") (ärm)n.1. A weapon, especially a firearm:

    and no.. the government does NOT protect my right to "keep and bear" arms... we the people have told the government with the 2nd Amendment that the government cannot take away that natural born right. The government did NOT give that right to the people... the people told the government to keep it's hands off! It is clear you do not understand what a "right" is.

    "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" ... yes indeed... you have the right to go out and make enough money to make you happy with the health care you can afford. Again, it is clear you do not understand what a "right" is.

    Please give researchable cites as to the "constitutional right" of prisoners to use tax dollars for health care.

    Hierarchical society? We do not have that although the leftists dearly want it so they can be the ruling elite... the truth is... you have the right to pursue your happiness by working hard enough to climb up the ladder and make yourself a billionaire rich enough to afford health care. Those who think a billionaire just happened to get lucky and didn't work his butt off to earn his money is a fool. And I expected to see you use the whine "it's not fair" but neglect to offer a logical argument to support your position.

    I can assure you that medicine I paid to have researched, developed, manufactured, distributed, and sold... belongs to ME up to the moment it is sold. It is clear you do not understand what property rights are.

    While I sympathize with the heartache of the tragedy you suffered in your own life please do not think that you are the only one tragedy has happened to.

    I would not leave the room so someone could wipe my parent's ass.... I would be responsible and compassionate enough to do it myself! Anything less is more of the same cry baby whining of wanting someone else to do all the work while the elitist thinks they are above such things. And yes, I've wiped the asses of sick people a time or two and considered it a labor of love. And had my parents.. or even one parent.. survived long enough to not have had enough money to live or afford health care I, the son, would take them into my own home and care for them so they would live a comfortable life even with a bankruptcy, no credit, and no money because I would supply their needs and wants. As a matter of fact I'm doing something quite similar for someone who isn't a family member but is financially disadvantaged... without government assistance asked for or wanted.

    "Life (we have the right to live.. not the right to live in a manner some think they are entitled to.. or the health care some think they are entitled to), liberty (do you understand that "liberty" also means being free from other people expecting someone else to support them?), and the "pursuit of happiness" (do you understand that really means get off your ass and go earn your own billions of dollars to buy your own health care instead of expecting someone else to give it to you for free?)

    I tire of trying to have a conversation with someone who doesn't understand what a "right" is and who thinks there is a "right for life to be "fair" ... especially when "fair" means they profit from taking things from other people...* There is only so much whiny self pity poor me crying wrapped in emotional arguments based in leftist selfishness I can stand.

    Have a good day Sir.

    To all the good folks who do understand what "rights" are I apologize for allowing myself to be sucked into yet another "Johnny come lately" Leftist's drivel.

    With that I'm through responding to this transparent attempt to push the leftist agenda.

    Nice response. I'll refrain from calling you any names or flaming you for your position (like you did me), but your remark "Anything less is more of the same cry baby whining of wanting someone else to do all the work while the elitist thinks they are above such things" was pretty *********-ish and completely uncalled for. Whatever...

    I say that families shouldn't have to go bankrupt due to illness and you use words that suggest anything other than the rest of the family taking over smells of a welfare state. Of course, you obviously neglected to consider that's not an option for the vast majority of people.


    Not providing medical care to prisoners is a violation of 8A, is it not?

    While we have the right to "climb up the ladder", that is flawed logic when applied to the idea to medical care. No, not everyone can climb the ladder to wealth. It's simply not possible, nor would you want it to be. People are not born with the same minds, skin color, gender, family, geographical locations, or anyone of the many traits that create available opportunity.


    It has nothing to do with hard work or how smart you are. I actually know a billionaire and have spent personal time with their family. I can assure you that obtaining that level of wealth has more to do with timing & luck than it does anything else. Bill Gates born in 1970 will not be Warren Buffets bridge partner in 2010.

    If you truly believe that the government has no business handing out health care and that it isn't/shouldn't be a burden on the taxpayer, perhaps you could run down to your local VA hospital or Hospice House and hand out literature stating your position on the subject. I disagree with you and think the burger flippers of our land should have same health care as all the veterans in my family get.






  24. #24
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164

    Post imported post

    OCforAll - just ...WOW!

    Do you actually carry a firearm? Do you OC? It would help if you at least provided the state you reside in in your profile ...

    Just so I can gain some perspective on your opinions, would you mind telling how old you are? And where you were educated?

    I am not calling any names here, but some of what you say reeks to me of entitlement.

    Please don't take offense in what I write.
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578

    Post imported post

    OCforAll,

    The reason the government provides the health care of inmates is simple. The government has the duty to remove and detain those who have violated the laws of it's purview(i.e. local,state,and federal). The government is therefore forced to maintain their health while they are in the custody or if you prefer that they are the "responsibility" of the government. I think you would have to agree it was not those who would normally be referred to as "Conservative" who deemed this meant providing the broad definitionofhealth care now commonly bandied around today. It wasn't Conservative judges that stated inmates had the "right" to sex change hormones, etc.. As far the government "providing" the same health care to the ex-store clerk as the billionaire, we are a capitalist society. It is not the duty of the government to maintain the health care of it's citizen's since they are not it's responsibility. On a personal note I prefer it that way. The government has already stated that it believes a company has the right to fire someone for smoking(which is not illegal) since the company provides the cost of health care for the employee. Is it so hard to believe that this same government if it provides the cost of it's citizens health care can't then decide it has the power to decide if your diet is to high in fat, sodium, or other things it deems unhealthy.

    As to your point of veterans. All veterans understand that the health care offered to us is in exchange for our service to the protection of the country.To be quite honest I am a veteran and I have never used the VA because it is government run health care. Believe me the level of health care provided by the average VA hospital is far below that of any private hospital. You want equality in health care put your billionaire and ex-clerk in a VA hospital then they can both suffer equally.


    AUDE VIDE TACE

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •