Politics » Craigslist Hudson Valley NY

craigslist | politics in hudson valley

to Middletown, from OC (OC)

I don't get it. Seems to be you're more interested in the fight for the sake of it, then a dialogue. No, I'm not asking for agreement.
So here's my last comment on our discussion.
Ok, this is as clear as I can be:
I did not say you are a homophobe.
I did not say you favor political assassination.

So let's be clear and simple. If the health care bill as presented in the house passes in the Senate, do you think citizens should vote out those who they disagree with, or kill them? Do you think it serves our nation well to suggest killing someone on that basis?
If Obama passes a gun control bill you don't like. Will you support a candidate you do like, run for office, or either support his assassination as a remedy to that bill? ( AGAIN, not saying you said you do, ok?), It's a question on a premise.

Do you think if Congressman Paul were President he'd repeal the law that makes it a crime to threaten the President of the United States?
What do you think should be the appropriate response and by who, for yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre?
I support freedom of internet.
Having said that, if people are suggesting the assassination of another American, I think they should be able to say it, but perhaps there should be some response guided by law.
If someone is advertising children for sale or use in prostitution ( with the common assumption that children are not consensual sex partners), should there be a law against that protecting these children?
Wouldn't we agree it's ok to have laws that address that?
You seem to think I like laws for any old reason. I don't. But till the time comes that we're a more evolved species, I think it's a good idea to have guidelines we should abide by, don't you?

My point is this. Right now there are those on an extreme side as citizens or as members of some religious clergy alluding to the assassination of President Obama as legitimate.
Do I think they should be allowed to speak that? Well yes, but I think that it's not that simple. Surely as free humans we have a right to speak our minds freely. But does that mean anything goes at anytime? Is it a matter individual fighting individual? Do you think there should be any response and what and from who?
The question is whether or not law makes sense and in which instance, and when the people of a nation disagree with the law, what is the appropriate remedy.
How would any moral society exist if we simply lacked societal guide lines? Since you're such a fan of the constitution, you'd realize that the founders wanted freedom and liberty but not anarchy. Are there any existing laws that restricts certain behavior of people, wherein such behavior is considered crime, and as such may not prevent the crime, but at least provides for we as a society to respond to by fine or imprisonment, that you do support?

Let's be absolutely clear. I am NOT suggesting this is you.
I'm asking what your position on this is.
Now if you'd like to have the final word so that we no longer dominate this board with our personal "debate", please do so.'
So you know, I've read your posts, your quotes.

I respectfully disagree with your assumptions and wish you well.

to OC. (Middletown, NY)

No, there you go again, putting words in my mouth.

You asked if I supported people CALLING for political assassination
(And I assumed you were speaking of current times)
Not if I support people acting on it.

Now, the off with their heads thing is a necessary free speech issue, not to mention a necessary option to be available to do…
Have you ever opened a history book… ever?
How could anyone think they could make a law against rebellion over bad leaders.
How would you even enforce such a law?

You know when there is debate over such things that we are headed in a very wrong direction.

But the real thing here is the law. to ‘make a law’ is a very permanent thing, it will be around long after your kids’ kids are dust, just try to keep in mind that laws don’t have a ‘life span’, they live on way past the politicians and people that thought them good.

Plus this is in direct conflict with the 1st amendment!!!, I thought you cared about that?

As for the act, yes, if you have some leader that’s bad enough… and I don’t think I need to go into examples here, that it’s not only required for the people to remain safe and free, but a morally right thing to do.
{Lets just Say} you had a leader that had thousands of his own people killed in a way that looked like some other country did it in an effort to push his people to go into a war he wanted for personal economic reasons? Or any other reason for that matter.
If you had a person kill say 10 people you’d call him a crazed lunatic, a homicidal maniac!… (well you’d probably blame the weapon, but lets move on.)
But what if you can point to a person that through a court of law that has through his decisions killed tens of thousands of our fellow Americans…, you want a law protecting them??? Really???, why???
They need to die, I say send them to Texas, they know how to deal with the likes of them!

“the founders, our constitution and liberty would want a law against that“
Answer;
that’s absolutely WRONG, you can‘t get any more wrong then that!!!

You probably won’t spend the time to read any of them,(your lose) but at least read the last two!

---

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants“.
Thomas Jefferson

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson
to James Madison


“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government“.
Thomas Jefferson

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington -First President of the United States


"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot
"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. "
Noah Webster
American Lexicographer

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)




"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

"The ruling class doesn't care about public safety. Having made it very difficult for States and localities to police themselves, having left ordinary citizens with no choice but to protect themselves as best they can, they now try to take our guns away. In fact they blame us and our guns for crime. This is so wrong that it cannot be an honest mistake."
Malcolm Wallop
former U.S. Sen. (R-WY)


"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." (Edward Abbey, "The Right to Arms," Abbey's Road [New York, 1979])

" `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

---

"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
Sara Brady
Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.


"If you wish the sympathy of the broad masses, you must tell them the crudest and most stupid things."
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
Adolph Hitler
Chancellor, Germany, 1933

---

Do all but the last two really sound like they opposed killing bad leaders…
They had just come out of a war doing just that very thing… you have really jumped the shark on that one. lol

I know you don’t seem to care how high taxes go for the things you want, but you are in the minority on this, people want to have the rewards for their labors.

Some have fallen for the “no new taxes” line though… man, won’t they be surprised when we have to start paying this debt back, and paying for all this “free” heath insurance lol.

It’s not reasonable to think healthcare costs are too high now, but will be cheaper… or even the same, when you have the government running it, and you have to pay for you… AND someone else. That’s just retarded.

There is nothing patriotic about taking more from your country then you can give to yourself, or asking your government to make this law, it’s quite the opposite.

Our government has pushed these kinds of lies on the people before…NAFTA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don’t fall for it, don’t let what you want to be, cloud your judgment.
This remind me of a monkey trap, do you know what that is?

“Simply allowing threat of assassination as a means of political dissent, without repercussion is not only unAmerican but represents the very core of that which you fear.”


Frankly this sounds like something Hitler would say.

I have never feared the people that call out a repressive government, only socialist lap dogs would fear such a thing, why would I? I have nothing to lose with a smaller government, and everything to gain.
As you can see from the quotes above, it is VERY American to go after bad leaders… what do you think makes them stay good?… the power?
It is our duty to demand honesty from our leaders, and when that honesty is not forthright, and repression is forthcoming, it is most definitely within the constitutional right to go after them. It is the very essence of the second amendment.

Fear the government that fears your gun rights.
-me

The definition of a person that is NOT a patriot;

"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
Sara Brady
Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.


Chilling… that I fear.

Liberal Democrats, fight for public option! (Orange County, NY State)

The Senate is taking up health care reform tomorrow. But some conservative Democratic Senators are still trying to kill the public health insurance option.

Instead of opposing it outright, they're pushing a sneaky proposal called a "trigger" that could delay it indefinitely—by forcing us to wait for the health care crisis to get even worse before the public option becomes available.

And with critical votes starting tomorrow, these senators are ramping up their efforts to insert a trigger into the bill. We've got to send an overwhelming message right away that the trigger is unacceptable, and show the Senate that voters demand a real public option.

So today we're launching a new TV ad opposing the trigger, and we want to amplify it with the voices of hundreds of thousands of MoveOn members. Click here to watch the ad and sign the petition:

http://pol.moveon.org/notrigger/1b.html?id=18017-11739216-L4.Pvyx&t=3

The petition reads: "We can't afford to delay health care reform with a trigger. The Senate must pass legislation with a national public health insurance option that's available immediately."

Thanks to grassroots pressure from progressives across the country, and courageous leadership from a few champions in Congress, we're closer than ever to winning reform with a public option.

Though the Senate legislation has some real problems, it does include a version of the public option. But a handful of conservative Democrats are threatening to join a Republican filibuster and block an up-or-down vote unless it's replaced with a trigger.1

So today we're launching this new TV ad and petition to demonstrate that the trigger is an awful idea:

* Our health care system is in crisis now. A trigger could unnecessarily delay a public health insurance option for years—or kill it entirely by delaying it indefinitely. Thousands of families in New York lack insurance coverage2 and they can't afford to wait for the increased competition and lower costs a public option would deliver.
* Insurance companies are masters at gaming the system—we've all seen how they avoid paying out claims and covering people who are sick. If they know what criteria would trigger the creation of a public option, they'll do just enough to avoid the trigger, without changing the way they do business.
* Congress has tried to implement triggers and other "fallback" options in health care legislation before, and they've consistently failed. As one study put it, "History teaches us that trigger mechanisms are difficult to implement, too narrow in their focus, and can too easily be reversed if the political landscape changes."

We've got to let our senators know that the trigger is unacceptable. Click here to sign the petition:

http://pol.moveon.org/notrigger/1b.html?id=18017-11739216-L4.Pvyx&t=4

Thanks for all you do.

Insanity reigns. (NY)

And exactly what aspect of "her country" was taken from her??

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/455452/the_birthers_of_a_nation

and back to you Middletown (O.C.)

Well my father served in WWII, and I too, lost family to the holocaust. It's important to remember and I appreciate the emotional and intellectual reaction as relates to gun control, Germany, etc. But everything has a shade of grey, and while it's always sensible to not assume "it can't happen here", it's also good to see the differences while drawing on what one believes are the tell tale signs of similarity.
We've gone over this debate, and neither one of us is likely to change the other one's mind. I stand by my strong conviction. No one's coming to get your gun.

I am surprised though that while you don't support political assassination, that you aren't in favor of a law against it. So you just recommend "kill them"?
By what process, just free form armed persons deciding like the wild west? I ask this because there are extremists all over. ( Not saying you are). Yet, there is a movement on the far right that posts photos of Pelosi with a bullet hole in her forehead and a Christian fundamentalist preacher hinting at an Obama assassination to ward off policies he fears.

You might point to Bush bashing, photos, jokes etc. All true. But imagine someone posting photos or suggestions of political assassination back 2 or 7 years ago. Anyone who believes in the founders, our constitution, and liberty would want a law against that. How else do we draw parameters and maintain them?

As for the homophobe point. You missed it. Once more you're not reading what I respond to. In your eagerness to outgun ( lol) me in posts you're ready, armed and loaded with presumption and sometimes miss the base point.
I used that as an example, and made CLEAR that I wasn't suggesting you were.

Herein, respectfully, might be part of the problem. And I say this without an elitist, sense of superiority , whether it's spelling, or otherwise.
Words can be powerful. You use them to advance your message, yet, in both your own use and comprehension, it's not always clear. Or, respectfully, in error. Or, not quite what you mean. Of course no one gets it right all the time. And I'm not suggesting that in order to have a legitimate cogent argument that it meet some grammatical standard. But misunderstanding leads to innocent propagating of misinformation.

Changing the way things work ( or don't) in America is a nuance of political debate. It's how it applies to the political dance everyone plays, including Congressman Paul. You take it out on the limb, negotiate it back and then over time, hope to get it right.
That's how it was , once again, even though I'm repeating myself, with all the great American changes. Abolition of slavery, rights of women and African Americans to vote, participate in all walks of life, social security, Medicare, etc. We're a great nation. And while my general opinion of human nature has soured over time, I'm generally a little more forgiving, trusting and optimistic about our potential for evolving our social consciousness. No. not to be "socialist", that's different. But caring, and love in the great traditions of the useful message of religion and other personal spiritual goals.
I'm reminded of an interesting moment in the film "Sicko" ( ok like, love, hate or indifferent to Michael Moore, and yes he's just a film maker), there was this section at the end when Michael is interviewing a Canadian citizen about attitudes towards health care. Not whether or not the Canadian system worked better or what problems it had, but what people's attitudes were with respect to health care, rights, etc.
This man said that most Canadians just think it's right for everyone to be covered by a health care plan, even if they all paid for it. So you see it's a mindset.
As it turns out most Americans want health care reform. They differ on what and how.
As to the founders and the constitution on this issue. Well, they simply could not foresee in all their wisdom what things would come to be. They had great wisdom for sure. But life changes, people shift focus and as world condition moves , cultures and societies adjust, adapt and grow. Some, whether it be the Hasids in Monroe or the Taliban in Afghanistan or the Mormons in Utah, remain fixed and singular in their ways of seeing. They'll use cell phones, but none of the aforementioned cares much about allowing women to be equal partners in life, not to mention attitudes towards same sex marriage!

Now this doesn't mean I think all law and all programs and systems are all just fine and dandy, or that FDR was a Godsend, he was absent on the plight of Jews , as we both know. And JFK's family. well, we don't have to go on about papa Kennedy and we do Prescott Bush.

You get the point.
Wanting some legislation, some oversight, some regulation, that's in the best interests of the American people is not a liberal concept or a conservative one or a libertarian or without classification by political party. It's a moral one. The vast majority of Americans want some degree of law and oversight, the question is again, on what and how much? For you it's guns and health care that ignite a fuse. For others it's having to pay any tax at all. Yep there are plenty of folks who don't mind driving on highways, going to libraries, parks and having a bridge to cross by foot or bike, but think the feds have no right to collect even a single dime. And then there are those who can't stand any program. Doesn't matter what it does. Help the handi-capped enjoy riding the bus? Nope, why should I pay for it? Special consideration for the elderly? Nope, they should have prepared. My friend can't stand programs, so called "entitlements", or big unions or universal health care. But.......thanks to her husband's UPS union job, it's free dental for the kids, and her and thanks to a NY State program her hard of hearing son was fitted for FREE special hearing aid and teacher auditory device that allows him to hear clearly in class. So go figure. Me? I'm happy for her son and glad her husband's union provides them health care.

In my view, affordable, health care available to all American citizens is not only a moral issue but will strengthen our country.
Simply allowing threat of assassination as a means of political dissent, without repercussion is not only unAmerican but represents the very core of that which you fear.

A response for OC (Middletown, NY)

I do get ‘worked up’ (sorry about that)when it comes to my right to have equal force.
I know of people that didn’t, and they came to bad ends, exactly because they were good (and misguided) people.

I had family die in the concentration camps of Nazi Germanys holocaust, my grand father fought in WW2, my great uncle fought and {DIED} in WW2.
My grandfather went through all kinds of hell there, something these people that want to give up the guns have never know, they speak with complete ignorance of the way bad people think.

….. but I have learned their lessons well, and I will keep them close.

I have no time for fools that even suggest that history is irrelevant.
People die by the hands of their governments seem to be the only constant in the world, and it’s not irrelevant!
More people have been killed from their own governments then in all the wars combined, did you know that? We are talking tens of millions here.
and we aren’t talking a long time ago either, it’s going on right now!
Then we have our government put out how we would be safer if we didn’t have the means to fight back, and all kinds of red flags go up for me… NEVER FORGET.

I will never be without the ability to defend me and mine, what the rest of you do is frankly your business.
BUT, when I hear lies and propaganda about this issue you can expect me to kick back…. Hard.

I wouldn’t ‘read’ too much in the spelling problem, sometimes the auto correct ‘fixes’ things for me and I don’t notice it, sometimes the vista program gets it wrong, sometimes I do.

I don’t think it’s fair to hang the homophobe thing on me, I spelled out exactly why I don’t feel the word marriage or making the church perform this religious ceremony with people they don’t feel follow their religion should fly, and it had nothing to do with hate, fear, genital, or preferences. lol

I don’t have a problem with gay people, my cousins gay, he’s a good guy, I might not want to see him make out with a boyfriend, but I don’t believe there’s anything wrong with that, it’s kind of weird.
I don’t let people tell me what or how I should feel about anything, I don’t self-censer, or as you know it= ‘politically correct’ myself.

---

“Do you think in the process of free speech it's useful for some to promote assassination as a means of resolving domestic politic differences here in the USA? ( Again, not saying you have). “

Do I think it’s useful, =NO
Do I think there should be a law,= NO
Do I think it’s personally right to do it,= NO, everyone should have their day in court, then we can kill them. lol

---

“Which political , social or other leaders or people in American history do you admire and what obstacles did they face?”

Answer;=
The more I learn about this subject, the more I realize I’m a constitutionalist, (big word) some have labeled it a libertarian, but I prefer the other.
I believe in a republic form of government that we started out as. it goes; “and to the republic for which it stand, one nation under god…
not the democracy for which it stands…
We have lost are way, everything around us screams that.

You have to be kidding, on the rest, it’s just too much it would take all night.
Here’s some quotes of some of my favorites.
You can see from their statements that they had many of the same problems we have today, and how they dealt with them then, and we all should know how it worked out for them! Like about 2 centuries of growth and prosperity, surpassing all other countries despite their all having many years on us!

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety” -Benjamin Franklin February 17, 1775

“There was never a good war, or a bad peace“.
Benjamin Franklin

‘‘Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn’t.’’ -Ben Franklin

“Genius without education is like silver in the mine”
Benjamin Franklin

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not”
Thomas Jefferson

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies . . . If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] . . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered . . . The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
-- Thomas Jefferson -- The Debate Over The Recharter Of The Bank Bill, (1809)


“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government“.
Thomas Jefferson

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine“.
Thomas Jefferson

“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government“.
Thomas Jefferson

“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent“.
Thomas Jefferson

“Do you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you“.
Thomas Jefferson

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants“.
Thomas Jefferson

“Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state”
Thomas Jefferson

“I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.”
Thomas Jefferson

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them“.
Thomas Jefferson

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.”
Thomas Jefferson

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”
Thomas Jefferson

“It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.”
Thomas Jefferson

“Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question“.
Thomas Jefferson

“That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.”
Thomas Jefferson

---

There are so may good quotes, I never know when or how to stop.


“Do you think that all those who participate in some social federal program concerning health care in France, England, Germany, Israel and Canada do so without options”

Answer;
I’m not sure what your asking here, but I’ll put this out.
I’m sure there are those that think they are getting something for nothing!
Others will think they are getting a ‘fair’ deal.
And I’m sure there are those that resent having to pay a tax they may not feel is just.
But they are all getting robbed, robbed of true freedom, to fail, to excel, to be the best, or worst he may want for himself, but with the handout, they will always be handicapped!

This of course says nothing about the trust thing, my government has been ‘taking’ money from me all my working life in the name of {saving it for me} (SS), but then I learn they have been stealing from it all along, for you name it, war, welfare, pork, giving money to other countries, and so on, now I hear it’s almost broke and they NEED the healthcare money to shore it up… come on, if they use the money for that, what will be left for the countries healthcare needs,
will there be rationing, of course,
will there be bad service, of course,
you will not have what we have now because the government WILL under fund it.

you can’t have both.
Great healthcare is not cheep, cheep healthcare is not good.
The reason healthcare cost so much anyway is because the government under funding it through the social programs, like Medicare, you should really look into that!!
Costs will go up, you just won’t know it, it will be hidden in the taxes

I really don’t know how anyone could think the government can fix anything, everything they are in charge of ‘needs reform’, and if you don’t think they run the healthcare already,… think again, they control many aspects of it already!

Teach the children the value of savings, so they will save on their own, trust them with their own money, stop stealing it from them.
How do you feel about the debt the government is putting on the unborn?
How can we give them more to run?… ruin?… steal?


“and as such have inferior health care? Not on the technical university research level, US is the clear leader there, but on delivery of services for citizens“?

Answer; I find the service and delivery great. I haven’t waited more then an hour in years.
Emergence room are a different story though, but have you heard how long you wait in Canada?, easier just to come down here. lol

“Do you believe their prescription medicines are dangerous, or do you think if necessary, would work for Americans and should be available to them?”

Answer; once again, I think our government is fucking us, (special interest)we should let medications into the country, this would force the domestic suppliers to compete for our business, you have way to much trust in our government.
Don’t you EVER feel like you are being herded, you of course are.
They can make you think anything they want, all they have to do is create a crises.
Do you think this is the first time they have tried to get their hands on the healthcare money, they have been trying for years, do you think it will ALL go to healthcare???
Just like ALL of the SS money went for that, anyone that goes for this government run healthcare craps is just a fool, how could you think any different.


Don’t trust 1/6 of all the money that moves in the country with a government that continually proves it {can’t} be trusted. I can’t stress that point enough!!

“Do you think it's possible that the emotional gut fear reaction of gun confiscation here in the US is motivated , as is gun control admittedly, by political gamesmanship?”


Answer;
I think I’ve covered this, it’s about control, it’s about Removing and resistance to futures projects they may have in mind, and one of them will be removing your freedom of free speech, in this I have absolutely know doubt, it might not be in a year, even 10, but don’t you think we should pass on the same protections given to us by out parents?

How will you protect free speech if they slowly remove the gun rights?
We have many laws regarding weapons, not to mention killing, so how will more work?
Doesn’t it seem more reasonable that this is more of a slow strangulation of all of {our} rights?
If each generation gives up even just a little, doesn’t it stand to reason that eventually they will all be gone?

“And do you actually believe that during the current administration, it's likely someone will pass a law requiring you to surrender your gun ?”

Answer; I don’t know, some one dropped my crystal ball.
BUT, They past the Brady bill didn’t they,
did killing go down… no,
did killing go up after it ran out… no.
Does Obama want to ban hand guns= yes
Does Obama want to ban so called assault weapons (rifles with a handle in the middle)= yes
Does Obama support traveling across the country with your gun… even if you have been check out by the FBI, and have said permit, =NO
Has he said in regards to registering all guns“ I don’t think we can get that done this year”=yes

And for people that don’t know it, registration of weapons is exactly what has been done just before they call in all the guns, time and time again, all across the globe.
It always goes just this way,
England, Australia, Canada, register, then the new law, in that order, it does nothing for safety, but that was not what it was for anyway.

Registration of all guns is exactly what happen just before Hitler came to power, we all know what happened after, all Jews were banned from gun ownership, a ominous sigh indeed.
And every time it happens, the people are always so sure it could never happen to them, we have advance to far for that, we are too civilized for that… we are too advanced for that…

The fact is, we never know when the next Hitler will come, all we do know… is he is on his way.

A question comes to mind, in WW2, we had a program called lend/lease, in this program, we gave {personal} fire arms to Great Britain so they could defend themselves from the Germans, if they had waited for them to be made, it would have been too late.
{what happens next time?} (and please don’t say there will never be a next time, that’s just foolish)
Do you think they could borrow some three round duck hunting shot guns?
You think that would cut it, lol

What if times get harder, (I hope this doesn’t happen, but it‘s a very real possibility) a lot harder, and we have to defend what is ours, do you think the police can be everywhere all at the same time…, I called them last week about some teens hanging around where they shouldn’t be, it took them almost two hours to get here, the teen where long gone, do you think there response time will improve if thing get worse?

Do you really think it can not get that bad… really.
Our monetary system is on the verge of collapse from years of abuse (over printing, no real wealth backing it, and so on) from our trusted government, this is not the time to talk gun control.
Criminals don’t follow the laws, it’s really just that simple.

Humanity has not change a whole hell of a lot. we have evolved, yes, but the id is still in there. People kill everyday.
It has been said; as a people, we are fundamentally insane, I believe this is true.
How else would we believe anything our government tells us.
Madness.

Proud patriotic liberal (New Paltz)

And I love this quote by another proud, patriotic veteran

"...if by a liberal they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people—their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, their civil liberties—if that is what they mean by a "liberal," then I am proud to be a liberal."
-- John F. Kennedy

Fair and balanced? yeah right (Warwick)

So FOX News in their owner's quest for maintaining a propagandist outlet for misinformation was caught lying, once more.

This time showing fake footage of Palin crowds http://mediamatters.org/blog/200911180052
Just like the same fake footage of the Washington tea party.
Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly and the rest are all so giddy about some election results this year that they've already started to "measure the drapes", as they say. And now Guilliani is floating some speculation about a Senate run. Guilliani, the same fella who suggested to Bush that he hire Bernard Kerik to a post in DC. Bernard Kerik, the same guy in jail now cutting a deal with a plea bargain.

Yes, I know Fox fans are all full of youtube and cut a pasted conservative articles that yell about the sky falling from the socialist President. Their message pure and untainted, fair and balance. They report you decide.
Go ahead decide. Please decide to run Palin in '12 !

Dear Middletown.....calm down fella (O.C.)

So easily angered, so quick to judge and attack? Ok, let's get by your semantics, ( I wonder if you'd pass the same test of demand of answer) . The answer is that one should speak up at any time. Any moment , every moment is our right and duty as citizens to voice our opinions. You're right I do suppress oppression. But you meant opposition, didn't you. I suspect it's a Freudian slip on your part, in that you probably sub consciously recognize that it is you, in your zeal and self proclaimed quest to march to your beat of liberty as you see it, you employ oppressive tactics. Usually those who yell the loudest with the greatest fears are the ones hiding that which they fear the most. Kind of like homophobics ( not suggesting you are), are generally suspect of their own repressed sexual orientation which is why it touches the nerve.

Feel free to ask more specific questions, and I'll answer them honestly.
Now for you.
Do you think in the process of free speech it's useful for some to promote assassination as a means of resolving domestic politic differences here in the USA? ( Again, not saying you have).
Which political , social or other leaders or people in American history do you admire and what obstacles did they face?
Do you think that all those who participate in some social federal program concerning health care in France, England, Germany, Israel and Canada do so without options, and as such have inferior health care? Not on the technical university research level, US is the clear leader there, but on delivery of services for citizens?
Do you believe their prescription medicines are dangerous, or do you think if necessary, would work for Americans and should be available to them?

Do you think it's possible that the emotional gut fear reaction of gun confiscation here in the US is motivated , as is gun control admittedly, by political gamesmanship? And do you actually believe that during the current administration, it's likely someone will pass a law requiring you to surrender your gun ?
Not to say, once more, that you shouldn't raise your voice in opposition or take a stance to protect your position.

Happening All Over Europe

http://vodpod.com/watch/1428923-sweden-in-grip-of-islam

Re, Lies about gun control from the NRA and others (NY) (Middletown, NY)

What you call a loophole, I call the last of the second amendment.
The state now decides who can and who can not have this “right”..

Shall not be infringed people, shall not be infringed!!!,
Written for a reason you clearly don’t grasp!!!!!!!!!!!

It says nothing about who can’t have a gun! What, you don’t think there was murder back then???.

If you had it your way, fathers could not hand down ‘their’ guns to their sons, regular people couldn’t trade or sell ‘their’ guns, the guns would in reality belong to the state.

And when they wanted them back, no big deal, they’re all registered
(that is what the whole calling the FBI things about anyway, everyone knows it {E-trace}) so just put out a law requiring all guns be turned in my one months time, and if your names not on the list of people that have handed in their guns, then… we’ll just come get them, and at least fine/imprison you for not obeying the new law
(that’s how all the other repressive countries have done it recently)

“In fact, felons, gangsters, wife-beaters, and the dangerously mentally ill can buy as many military-style assault weapons, semi-automatic pistols and other firearms as they can carry, with no questions asked.”

The real fact is that all the guys you talk of wanting to stop, NOW have a free hand in our society, thanks to people just like YOU, that’s right, YOU are the real problem.
Because YOU have taken the rights of the good people away though propaganda like this.
People are terrified of weapons now, congrats!, the very tool that could have protected them now, instead of the people that would use them {illegally}

ALL of the children that have been hurt or killed in ALL of the school shooting could have ALL been stopped, before the second round was fired, if only there had been … even just ONE person there that could have DEFEND themselves, BUT NO, you got all your fucking gun laws in place now, so let the blood bath begin…

The only thing Colin Goddard proved was that SOME people are willing to break laws for money… and that gun LAWS don’t fucking work… wow, BIG news there!!!!

But no, you think you know better, you want MORE.
WE have more gun laws then any other kinds of laws, gun are the most regulated thing on the planet, but no, you WANT more, always more.
What, we don’t have enough death for YOU yet!

Why is it ok for cops to have guns to protect us/themselves, but the very people that employ them can’t?

You have NO fucking idea WHAT the hell you are taking about, you are completely/dangerously ignorant on this, you need to learn before you type.

Your type will not be happy until all gun are rounded up, WELL FUCK YOU BUDDY!
You have blood on your hands for supporting such laws, and you don’t even know it.

re; Lies about gun control from the NRA and others (NY) (Middletown, NY)

No lies were ever put out here, by me or the NRA.

1)You can not speak of what’s in someone else’s head.
So, (unlike you) the NRA speaks of past actions, this is far more important then what a person says, no matter who’s doing the talking.

2) “Assault Weapons” your term, not mine, all weapons are Assault Weapons in the wrong hands, just another play on words to manipulate you.

3) Here’s a real fact for you; so called Assault Weapons are used less then 2% of the time involving crime…, so who would you be disarming if not the criminals that commit crimes with guns???

4) “Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures”
ah yes, the old “commonsense” line, anyone that doesn’t go along must be a whack job, poor fool lost all his commonsense…

Come on, the man votes against every bill that give more gun rights to the people, and with every bill to remove gun rights.

Who cares what the hell he says “I‘ll do“…
Anyone with half a brain should care more about what he’s done!!

The second amendment is not about duck hunting.
fool

Re;Dear Middletown (O.C.) (Middletown, NY)

Amazing,

You either don’t understand or refuse to answer this easy question

The question was {not}; if you support free speech, and/or limits on the internet, but rather when do you support it, at what point do you think it’s time to speak up.

I have to say here, your losing all credibility for avoiding this simple honest question, the reason I even asking it was how you ridiculed me for reacting to Obama’s statement that he would resume talks about international gun control with the UN.

“If Obama was talking about going to the UN to discuss, and possibly sigh a treaty that would apply to all the people of the world’s right to free speech, and/or limits on the internet, would you just sit idly by and merely toss it up to “political chess”. Would you take that {chance}??????????????????????


you can’t admit when you are wrong, even if it has nothing to do with policy.
Your game here is to defeat the oppression, not to have open debate, (as you have indicated), this is clear.

Guns , guns, so how about this take on it? (NY'er)

Should someone who wants to buy a military-style assault weapon be required to undergo a criminal background check?

In America they don't have to.

In fact, felons, gangsters, wife-beaters, and the dangerously mentally ill can buy as many military-style assault weapons, semi-automatic pistols and other firearms as they can carry, with no questions asked.

They just have to know where to go.

It's no secret. There are thousands of gun shows in 43 states that don't require Brady criminal background checks for all gun show sales.

Why do criminals and traffickers go to gun shows? As the bank robber Willie Sutton might have put it, "Because that's where the guns are."

Our weak gun laws make it lethally simple for unlicensed gun vendors to sell as many firearms as they can to whomever they can, cash and carry.

Colin Goddard proved it. Colin survived being shot four times at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007. After learning more about our nearly non-existent laws restricting access to guns, he took it upon himself to document how easy we make it for dangerous people to get guns in this country.


This past summer, Colin went to gun shows across America in Minnesota, Ohio, Texas and his home state of Virginia. Equipped with a hidden camera and accompanied by a resident of each state he visited, Colin filmed how recklessly -- even callously -- unlicensed gun sellers sold military-style assault weapons and semi-automatic pistols with no criminal background check, and without even requiring identification.

Currently, the Brady Law, requiring criminal background checks on gun buyers, applies only to federally licensed gun dealers. A loophole in the law allows the kind of gun sales that Colin was able to document in video : unlicensed gun sellers unloading their guns to anyone who has the cash.

Dear Middletown (O.C.)

I do not support internet censorship . I've seen photoshopped images of Speaker Pelosi with a bullet in her head, and Obama as Hitler. So be it, if that's how people want to express themselves.
The only area where I support some degree of regulation or oversight is in the case of children. Child porn, and the predatory behavior of those who would use the internet toward that end should carry swift and significant response.

We're never going to see eye to eye. You may think I'm radically on the left, and to me, you seem singular in your over reaction in the need to speak about your guns.
But there we have it. Freedom of expression.

Re, Dear Middltown, from O.C. (Middletown, NY)

I’m not surprised with the response, we have make our country what it is today, and what it will be tomorrow, if you think it can’t happen, then you are probably right.

Oh, and it’s not Mr. Paul, it’s Congressman Paul…
As for him not being “sensitive to women and gay and lesbian people”
Well, if you mean he doesn’t give them special treatment like the vote buyers do, well, I guess they would just have to deal with the same rights we all have.

The thing I see you put out here sadly, is if they’re not popular, it doesn’t matter how right they are…, we just have to go with someone that has bad ideas, but more popularity… yeah, we did that already, many times…not working out so well…
This thinking of.. ‘I have to go with a winner’ has gotten us a 13 trillion dollar national debt and a country a lot closer to civil war then you seem to realize… or want to admit.
Not to mention war after war.

I never asked the fed to give free healthcare to me or anyone else.
So I would never pay for something I never asked for, used, or will use.
Further more, if they pass this healthcare through the senate., I will not pay the federal government their healthcare tax, or penalties, and if you think I or many other like me would just go quietly off to jail for tax evasion… lol, think again.
Think about what you are supporting, if it goes this way, it will not just be another job killing social program, it will be an American killing program…. In more ways then you can apparently see. I hope you hear me here, this is indeed a very desperate and immediate situation.

How’s that go… something about the best intentions…
Ah, that’s right; the path to hell is paved with them…

It seems I am on both sides of the aisle, but you seem to be still firmly on the left…
Do you really think I would just compromise what I believe that’s on the right and we could just all get along over on the left?!?!

“I support your gun ownership rights. I am certain , at least under this present administration that you will not have to surrender your weapons. Let's copy this post and check back before 2012 election, ok?”

Am I the only one here that hears the ‘for now’ in this statement…

I got to tell yeah, I would never give up my guns, ever… it wouldn’t matter what the propaganda talks the public into, or what that bone head signs at the UN.
I have never hurt anyone, or anything, but try to take my, or my families freedoms away, and you will see a whole new side to me.

oh, and it’s your gun rights too, not just mine.


But I have to say, I’m disappointed that you couldn’t answer just one question, and after I wrote like 4 pages of answers for you…

“If Obama was talking about going to the UN to discuss, and possibly sigh a treaty that would apply to all the people of the world’s right to free speech, and/or limits on the internet, would you just sit idly by and merely toss it up to “political chess”. Would you take that {chance}??????????????????????

It seems like you are still playing the chess game you talk of.

Dear Wappingers and your fear (Hudson Valley)

Yes, I see you're afraid. If that bit of propaganda were true, I'd be scared as well.
But what's more frightening is that you might actually believe that. Perhaps FDR was right, you have nothing to fear but..................................

Lies about gun control from the NRA and others (NY)

In an extensive analysis, FactCheck has flagged false claims by the National Rifle Association (NRA) in mailers and TV ads. Specifically, the NRA says, "Obama plans to ban handguns, hunting ammo and use of a gun for home defense."

FactCheck states:

The NRA is circulating printed material and running TV ads making unsubstantiated claims that Obama plans to ban use of firearms for home defense, ban possession and manufacture of handguns, close 90 percent of gun shops and ban hunting ammunition.


Much of what the NRA passes off as Obama's "10 Point Plan to 'Change' the Second Amendment" is actually contrary to what he has said throughout his campaign: that he "respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms" and "will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns."

The NRA, however, simply dismisses Obama's stated position as "rhetoric" and substitutes its own interpretation of his record as a secret "plan." Said an NRA spokesman: "We believe our facts."


But FactCheck states: "We find the NRA has cherry-picked, twisted and misrepresented Obama's record to come up with a bogus "plan."

The flier looks almost as though it comes from the Obama campaign. It uses the same color and font scheme as well as the campaign's sunrise logo. And on some points it is right; Obama has called for national legislation against carrying concealed firearms, and he would revive and make permanent the expired ban on semi-automatic "assault weapons," for example. On other points it exaggerates. Obama has spoken in favor of government registration of handguns, for example, but has not called for registration of all "firearms" including hunting rifles and shotguns. But the TV spots and fliers also make claims that are directly contrary to what Obama actually says about guns.

The entire FactCheck post is well worth a read. Here is its summary of Obama's actual position.

Regarding a Constitutional right to guns, Obama says:

... Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms. He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns.


On the issue of urban policy, Obama says he favors "commonsense measures" to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children, and that he would bring back the expired "assault weapon" ban and make it permanent:

... Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

Dear Middltown, from O.C. (O.C. naturally)

Thanks for responding.
Ok, well interestingly enough we agree on several points. The others not so. We're in agreement, in part that is, with respect to gay marriage, though I feel whatever exists for men and women should apply to same sex couples, regardless of the origin of the institution.
We agree on the drug laws, and prostitution.

So the challenge for us, and by "us", I mean any group of people that share the same goal on a set of issues, is how to come together on those, while we disagree on others. For any progress to be made, there needs to be some collective effort on the specific issues that matter to each of us. That's why I posed the question about candidates, parties, etc. While you won't find much objection to replacing ineffective members of congress whether it's 1 or 400 of 'em, there's also the practical side. And the practical side is that it ain't gonna happen that way.
So, we need to make progress incrementally. I think making changes in the health care system we presently live with is an example of just that. It won't be perfect and will no doubt need adjustment, but I'm a strong supporter of something, rather then nothing. I do not fear an increase in taxes for something that I truly believes is in the best interests of Americans. I hated paying for ( and still do), wars of choice and foreign policies based on pre-emptive strike. This is not to be confused with the agreed point you make about others hating us. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I support your gun ownership rights. I am certain , at least under this present administration that you will not have to surrender your weapons. Let's copy this post and check back before 2012 election, ok?

It's not that I think Democrats or liberals are the ideal pathway to enlightened political consciousness. But I'm certain that neo conservative principles are a quick path in the other direction.
As to Mr. Paul, I'm not impressed. His positions on several things, other then Iraq where he was right on, are seemingly out of touch with the needs of common Americans, and insensitive to women and gay and lesbian people. He had his opportunity like Nader, or even Perot, to make a statement, take a stand. He or his son would have little if any support in the house or senate, they'd get less then nothing done. And unless in some fantasy a majority of Paul like thinkers got it, it would be political ineffectiveness of the highest level. The facts are that his positions simply do not have the support. He didn't take a stand. Didn't quit the Republicans. . Jessse did, but quit politics. I don't blame him. I was a fan of Sen. Bill Bradley, he quit too. It's likely I'd quit.

Term limits. I'm on board with that as well.

So here it is, Wed night and your seemingly predictable political adversary on the board is someone you actually share similar positions on.
Makes ya' think eh?

Wild Hogs (Middletown, NY)

(The Wild and Free Pigs of the Okefenokee Swamp)
Some years ago, about 1900, an old trapper from North Dakota hitched up some horses to his Studebaker wagon, packed a few possessions -- especially his traps -- and drove south. Several weeks later he stopped in a small town just north of the Okefenokee Swamp in Georgia. It was a Saturday morning -- a lazy day -- when he walked into the general store. Sitting around the pot-bellied stove were seven or eight of the town's local citizens.

The traveler spoke. "Gentlemen, could you direct me to the Okefenokee Swamp?" Some of the oldtimers looked at him like he was crazy. "You must be a stranger in these parts," they said. "I am. I'm from North Dakota," said the stranger. "In the Okefenokee Swamp are thousands of wild hogs." one old man explained. "A man who goes into the swamp by himself asks to die!" He lifted up his leg. "I lost half my leg here, to the pigs of the swamp." Another old fellow said, "Look at the cuts on me; look at my arm bit off! Those pigs have been free since the Revolution, eating snakes and rooting out roots and fending for themselves for over a hundred years. They're wild and they're dangerous. You can't trap them. No man dare go into the swamp by himself." Every man nodded his head in agreement.

The old trapper said, "Thank you so much for the warning. Now could you direct me to the swamp?" They said, "Well, yeah, it's due south -- straight down the road." But they begged the stranger not to go, because they knew he'd meet a terrible fate. He said, "Sell me ten sacks of corn, and help me load it in the wagon." And they did. Then the old trapper bid them farewell and drove on down the road. The townsfolk thought they'd never see him again. Two weeks later the man came back. He pulled up to the general store, got down off the wagon, walked in and bought ten more sacks of corn. After loading it up he went back down the road toward the swamp.

Two weeks later he returned and again bought ten sacks of corn. This went on for a month. And then two months, and three. Every week or two the old trapper would come into town on a Saturday morning, load up ten sacks of corn, and drive off south into the swamp. The stranger soon became a legend in the little village and the subject of much speculation. People wondered what kind of devil had possessed this man, that he could go into the Okefenokee by himself and not be consumed by the wild and free hogs.

One morning the man came into town as usual. Everyone thought he wanted more corn. He got off the wagon and went into the store where the usual group of men were gathered around the stove. He took off his gloves. "Gentlemen," he said, "I need to hire about ten or fifteen wagons. I need twenty or thirty men. I have six thousand hogs out in the swamp, penned up, and they're all hungry. I've got to get them to market right away." "You've WHAT in the swamp?" asked the storekeeper, incredulously. "I have six thousand hogs penned up. They haven't eaten for two or three days, and they'll starve if I don't get back there to feed and take care of them."

One of the oldtimers said, "You mean you've captured the wild hogs of the Okefenokee?" "That's right." "How did you do that? What did you do?" the men urged, breathlessly. One of them exclaimed, "But I lost my arm!" "I lost my brother!" cried another. "I lost my leg to those wild boars!" chimed a third. The trapper said, "Well, the first week I went in there they were wild all right. They hid in the undergrowth and wouldn't come out. I dared not get off the wagon. So I spread corn along behind the wagon. Every day I'd spread a sack of corn. The old pigs would have nothing to do with it."

"But the younger pigs decided that it was easier to eat free corn than it was to root out roots and catch snakes. So the very young began to eat the corn first. I did this every day. Pretty soon, even the old pigs decided that it was easier to eat free corn. After all, they were all free; they were not penned up. They could run off in any direction they wanted at any time."

"The next thing was to get them used to eating in the same place all the time. So I selected a clearing, and I started putting the corn in the clearing. At first they wouldn't come to the clearing. It was too far. It was too open. It was a nuisance to them." "But the very young decided that it was easier to take the corn in the clearing than it was to root out roots and catch their own snakes. And not long thereafter, the older pigs also decided that it was easier to come to the clearing every day."

"And so the pigs learned to come to the clearing every day to get their free corn. They could still subsidize their diet with roots and snakes and whatever else they wanted. After all, they were all free. They could run in any direction at any time. There were no bounds upon them." "The next step was to get them used to fence posts. So I put fence posts all the way around the clearing. I put them in the underbrush so that they wouldn't get suspicious or upset. After all, they were just sticks sticking up out of the ground, like the trees and the brush. The corn was there every day. It was easy to walk in between the posts, get the corn, and walk back out."

"This went on for a week or two. Shortly they became very used to walking into the clearing, getting the free corn, and walking back out through the fence posts." "The next step was to put one rail down at the bottom. I also left a few openings, so that the older, fatter pigs could walk through the openings and the younger pigs could easily jump over just one rail. After all, it was no real threat to their freedom or independence. They could always jump over the rail and flee in any direction at any time."

"Now I decided that I wouldn't feed them every day. I began to feed them every other day. On the days I didn't feed them the pigs still gathered in the clearing. They squealed, and they grunted, and they begged and pleaded with me to feed them. But I only fed them every other day. And I put a second rail around the posts." "Now the pigs became more and more desperate for food. Because now they were no longer used to going out and digging their own roots and finding their own food. They now needed me. They needed my corn every other day. So I trained them that I would feed them every day if they came in through a gate. And I put up a third rail around the fence. But it was still no great threat to their freedom, because there were several gates and they could run in and out at will."

"Finally I put up the fourth rail. Then I closed all the gates but one, and I fed them very, very well. Yesterday I closed the last gate. And today I need you to help me take these pigs to market." -- end of story -- The price of free corn The allegory of the pigs has a serious moral lesson. This story is about federal money being used to bait, trap and enslave a once free and independent people. Federal welfare, in its myriad forms, has reduced not only individuals to a state of dependency. State and local governments are also on the fast track to elimination, due to their functions being subverted by the command and control structures of federal "revenue sharing" programs.

Please copy this flyer and send it to all your state and local elected leaders and other concerned citizens. Tell them: "Just say NO to federal corn." The bacon you save may be your own.

IT'S AMAZING WHAT ONE HAS TO BELIEVE TO BELIEVE IN GUN CONTROL (Middletown, NY)

IT'S AMAZING WHAT ONE HAS TO BELIEVE TO BELIEVE IN GUN CONTROL
By Michael Z. Williamson Co 1999,2000

That the more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.

That you should give a mugger your wallet, because he doesn't reaI1y want to shoot you and he'll let you go, but that you should give him your wallet, because he'll shoot you if you don't

That Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is attributable to the lack of gun control.

That an intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .44 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

That firearms in the hands of private citizens are the gravest threat to world peace, and China, Pakistan and Korea can be trusted with nuclear weapons.

That ordiny people, in the presence of guns, turn into slaughtering butchers, and revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

That the New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns, just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgey.

That one should consult an automotive engineer for safer seat belts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

That the "right of the people peaceably to assemble," the "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people," refer to· individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the states.

That the 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, allows the states to have a National Guard, created by act of Congress in 1917.

That the National Guard, paid by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state agency.

That private citizens can't have handguns, because they serve no militia purpose, even though the military has hundreds of thousands of them. and private citizens can't have assault rifles, because they are military weapons.

That it is reasonable for California to have a minimum 2 year sentence for possessing but not using an assault rifle, and reasonable for California to have a 6 month minimum sentence for raping a female police officer.

That it is reasonable to jail people for carrying but not using guns, but
outrageous to jail people for possessing marijuana.

That minimum sentences violate civil rights, unless it's for possessing a gun. That door-to-door searches for drugs are a gross violation of civil rights and a sign of fascism, but door-to-door searches for guns are a reasonable solution to the "gun problem."

That with the above, a 90 lb woman attacked by a 300 lb rapist and his 300 lb buddy, has the "right" to kill them in self defense, provided she uses her bare hands.

That we must get rid of guns because deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time, and anyone who owns a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

That there is too much explicit violence featuring guns on TV, and that cities can sue gun manufacturers because people aren't aware of the dangers involved with guns.

That the crime rate in America is decreasing because of gun control, and the increase in crime requires more gun control

That we don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, and we should ban and seize all guns, therefore violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments of that Constitution, thereby becoming an oppressive government

That guns are an ineffective means of self defense for rational adults, but in the hands of an ignorant criminal become a threat to the fabric of society.

That guns are so compIex to use that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

That guns cause crime, which is why there are so many mass slayings at gun shows.

That guns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why the army only has 3 million of them.

That banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.

That the Constitution protects us, so we don't need guns, and can confiscate
them, thereby violating the 5th amendment of that constitution.

That women are just as intelligent and capable as men, yet a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen."

That women are just as intelligent and capable as men, and gunmakers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

That one should ignore as idiots politicians who confuse Wicca with Satanism and exaggerate the gay community as a threat to society, but listen sagely to politicians who can refer to a self- loading small arm as a "weapon of mass destruction" and an "assault weapon."

That Massachusetts is safer with bans on guns, which is why Teddy Kennedy has machinegun toting guards.

That most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by, because they can be trusted.

That a woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

That the ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

That police operate in groups with backup, which is why they need larger capacity magazines than civilians, who must face criminaIs alone, and therefore need less ammunition.

That we should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

Copyright 1999, 2000 by Michael Z Williamson. Permission is granted to copy in part or in total for non-profit purposes, provided due credit is given.

SHARE WITH A FRIEND!
SHARE WITH A LEGISLATOR!

THE SEVEN VARIETIES OF GUN CONTROL ADVOCATE (Middletown, NY)

THE SEVEN VARIETIES OF
GUN CONTROL ADVOCATE
by
Gus Cotey, Jr.

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. © JPFO 2009



The right of decent private citizens to personally possess, transport, and responsibly use arms without government interference is the ultimate freedom and the main pillar supporting all other liberties. Few cultures have allowed their general population access to weapons, the tools of power, to the same degree as the United States. Instead, most societies have restricted the keeping and bearing of arms to a select few power brokers and their agents, often resulting in oppression on a grand scale.

Despite a massive amount of historical evidence to the contrary, there is a substantial body of Americans, many occupying positions of influence, who contend that the abrogation of the Second Amendment is the quickest path to domestic tranquility. Since this is as absurd as advocating blood-letting as a cure for anemia, it would seem advisable to question the motives and mentalities of the gun control advocates themselves.

In my observation, weapon prohibitionists can be broken down into seven major categories. Even though their motives may vary they all pose a mortal threat to liberty.



ELITISTS
Many of those in favor of oppressive firearms legislation are are best classed as elitists. Elitists frequently identify with a peer group based on wealth, power, rank, social status, occupation, education, ethnic group, etc. and perceive themselves and their peers as inherently superior to and more responsible than the "common people", thus more deserving of certain rights. Since elitists practically consider those outside their class or caste as members of another species, that most anti-elitist list of laws, the Bill of Rights is viewed by them as anathema. Naturally, the Second Amendment is their first target as it serves as the supporting structure for other nine amendments.



AUTHORITARIANS
Another type of individual who favors the restriction of private gun ownership is the authoritarian. Authoritarian personalities are characterized by their belief in unquestioning obedience to an authority figure or group and a disdain for individual freedom of action, expression, and judgement. Those with authoritarian personalities function well in symbiosis with elitists occupying positions of power. Because authoritarians repress their desires for autonomy they harbor a deep resentment toward free and independent thinkers. Of course authoritarians do not want firearms in the hands of the general population as this constitutes a major obstacle to fulfilling their pathological and obsessive desire to control people.



CRIMINALS
It goes without saying that career criminals would like to see the public disarmed for obvious reasons. A well-armed population makes crimes such as assault, robbery, and burglary hazardous for the perpetrator and this is bad for "business." Also, it would seem that even non-violent or "white collar" criminals live in constant fear of retribution from the public that they financially bleed and would therefore prefer that the public be disarmed. Evidence supporting this hypothesis can be gathered by studying the Second Amendment voting records of those legislators who have been convicted of willful misconduct.



THE FEARFUL
Cowards by definition are easily or excessively frightened by things and situations that are recognized as dangerous, difficult, or painful. It therefore stands to reason that the mere thought of guns and the circumstances in which they are employed causes them abnormal amounts of stress. Rather than admit their weakness to themselves or others, some fearful types jump on the anti-gun bandwagon and purport moral superiority to those "barbaric"enough to employ lethal force against armed assailants by claiming various humanitarian and pragmatic motives for allowing evil to remain unchecked. In reality, many of these individuals harbor an envy induced resentment toward anyone with the means, skill, and will to successfully stand up to criminal aggression.

The desire to assert oneself exists in nearly everyone, wimps included, so cowards seek out tame enemies against whom they can ply their pitiful brand of machismo. Instead of the sociopaths who commit acts of wanton aggression with guns, guns themselves and responsible gun owners are the main targets of their attacks. After all, real criminals are dangerous, so cowards prefer doing battle with inanimate objects that do not have a will of their own and decent law-abiding people whose high level of integrity and self discipline prevent them from physically lashing out against mere verbal assailants, however obnoxious they may be.



IDEOLOGICAL CHAMELEONS
Ideological chameleons follow the simple social strategy of avoiding controversy and confrontation by espousing the beliefs of the people in their immediate vicinity or advocating the philosophy of those who scream the loudest in a debate. Quite a few supposedly pro Second Amendment public officials have shown themselves to be ideological chameleons when they supported restrictions on the private possession of military style semiautomatic rifles following recent atrocities in which such firearms were employed. Like their reptilian namesake, people who merely blend in with the ambient philosophical foliage seem to have little insight into the moral and social ramifications of their actions. Political and/or economic gain along with avoidance of confrontation are their only goals.



SECURITY MONOPOLISTS
Security monopolists are those members and representatives of public and private security providing concerns who want the means of self protection out of private hands so that they can command high fees for protecting the citizenry against the rising tide of crime. These profiteers stand to loose a great deal of capital if citizens can efficiently defend themselves. To the security monopolist, each criminal who enters and exits the revolving door of justice is a renewable source of revenue providing jobs for police, social workers, victim counsellors, judges, prison employees, security guards, burglar alarm installers, locksmiths, and others employed by the security monopolies or their satellite organizations. No wonder it is so common for an honest citizen to be more ruthlessly hounded by the authorities when he shoots a criminal in self defense than a criminal who shoots honest citizens.



THE DYSFUNCTIONALLY UNWORLDLY
Just as a limb will weaken and atrophy if not used, so will aspects of the mind fail to develop if nothing in one's environment exists to challenge them. People who have led excessively sheltered lives tend to have a difficult time understanding certain cause and effect relationships and an even harder time appreciating just how cruel the world can be. These dysfunctionally unworldly types are truly perplexed at the very notion of firearms ownership with regard to defense. To them, tyranny and crime are things that happen in other places far removed from their "civilized" universe. Also, they do not understand the value of private property and why some people would fight for theirs since they never had to work hard to acquire what they possess. While those suffering from dysfunctional unworldliness are most often people who have been born into considerable wealth, this condition is also common in members of the clergy, academicians, practioners of the arts, and others who have spent much of their lives cloistered in a safe and pampering environment. While many of these people may be quite talented and intelligent in some ways, their extreme naivety makes them easy prey for the tyrants who use them for the financial support and favorable advertisement of their regimes. Needless to say, the anti-gun movement is well represented and financed by the dysfunctionally unworldly.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and it behooves all vigilant lovers of liberty to know and be able to recognize the various types of arms prohibitionists and understand their differing but equally dangerous motives. Acquiring knowledge of one's foes is the first step toward defeating them. We must never forget that a threat to private firearms ownership is a threat to all freedoms.

The inalienable and fundamental right to keep and bear arms which is enumerated by (but actually predates) the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not about hunting, gun collecting, or target shooting. Its purpose is to insure that every responsible American personally possesses the means to defend the Republic from all forms of tyranny, within and without. It is what permits the other nine Amendments in the Bill of Rights to be more than mere hollow phrases on a piece of paper. Its free exercise is the antithesis of serfdom and the only meaningful form of holocaust insurance known to man.

We must never insult and degrade the spirits of our Founding Fathers by permitting the Second Amendment, the pillar of freedom, to be destroyed by the cold flame of legislative ink.

Lou Prtitchett Letter to Obama (Wappingers)

Lou Pritchett is one of corporate America 's true living legends- an acclaimed author, dynamic teacher and one of the world's highest rated speakers. Successful corporate executives everywhere recognize him as the foremost leader in change management. Lou changed the way America does business by creating an audacious concept that came to be known as "partnering. Pritchett rose from soap salesman to Vice-President, Sales and Customer Development for Procter and Gamble and over the course of 36 years, made corporate history.

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.
You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.
You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.
You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America ' crowd and deliver this message abroad.
You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.
You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.
You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.
You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.
You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.
You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.
You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.
You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.
You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaugh's, Hannitys, O'Reillys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.
You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett

Answers for OC. (Middletown, NY)

I have answered these questions now many times, but one more time I guess won’t hurt.

“I knew you'd catch up. You're on the right track with respect to not allowing big gov to intervene with the internet. Now let's see where you stand on the draconian drug laws, prostitution, medical marijuana, gay marriage and having a department of peace in place of the war department.”

---

Answer;
I don’t think we have ever needed big government, and neither did the forefathers!
What I think we need is big choice, and yes, even if it’s not always a good/wise choice, it should be yours, not ours

I still and always will believe the issues concerning the individual should be made by that individual… So most of this is easy for me.

I have no use for laws regarding drugs, prostitution, medical marijuana (same thing as drugs)

Gay marriage in itself I could not care less about, B-U-T, I firmly believe that the church came up with this notion of marriage (if someone can inform me that the state came up with it first then this would be different) in that, I believe it is a religious term, and the state has no jurisdiction over it, that is we the people should not dictate who can marry, that should be left to the church.
Now, with that said, I’m for people pursuing their happiness, so my advice to them and my government would be to pursue a civil-union type of arrangement, and I feel if the state is giving special consideration to the marred people, (I don’t think they should) then it should be pass on to the civil-unions as well.

As far as having a ‘department of peace’ in place of the war department.”
Well, lol, that’s just crazy talk. (Not every country is our friend, a matter of fact, most hate us)
We need to be able to protect ourselves, individually, and collectively, but we need to follow the constitution on this, war needs to be carefully thought out, let us never hastily go to war over passion, but rather reason.
In times of piece (far to few) the standing armies should be disbanded, I don’t have a problem with state run security forces that can quickly be wiped up into a well trained army/military, but I don’t trust the fed with that much power.

It seems like we are the country that is out of control these days!
I feel there are reasons for this, and they have nothing to do with our security, quite the opposite.
It’s been said; “fought in a war for what was lost in the land“… think about that.

---

“We never did hear from you with respect to which candidate, how and by what means they will enact or undo laws you're unhappy or would like to see. Or how and who they would rally in what congress to make any of this feasible.”

Answer:
WE as a people need to change first, before we can hope for {real}.. And {right} change from our leaders.

I don’t no if it really matters who I like for the job, if the people don’t understand the fundamentals of history, how can they make a good choice for the future? There are 545 people in DC that were pick by people that don’t have anywhere near the passion for the subject we do, we will need to inform the public if we are to fix the country-

I believe most people could care less about the country around them, (this is by design) let alone the world, if they only look up once ever 4 years to vote… (I’m so tired of hearing “rock the vote”) and have no idea where the candidates stand, and what important issues we need to worry about, then why should they RoCk ThE VoTe?.
They don’t have a clue what the hell they are voting for/on.
It would be like a mechanic just guessing on how to fix your car… they might get it right, but there’s usually a much better chance of them fucking things up… and costing a LOT of money.
Sound familiar?

I’m not trying to dodge the question here; it’s just a little more complexes then 123
We have a particular party that likes to use propaganda on our kids especially just as they become of voting age,(kids just love to do thing they have never been allowed to do before) then push them to vote on issues they aren’t fully informed about, this is just plan wrong, no matter who is doing it.
How do you deconstruct what they have built in DC. Safely and without exposing ourselves to hostiles in other countries… short answer, {carefully}, and {over time}.
But if we keep going the way we are, I fear we will have neither of these luxuries.

It took years for them to get big chunks’ of our country under their control, if you just pull the rug out from everyone it won’t be pretty, but they continue to grab more control day by day, so I would say at least stop that!

I think the way they make new laws is how they need to remove bad laws, we should put them in DC full time, and year round (and I wouldn’t give them a dime more for it), every law made for the past hundred years needs to be looked at, and every law that has been done away with needs to be considered too!
Can I spell Glass-Siegel, right? How about the gold standard?
(You can’t print gold out of thin air, and that’s why we had it in the first place!)
The fundamentals never change with money.

We need them to apply the constitution to all laws, if the constitution does not give them the power to make such a law, then it’s gone, if some dopy state wants it for themselves, that’s fine, the people in that state will have to fight it out, but it doesn’t belong in the federal arena’
This will be long and painful but we have to fix these problems, things will only get worse if we don’t.

Trust is a big problem here, we as a people have been let down on may occasions, I believe in term limits, if a politician is not for that, he as been compromised from the power of the office and needs to go. (Mr. Bloomberg!)

I believe we (the USA) have done a lot of good in the world, just not lately; we need to get back to what made this country great, and abandon what has made it.. well… not so great.

Cheap foreign made goods are not good for this country… this is the {real} inconvenient truth.
We need to make it here if we are to be a secure and viable nation again.
(Screw, NAFTA, and all that wanted it… Clinton, Gore, Bush, Bush jr, Carter, didn’t even that fuck Ford stand up for it? Hard to tell about Reagan, he was kinda fuckup by then)
It was never meant to help us, how would people that make 20 dollars a week buy our $4 a box cereal?
Jobs & money would only go one way here. wtf Might as well set up a one way street at the border
they all wanted it, what does that tell you?
This goes to show how deep the problems with our government lie…

We need the education system taken out of the hands of the government, it should be in the hands of the communities in which the kids live, and yes, they will have to pay for all of it, but the good news is no more big federal taxes, so they can afford it, they could call all the shots, and if they make bad choices, the people that live there will change those that made them!

I could go on with this question for a while, so I’ll try to wrap it up
We need all new people in DC, just replace the 545 now while we still can (there are very few exceptions), we need these new people to have someone watch them read the constitution… for real, they have to really understand how… and why it is written the way it was.
When they take the oath, there has to be real penalty for not following it!!! Like 20 years (no parole) in a state pen…., something really tough like that, no more fooling around.

I have made no secret for my interest in Ron Paul, his son, Peter Schiff, or Jesse Ventura.
It’s not that I can say without any doubt that these guys are the best for the job; it’s just that I personally feel by what they have consistently said that indeed they understand the problems we have gotten ourselves into, and how to get us out of them.
I’ll like to say that none of them think bombs or bullets are the answer, so you should like that.

“It's easy to complain and think the rest of us don't get the big gov invasion. Yet you're absent on these bigger questions as you continue to believe that someone's coming to confiscate your weapons. They're not. So?”

Answer;
I have to disagree with you on this, it’s not easy to complain, I mean it took me real time here to do this, I have overcome personal difficulties you don’t know about just to write here in this forum.
So while others enjoy other activities, I work at putting my thoughts and those videos up, when other people are watching mindless shows on TV, I’m working here trying to get people interested with what’s going on with the country they live in… easy.. Maybe for you.

Now as for the gun thing.
We can’t simply sit around and tell each other, “They will never do that, that would be political suicide”
Many people have been talked into the idea that they are personally safer if they don’t have a weapon in hand, (to bad the bad people don’t believe that, hu) and more people buy into that every day, it’s not hard to understand, it’s the path of least resistance.
People want to believe everything is good, they don’t have to spend the money and time looking after themselves, it’s just easier to believe we don’t need guns.
But everyday the evidence on TV refutes this faults reality.

But more importantly, when would it be a good time to take action on these statements you so cavalierly call “political chess”, when is it a good time to speak up on things you know are important to your freedom??? How will our leader know how we feel if we fall silent on the issues at hand???


I have a question for you, and since I have taken the time to answer your questions as thoroughly and honestly as I can here, I would hope you would answer my one question.

If Obama was talking about going to the UN to discuss, and possibly sigh a treaty that would apply to all the people of the world’s right to free speech, and/or limits on the internet, would you just sit idly by and merely toss it up to “political chess”. Would you take that {chance}???
don’t think you would, but I want your honest answer on it.

History has made this painfully clear over and over again.
You can not have the rights in the first amendment without the right of the second

I await your answer OC.


In closing, I feel there is much we can do for the world as the good people I have seen we can be.
(But it should always be done on a volunteer bases not by the government)
However, we will need to fix ourselves before we can offer any real help to others.
We must unite behind these ideals I have written here, and get past all this miss information and games between the parities.
We shouldn’t want any system that gives equally to all. This kind of system robs all of us the incentive to accomplish all we can, and it is in this very incentive that made us a great and powerful nation in less then 200 years, and will do so again.

People simply work harder for themselves, just asks anyone in their own business.
In contrast consider how hard a person works by the hour in a dead-end job with set wage increases…
-When you remove all the incentive, you lose all the incentive- (Teachers come to mind)
We will never be a success again if based on this rationed success formula we have going for us now, history has proven this many times over.
Just ask anyone that has live in another country, then moved here and started a business.
Trust freedom, it works.

Democrats. Fight back on health care! (Greenwood Lake, NY)

When the House health care bill passed last Saturday, it came at a big, big price.

Conservatives forced a dangerous anti-choice amendment to the bill. The "Stupak amendment" makes insurance coverage for abortion virtually unavailable for millions of women purchasing insurance plans through the newly created health insurance exchange, even if they're using their own money to buy coverage.

The is a huge shift in U.S. policy. Senator Kristen Gillibrand notes it would "dramatically limit reproductive health care." Representative Dianne DeGette calls it "the biggest expansion of restrictions on a woman's right to choose...in my career."

Anti-choice forces won in the House through late-night, back-room negotiations. Now we have to fight back and get the truth out there so Congress hears loud and clear that this is simply unacceptable—and that Americans are going to fight hard to keep this provision out of the final health care bill.

Can you write a letter to the editor today urging Congress to keep the anti-choice "Stupak amendment" out of the final health care bill?

Click here to get started:

http://pol.moveon.org/lte?campaign_id=121&id=17986-11739216-gouhG5x&t=3

re;unfounded fear or would you like an apple pie with that... (new hampton)

I wish you didn't direct me to that video , I'm crying all over my computer , the pain in that guys face reached deep into my.... HOLD ON.. Is that sesame seeds and special sauce in his beard , its probably just indigestion...never mind

And They Want to Run Healthcare (Wappingers)

From the Heritage Foundation

Forget everything bad you’ve ever heard about President Barack Obama’s $787 economic stimulus. Combing through the data on the $18 million Recovery.gov website you’ll find tons of Obama stimulus success stories from across the country. In Minnesota’s 57th Congressional District, 35 jobs have been saved or created using $404,340 in stimulus funds. In New Mexico’s 22nd Congressional District, 25 jobs have been saved or created using $61,000 in stimulus cash. And in Arizona’s fighting 15th Congressional District, 30 jobs have been saved or created with just $761,420 in federal stimulus spending.

The it-would-be-funny-if-it-weren’t-our-tax-dollars-at-stake punch line here is that none of the above Congressional Districts actually exist. Yet those jobs “created or saved” claims still sit on the Obama administration’s official “transparency and accountability” website Recovery.gov. As the Washington Examiner’s David Freddoso points out, it would have been nearly costless for the Recovery.gov site designers to limit the input fields so that non-existent Congressional Districts never made it into the public domain, but for whatever reason the Obama administration chose otherwise. Defending the fake data on his website, Recovery.gov Communications Director Ed Pound told ABC News: “We report what the recipients submit to us. Some recipients clearly don’t know what congressional district they live in, so they appear to be just throwing in any number. We expected all along that recipients would make mistakes on their congressional districts, on job numbers, on award amounts, and so on. Human beings make mistakes.”

Pound is dead wrong. The problem with Recovery.gov is not human reporting error, but an error of human design. Highly trained professional economists don’t agree on how to tell when a job has been “saved or created” yet the Obama administration expects a Kentucky shoe-store owner to accurately create such data? “Just throwing in any number.” That just about sums up the accuracy of Recovery.gov. And the usually compliant mainstream press is beginning to notice.

The Washington Examiner has begun tracking stories from established media outlets on bogus job claims made by the Obama administration and they have already identified 75,343 fake jobs out of the 640,000 that the Obama administration claimed. You can track Obama job fakery from around the country on the Examiner’s interactive “Bogus Jobs” map here.

The lesson here is that the American people simply cannot trust any stimulus claims made by the Obama White House. Fortunately we have an objective way to hold Obama accountable. The Bureau of Labor and Statistics has been collecting accepted and standardized data employment data since the 1940s.

When President Obama was selling his $787 billion stimulus to the American people he promised unemployment would never rise above 7.8% and that by 2010 the U.S. economy would employ 138.6 million jobs. The unemployment rate is now 10.2% and with only 130.8 million jobs in the U.S. economy, President Obama is now 7.8 million jobs short of what he promised the American people. That makes President Obama’s stimulus an objective failure.

From Ben Stein (Wappingers)

Why is President Barack Obama in such a hurry to get his socialized medicine bill passed? Because he and his cunning circle realize some basic truths: The American people in their unimaginable kindness and trust voted for a pig in a poke in 2008. They wanted so much to believe Barack Obama was somehow better and different from other ultra-leftists that they simply took him on faith. They ignored his anti-white writings in his books. They ignored his quiet acceptance of hysterical anti-American diatribes by his minister, Jeremiah Wright. They ignored his refusal to explain years at a time of his life as a student. They ignored his ultra-left record as a "community organizer," Illinois state legislator, and Senator. The American people ignored his total zero of an academic record as a student and teacher, his complete lack of scholarship when he was being touted as a scholar. Now, the American people are starting to wake up to the truth. Barack Obama is a super likeable super leftist, not a fan of this country, way, way too cozy with the terrorist leaders in the Middle East , way beyond naïveté, all the way into active destruction of our interests and our allies and our future. The American people have already awakened to the truth that the stimulus bill -- a great idea in theory -- was really an immense bribe to Democrat interest groups, and in no way an effort to help all Americans. Now, Americans are waking up to the truth that ObamaCare basically means that every time you are sick or injured, you will have a clerk from the Department of Motor Vehicles telling your doctor what he can and cannot do. The American people already know that Mr. Obama's plan to lower health costs while expanding coverage and bureaucracy is a myth, a promise of something that never was and never will be -- a bureaucracy lowering costs in a free society. Either the costs go up or the free society goes away. Mr. Obama knows Americans are getting wise and will stop him if he delays at all in taking away our freedoms.

The daily fear mongering on health care (USA, by way on NY, Orange County)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTpmUJESr9E

Another moment in American history, and the waves of fear throw up obstacles. We've heard and seen this before in American history. So you can join the undistinguished gang of sports folk in baseball in 1946, educators in the south in 1962, or men in 1919, plantation owners in the 1860's or those loyal to British in 1776.
Or you can realize that a shift in policy is not always about the end of times, and never quite perfect, but like Social Security, Medicare and the aformentioned moments in American history, part of our growth as a great nation.
Americans who were on the forefront on these shifts were often called traitors, unpatriotic, communists, socialists and couldn't understand how it would decay the moral fabric of society. History has shown that those voices of fear were wrong then. And they're wrong now.
Patriotic, constitution supporting, nation caring, moral American citizens also want health care reform. Now's the time !

The unfounded fear of health care reform (NY)

While anyone on TV can be defined as a "TV personality", it doesn't necessarily make the message less significant.

If you're going to use Beck, Napalatano, Paul , Hannity or others , then surely this has merit. And right on point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cFKBSQqOTw

re: Middletown, his spelling error and gun fears (O.C.)

I knew you'd catch up. You're on the right track with respect to not allowing big gov to intervene with the internet. Now let's see where you stand on the draconian drug laws, prostitution, medical marijuana, gay marriage and having a department of peace in place of the war department.

We never did hear from you with respect to which candidate, how and by what means they will enact or undo laws you're unhappy or would like to see. Or how and who they would rally in what congress to make any of this feasible.

It's easy to complain and think the rest of us don't get the big gov invasion. Yet you're absent on these bigger questions as you continue to believe that someone's coming to confiscate your weapons. They're not. So ?

Federal Reserve's Lack Of Reserve (Middletown, NY)

Federal Reserve's Lack Of Reserve

With Judge Napolitano and Peter Schiff !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8YYrHtm_C0

Andrew Napolitano - Big Government Party Health Care (Middletown, NY)

Andrew Napolitano - Big Government Party Health Care

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pZQZj3YkBE

Re; re: guns Obama and on and on (O.C.) -I am so sorry. (Middletown, NY)

First,
I am so very sorry about the misspell word {traitor} it must have been awful for you, I can’t imagine what it must have been like to be going along happy as can be and there, right in the middle of the page… no not.. A misspelled word!!! That bastard… he must of done that intentionally… what a fuck, that guy in Middletown is... he really needs to clean his act up, I bet all the people in Middletown are like that.

Fortunately for me, I know you are too good a person to put my content down for a spelling error, or insinuate in any way that this horrific mistake would indicate a lack of intelligence on my part. No… you never do that.

You know, I just found out last week that the world is indeed round, so excuse me while I catch up…

Man … to think you can get in a plane and go a-r-o-u-n-d the world… fantastic…, never have to make a turn… unbelievable…
And here I was told the debate was over on that… I guess we just keep learning don’t we….

This is so sad, this guy don’t even like our country… (Middletown, NY)

This is so sad, this guy doesn’t even like our country… I wonder how he feels about his country?

http://richmond.craigslist.org/rnr/1470224724.html

Here' the Solution (Wappingers)

While discussing the upcoming Universal Health Care Program the other day, I think we have found the solution.. I am sure you have heard the ideas that if you're a senior you need to suck it up and give up the idea that you need any health care. A new hip? Unheard of. We simply can't afford to take care of you anymore. You don't need any medications for your high blood pressure, diabetes, heart problems, etc. Let's take care of the young people. After all, they will be ruling the world very soon.

So here is the solution. When you turn 70, you get a gun and 3 bullets You are allowed to shoot one senator and 2 representatives. Of course, you will be sent to prison where you will get 3 meals a day, a roof over your head and all the health care you need! New teeth, great! Need glasses, no problem! New hip, knee, kidney,lung, heart? Well bring it on. And who will be paying for all of this. The same government that just told you that you are too old for health care. And, since you are a prisoner, you don't have to pay any income tax.

Gun Control video (Middletown, NY)

Gun Control
A two simple video for your consideration


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RoMqB0VU4U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk9GwXJNM2c

terrorist / president (new hampton)

Asscrack Obama knows nothing about creating jobs , since he's never really had one , but whether its intentional or not he sure knows how to kill them . Whether it's with this healthcare nonsense making all business big and small afraid to expand and bring on more employees , because their unsure as to where they would stand or what it would cost with all the new government rules they'd have to comply with . Then you have this homegrown terrorist / president pushing this cap and trade , just think about all the jobs lost with this , you've got people that build motorhomes , good luck selling them , jobs lost . Then you have general aviation , all the people employed building and repairing small aircraft , all small regional airports will start to close , more jobs lost . How about those marinas with those evil pleasure craft sucking up all that gas and poluting the waters , I guess we'll be closing them down , even more jobs lost ,then theres big industry that'll move overseas to countries that won't buy into this , nobody could that big a fool , this has to be intentional , he's trying to get more people eating the government cheese , more cheese eaters equal more votes for the liberal democrats .

Socialism at work. (Middletown, NY)

Socialism at work.

Today I got a letter from the credit card company, opened the letter and read that they would be increasing my variable APR to 19.99%

Now I think it’s worth saying here that I have a 792 credit score, I pay the balance off that the end of each month. I am debt free, and I have had this card for years and have bought probably 100,000 on it over the last 10 years I’ve had it.

Our government doesn’t think it’s fair for the card companies to charge people that screw them with late payments, over charges, bad checks and so on, so they pass a law…

So now they tell the card company how, when, who and how much they can charge.
This business, (like may others now) can no longer be considered a free market enterprise.
The reaction of course is now the charges are spread over all the costumers, good and bad, high risk, or low.

So what happened, I called the card company up and closed my account, (the good customer just leaves) do you think I’m alone?

The only people that will stay and pay the 20% will be the people that can’t leave…
The result of the governments actions, the good {poor} customers will pay the same as the bad {poor} customers.
Question; why try to keep a good credit rating? You will pay no more for not having one.
Why bother paying on time, the government will give you a low interest lone for school or a house, loan companies are pushed not to tune you down even if you don’t like to pay your loans back.

so good customer that can’t afford to leave will just have to pay more, and if the government tells them they can’t charge anyone the cost of business plus the profit that they want to make, they will simply take {their} capital and go elsewhere.

Another cost to this reckless action is that if you know you will be paying 20% on your Christmas presents, you probably won’t buy as many, there for killing more jobs.

I don’t want to come off as being on the side of the credit card companies, they do really suck, but government control is never the answer.

Here’s some more question;
Why would anyone save money when the interest is all but nonexistent?
Why do they push us to buy shit we don’t need?
Why are there so many laws regarding zoning, business licenses, insurance, requirements to make clothing, food, services like plumbing electricians, taxi cabs and so on.
It’s almost impossible to start a small business today, why is that?
Was there really that many people that got hurt from irresponsible practices that we {needed} all these damn laws?
Wouldn’t the courts take care of these kinds of things when the problems did arise?

Maybe the problem here is credit card companies need more competition, and less demand…

The UN Small Arms Treaty (Middletown, NY)

I know some would try to accuse me of putting up a right leaning article about the UN treaty, so I’m doing the opposite.

Now I’d like to point out a few facts;
If we where to sigh this treaty, we would be expected to adhere to it ourselves!

That the bases of the agreement was to stop individuals and the minority groups that they makeup from going against the state.
(insurgents, or in this country, rebels)

Note that the solders of all the governments that wanted this world wide ban on privately owned small arms, would of course be keeping their small arms!
Only the governments would have the power of the small arms that so may here think no longer matters.


Imagine what it would have been like if such a ban had existed back in 1775?!?!
Or, for that matter 1941...

And for disarming the criminals, like drug lords… can anyone really say… still… that gun laws have ever stopped the bad guys from getting the hands on weapons?
Look at the LAWS rocket…you can’t legally buy them anywhere I know of, but you see them all the time on the news… it’s called gorilla warfare, and like terrorism, you can’t stop it, it’s a {tactic}, not a people. You will never stop or kill something that is not alive!

To me,(I admit I have a biased view) it seems that people all over the world at some point in time want… or need, to fight what they feel is a wrong on them. I can’t say who is right, and who is wrong, but what is clear is if we were to help take guns out of the hands of the individual, we would be disarming only have the battles fields across the globe, the other half more often then not is the state.
Now that’s not to imply that the state is always on the wrong side, but it’s not always on the right side either….


Now the only way I would think any reasonable person could perform such an act (disarm a people you don’t know in a situation you know nothing about,… now, or in the future) would be to say the state is always right, that the state never hurts its own, and that the people will never be repressed… never!


Well, to say that is to completely ignore history,
and we all know we do that at our own peril.

With that said, here’s the article

---

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_03/Anders

re: The physics on global warming and climate change

This is an excellent example of trying to scare the public.

From Wikipedia
"Earth's atmosphere contains roughly (by molar content/volume) 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, a variable amount (average around 0.247%, National Center for Atmospheric Research) water vapor, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, and traces of hydrogen, helium, and other "noble" gases (and of volatile pollutants)."

Nitrogen 78.08
Oxygen 20.95
CO2 0.038
Now that is interesting Carbon dioxide is even less then i had previously stated . I said it was 0.3% but Wikipedia states it as 0.038 and NASA's site states it as 0.01-0.1% of the atmospere.

So what mankind produces in what appeas to be large numbers is actually quite a miniscule amount,

Stop trying to scare people. Its as if you are saying that if we don't believe we are all going to hell. Like many religions.

Re; Obama revives talk of U.N. gun control (Middletown, NY)

Sorry, unfortunately the article doesn’t go into the history of the UN’s quest for a world wide ban on all privately owned small arms, that was what the UN’s failed treaty was all about.
If it had really been about just enforcing existing gun laws between countries I’m pretty sure the US wouldn’t of cared, but that sadly was not the goal.
Bush Jr. would have nothing to do with it, so it basically went away, but now that we have a socialist president, I’m guessing the UN thinks they have a chance now.
By the way, this was probably one of the only things I liked about Bush junior.
The problem is that he didn’t need to pass it, the guys pulling his strings knew the next figurehead could.

One of the hard facts of life is that most people are not free, they don’t even know what it truly means to be a free people, they fear their governments… and are not protected by a constitution anywhere near as strong as ours… if at all!
But like gorge Bush said, it’s only a piece of paper…
(fucking asshole, all most as bad as Al Gore calling for a “living constitution“)

The strength of that that “piece of paper” has always resided within the second amendment.

I’ll look around for some info on the old treaty, and post it up.

CHANGE

Class vs, NO Class


http://fortmyers.craigslist.org/lee/rnr/1467538086.html

Obama revives talk of U.N. gun control (Middletown, NY)

It read to me that the article is discussing international gun sales. It is hard to believe individuals purchasing firearms (for personal use) in the us can have a major impact on international arms issues. This seems to be related to events like the one a couple of weeks ago where a cargo container ship was caught by Isreal delivering an arms shipment to someone. It may be more of an attempt to make these kinds of shipments illeagle and actionalble.


Middletown...did I miss something here?

The physics on global warming and climate change (NY)

http://www.mb-soft.com/public3/global.html

Global warming is faith based

Global warming is a false belief.

Carbon dioxide is 0.3 percent of the atmosphere. So 99.7 percent of the atmosphere is not carbon dioxide. There is no proof that the increase is the cause of global warming or a symptom of rising temp.

None of the computer projections were ever correct.

Many measurements were less then accurate due to where the temps were taken like on roof tops or near machines that blow hot exhaust or parts of Russia that didn't report their cold temp thus raising the averages.

And as one of the other posts said that since 1998 the global temps stopped increasing and reversed the trend. Something that no computer models foresaw.

some times I feel like Galileo saying that the sun is the center of the solar system and the church locking him up for heresy, or Columbus stating the Earth was round when it was common knowledge the Earth was flat.

The Earths temps varies from the Ice age to warmer temps then weve had now. More then anything else the sun 's activity or the lack there of affects the Earths temp.

re: guns Obama and on and on (O.C.)

Firstly it's "traitor", not "trader". Perhaps the nuance of reading and comprehension slips you by in your rush to start with your assumption and then build backwards to make the point.

No one's going to take away your gun. The sky isn't falling. If you figured out the earth wasn't flat then you'd see the sense in this. Everything is political chess. And everyone knows that trying to round up guns is political suicide.
Fear, fear, and buying into the political hype. The same fear we've always seen in American history. At almost each significant moment, that actually improved America, there were those who feared it was the beginning of the end.
We just had 8 years of someone who actually believed in the "end times". It'll probably take at least 4 to undo that.

Bolton? not a credible source of anything except anger and single minded focus on a very dated and unsuccessful neo conservative approach to governing.

Obama revives talk of U.N. gun control (Middletown, NY)

For the {fools} here that think the gun debate is all over, that king Obama has promise not to, and there for won’t be messing with the second amendment, well here you go, your boy's is at it again.

Once a liar, always a liar!
And a trader!

---

Obama revives talk of U.N. gun control
NRA guests warn international treaty would strip 2nd Amendment rights

Posted: November 14, 2009
7:05 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
United Nations headquarters
Gun rights supporters are up in arms over a pair of moves the White #House made last month to reverse longstanding U.S. policy and begin negotiating a gun control treaty with the United Nations.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton first announced on Oct. 14 that the U.S. had changed its stance and would support negotiations of an Arms Trade Treaty to regulate international gun trafficking, a measure the Bush administration and, notably, former Permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations John Bolton opposed for years.
Two weeks ago, in another reversal of policy, the U.S. joined a nearly unanimous 153-1 U.N. vote to adopt a resolution setting out a timetable on the proposed Arms #Trade Treaty, including a U.N. conference to produce a final #accord in 2012.
"Conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security concern for the United States, and we have always supported effective action to control the international transfer of arms," Clinton said in a statement. "The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard in this area."
Gun rights advocates, however, are calling the reversal both a dangerous submission of America's Constitution to international governance and an attempt by the Obama administration to sneak into effect private gun control laws it couldn't pass through Congress.
"http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116066"'Shooting Back' tells of lives saved from attackers. Learn the Bible's defense of bearing arms from a man who defended his church from terrorists
Bolton, for example, told Ginny Simone, managing editor of the National Rifle Association's NRA News and host of the NRA's Daily News program, "The administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there's no doubt – as was the case back over a decade ago – that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control."
He continued, "There's never been any doubt when these groups talk about saying they only want to prohibit illicit international trafficking in small arms and light weapons, it begs the whole question of what's legal and what's not legal. And many of the implications of these treaty negotiations are very much in their domestic #So, whatever the appearance on the surface, there's no doubt that domestic firearm control is right at the top of their agenda."

Brian Wood, disarmament expert for Amnesty International, explained in a Bloomberg report why his organization and others are pushing for the U.S. to join Arms Trade Treaty talks. Wood said the U.S. is the largest conventional arms #trader in the world and the unregulated trade of conventional arms "can fuel instability, transnational organized crime and terrorism."
"All countries participate in the conventional arms trade and share responsibility for the 'collateral damage' it produces – widespread death, injuries and human rights abuses," said Rebecca Peters, director of the International Action Network on Small Arms in an Agence France-Presse interview. "Now finally #governments have agreed to negotiate legally binding global controls on this deadly trade."
But Bob Barr, a former U.S. representative and presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party, explained in a separate interview with the NRA's Simone how a treaty that looks like it's all about fighting international crime will necessarily lead to erosion of Second Amendment gun rights:
"Even though [treaty advocates] all say, 'We are not going to involve domestic #laws and the right to keep and bear arms, that won't be affected by all this,' that's nonsense," Barr said. "There's no way that if you buy into something like this and a treaty is passed regulating to ensure that firearms transfers internationally don't fall into the hands of people that the U.N. doesn't like, there's no way that that mechanism will work unless you have some form of national regulation and national tracking."
Bolton not only agrees with Barr's assessment but also sees the treaty as an Obama administration end-run around the Constitution:
"After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and it requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms," he said. "The administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. … They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn't otherwise."
Clinton's October statement of support for the treaty negotiations was filed with a caveat that the Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty operate under the consensus rule of decision-making, essentially that its provisions be adopted unanimously.
"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the treaty," she stated, "and to avoid loopholes in the treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly."
But Bolton warned gun owners not to think the consensus rule will stop the treaty from passing.
"Consensus at the U.N. is a way of saying unanimity, everybody agrees, but in fact, the U.N. in the last eight years could have been very close to consensus on exactly this kind of treaty but for the Bush administration," Bolton said. "So I don't think her comment about consensus offers Second Amendment supporters any consolation, because absent the United States, nobody is really going to put up an objection to this."
Citizens wishing to speak out on the issue can contact the State Department or the National Rifle Association.

Peace, liberalism, and universal health care: all patriotic (USA)

The idea that only conservatives have patriotic values or spiritual love of nation and that anything challenging their position is somehow communist, treasonous and unpatriotic is in itself complete hypocrisy.

Love your country? So do we. (Orange County areas)

http://www.cafepress.com/PatrioticLeft

Global warming. It is real. (NY)

And most Americans are concerned and don't see this as a Democratic socialist plot to tax, spend and regulate.
How sad to politicize a very real universal concern.
Read more; http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2005/02/66651

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/11/02/poll-global-warming-is-real-so-do-something-us-voters-say/
onment/global-warming/gw-real.html

http://ecoble.com/2008/11/23/is-global-warming-real-5-proofs/

Madeinusa.org (U.S.A)

http://www.madeinusa.org/

2nd Amendment Quotes,Gun haters better pass this one by (Middletown, NY)

Wow, this is a cool site, I’m there dude.


2nd Amendment Quotes

http://www.tristatesonsofliberty.org/page10/page10.html?4effc420

Re; Scientists on board with global warming reality (USA) (Middletown, NY)

This is such a bad joke, it is now common knowledge that the earth is cooling, not warming.
This is a self regulating trend, when the earth cools we have less cloud cover and the earth warms from the sun, when the earth warms it has more cloud cover and those clouds reflect the sun away from the earth there by cooling the earth.

When you consider the billons, if not trillions of people that have lived here on the earth, producing carbon, for thousands of years. Or if you like, just all the cars that have lived in the last 100 years, starting with COAL trains, GAS tractor trailers trucks, pickup trucks and cars with engines up to 5x the size of those in cars today and without any emission controls on them what so ever, that even producing all this pollution, there was no climate change that these scientists could detect.

But now we are suppose to believe that even though we are way cleaner then we have been in the last 75 years, that {now} the pollution we make {today} is changing the earth. So we set out, without any goals to achieve, and without any knowledge of what we are to give up to achieve these phantom goals, and in fact will never achieve these moving target of conservation.

The only thing that is clear is that there will be a lot of money to be had with SELLING carbon credits, something Al (screw you mother) Gore is heavily invested into.
This doesn’t stop us from making carbon, it just taxes the shit out of us while we wait for technology to come up with solutions, but until then, (if that time ever comes at all) the UN thinks it would be a great idea for us to give under developed countries money (that we don’t have) as a penalty for developing faster then they did, for something they can’t prove has hurt us or them.


So if you use fuel to heat your home, cook your food or drive your car, you will be paying these new taxes because you have sinned in the eyes of the carbon gods and to make amends you will have to pay homage to Al Gore and the UN by way of the power company, wither that be the pump, the O&R bill, or simply buying anything, and I mean anything, because it all takes energy to make it, and bring it to you.

I think it’s important to note that China (the biggest polluter in the world) has said they won’t be going along with this new ass hole tax for the stupid, (ok, I embellishes a little) so we can buy our shit cheaper there then if we try to make it here, good to see some things never change.

It doesn’t take a genius to see that this should pretty much finish the USA, more money going out through billons in new taxes, less ability to make things here due to lack of a far playing field, let alone sell them to other countries at a competitive price, yep we have had it.

Hey, maybe the Chinese could buy some more of our bonds, that will fix everything.
At what point do you figure we will have to pay back those bonds with huge chunks of country and infrastructure?
That’s coming folks, it’s happened to other countries and it will happen here, and if you think it’s just bad luck, well think again.

I’d like to point out one more thing;
Of the Scientists that have gone along with the lie of global warming, do you think their objective?, you of course know that most all of the money for grants and study comes from the government right? You don’t suppose the government would ever try to sway any of the good scientists into changing their votes with that money do you, nay, never happen, the good folks in DC would never do something as underhanded as that.

But still, it’s funny how the scientists that aren’t on the government tit do % wise seem to see things differently.

Scientists on board with global warming reality (USA)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html

NEW GLOBAL RELIGION (Middletown, NY)

NEW GLOBAL RELIGION = Global warming

We will all pay at the altar, whether we believe in it or not

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBdWixbTa7o

The RAT-To Spend MILLIONS REWRITING History (Middletown, NY)

Old Georgie boy’s at it again


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKoVctn2bn0

Outrageous Conspiracy Theories

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrcAzP5eeVo

SONS OF LIBERTY

If you are tired of watching our Constitional Republic crumble to socialism, then read the following.

• ??????

If you feel like you should be doing something about this, but do not know what to do, then read the following.

The Tri-State Sons of Liberty is a brotherhood of American Patriots dedicated to protecting and preserving the original American ideology.
FREEDOM! At all cost.
This great nation was not built on a foundation of taxation and government control. It was built on a foundation of FREEDOM,
capitalist ambition and rugged individualism. Our nation is not only under attack from enemies abroad; our nation is under attack from within. Under attack by politicians with hidden socialist, Marxist, or
even communist ideologies and agendas. Now is the time, my fellow Americans, to come forth and fight for liberty. Now is time to join your fellow patriots in defense of our freedom.

The Sons & Daughters of Liberty regularly attend political functions, question our public officials,protest attacks on our freedom, and endorse political candidates who stand firmly on the Constitutional precepts.We are not a partisan political organization. Our members consist of Democrats, Republicans, Independents and others. Our common bond is our belief in the founding principles of our great nation and the support and protection of same.

We are an alliance of like-minded patriots committed to restoring, upholding and defending American values, virtues, principles and ideals as outlined by the Constitution of the United States.

Members of the Sons of Liberty actively advance this ideology through political action, financial, educational and emotional support, as well as ongoing investment of our available resources.

We are an organization sworn to uphold the traditions and vision of America’s Founding Fathers inasmuch as we deem to effect political candidates for office, form lobbying efforts, promote public demonstrations and speak out against all those who wish to denigrate our beloved country.

We stand firmly on the Constitutional precepts that serve as the foundation of a free and prosperous people, regardless of race, religion or gender.

www.tristatesonsofliberty.org

don't dismiss me.. (new hampton )

I've dedicated most of my life to the design and production of nebobs , please don't toss me aside . I need another chance , without them I am nothing

Dear New Hampton

We're sorry but we cannot keep you on as a nebob producer with that attitude. While it's true that it COULD go that way, we've selected people who will be paid well for working toward manufacturing better nebobs and bring a better approach and attitude to the work environment.

smallest common denominator (new hampton)

Lets take all of society , and break it down , just to simplify things , we'll have society be a business ,consisting of about 50 people , all working together each getting paid for their contribution to the business .
Everything seems to be working fine , but we need to have ( gov ) management , so we'll take 10% of the 50 , 5 people to manage and organize the business , which leaves about 45 people making whatever it is , lets call it nebobs , now then 45 workers organize into a ( lefty ) union , now lets say we need 2 union reps to manage any disagreements with management , which brings it down to about 43 workers , all making about 10 nebobs apiece , which makes about 430 nebobs , to stay competative in business we need to make 400 nebobs to stay afloat with foreign nebob competition , but now that theres union ( lefty ) involvment some of the workers feel some kind of entitlement , and produce half the amount of nebobs , so say you have 30% of the workforce feeling they only have to make 5 nebobs , so now theres say 14 people in the business producing half as much , so now you got about 360 nebobs , your gonna hang in there , but now some workers see that others are getting away with producing half as much , so it sort of sours that portion of the workforce , and why should they break their ass to make 10 nebobs , they ought to lay back some, after all, what are they , chopped liver , their no better than me , I'll make 5 nebobs , why not , now you have 215 nebobs in an industry that demands 400 , time to close shop .

re: "tied up " trial in NY (NY)

The reason the trial is in NY is because of NYC being the prime target. Do you actually think that NYC folk are going to give him a break and not find him guilty?
Do you really believe that those of us who lived in NYC, and in close proximity to the Trade Towers are somehow forgiving for the attacks just because we disagreed with Bush's policies?
And if by your thinking terrorists were less bold under a Bush watch, then why did the largest attack happen 8 months after he took office?

I think it's a silly question even though I posed it back to you. There's no telling what the reasoning is and you could find arguments to both. You can point to events in the world affecting the US or others under any administration. Viet Nam started out as a Kennedy invention after Eisenhower hinted at it, then escalated by Johnson and Nixon and ended with "peace with honor" which was really withdrawal of a no win situation, under Nixon.
There was WWII with FDR and Truman, and Korean with Eisenhower and Truman, etc etc.
This is child's play to gain points for attacking a sitting President whether it's Bush or Obama.
It's ridiculous to say 9-11 was Bush's fault and I didn't support anyone on the left who made that direct connection. The principle complaint was whether or not the WMD claim and 9-11 connection with Iraq was correct. Both turned out not to be so. As so stated by Bush in the last year of his administration.
If Obama was "weak on terror", which you may be implying, he wouldn't have won the election. No reasonable American thinks the US shouldn't be diligent with regard to terror and indifferent to those who mean us harm. It's the approach that people differ on.
Crazed terrorists of either Muslim origin like last week's horror or domestic terror from the 90's by and American (McVeigh) don't need soverign nations from which to plan their violence. Just fanatic attachment to ideology that has no moral compass.
Your post was understood.

re: NY response to tied up post (Wappingers)

My post - "Terrorist attacks on U.S soil."

NY's response - "Also, by your definition that wouldn't be the score. If you're going to consider acts of violence by Muslims against Americans during a sitting administration, you'd want to review events over the past 20 years and more, inclusive of Reagan, Bush I, Clinton".

I guess sweetcheeks missed the part of my post about US soil, but she probably ignored it because she had nothing else. Yes dear, Ft. Hood was a terrorist attack. Just wondering if terrorists are starting to feel a little braver that they don't have to fear Bush and a strong American response any longer.

So these terrorist trials will take place in NY with all the constitutional rights enjoyed by American citizens. This ought to be some show. Why NY? Maybe for political advantage. Just like Clinton who never made a decision without first seeing how the political fallout might affect him.

A Letter on eTrace... gun trace (Middletown, NY)

eTrace=A list of who to visit when the government thinks it’s time to “go get the guns”
Remember, you never know who will be president next, and no matter who he or she is, they would have this illegally compiled list!!
Food for thought for those still capable of it.


A Letter on eTrace

---

A letter by a JPFO member questioning aspects of eTrace, for sending to Senators and Congressmen.



Dear (Senator or Representative).
Please do not disclose my name in connection with this inquiry.

Please ask the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, why are they disclosing names and addresses of law abiding American gun owners to the most corrupt Mexican police? Why are they are training and allowing corrupt Mexican police to use the BATFE eTrace system? Why have they created a massive gun registration system in violation of the Gun Owners Protection Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. 926(a))?

BATF's eTrace system does not distinguish between legitimate, erroneous, false, fake, fraudulent or phony traces, and reveals names and addresses of innocent Americans who legally bought a firearm some time in the past - even years ago. This is a grave disservice to Americans. BATFE has created a huge centralized Firearms Registration System (called the Firearms Tracing System) containing over 100 million records of firearms, firearm owners, firearm transactions and firearms dispositions in direct violation of the Gun Owners Protection Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. 926(a)). eTrace has full access to those records. BATFE claims they only trace "crime guns", but this is false. They trace any gun chosen by ATF or other law enforcement whether used in a crime or not, and have no control over traces by Mexican or other foreign police.

The Mexican Army recently disarmed corrupt Mexican Police in the cities of Tijuana, Nuevo Laredo, and Matamoros, and arrested corrupt Police Commanders in Mexico City - the same cities where BATFE conducted eTrace training sessions in FY08 and 09 (GAO Report 09-709). The Mexican Government reports, "Almost half of Mexican police officers examined this year (2008) failed background and security tests, a figure that rises to nearly 9 of 10 cops in the border state of Baja California" (AP). Mexican President Felipe Calderon admitted that corruption permeates Mexico's low-paid police at all levels. The Mexican Army also has corruption issues. The most corrupt police in all of Mexico have been trained by BATFE to retrieve American gun owners personal information with names and addresses. Worse yet, BATFE plans to give eTrace to all 31 states within Mexico (William Hoover, Assistant Director, ATF Field Operations, Feb. 7, 2008).

Years ago, if you innocently bought a new Colt AR-15 (or any other gun), later sold it, and it's found in Mexico, BATFE gives your name and address to corrupt Mexican police, and you will be placed on a Mexican and BATFE gun trafficker suspect list. Your innocence is irrelevant. According to BATFE, a traced name and address is never removed.

Should we be uneasy because corrupt Mexican police officials have our personal information as a result of erroneous or fraudulent traces? The next time we travel in Mexico, will the Mexican Police take a special interest in us because of false traces? When we cross the border, will corrupt Mexican Police pass along our name and address so a drug cartel can visit our homes to collect our firearms while we are gone? Allowing corrupt foreign police access to the eTrace system places Americans at risk when we travel to foreign countries.

In addition to Mexico, BATFE opened a special eTrace center in Columbia - where the police openly admit that many dirty cops work for organized crime. BATFE allows access to American gun owner names and addresses through direct eTrace access in the following countries: Mexico, Columbia, Suriname, Tobago, Guyana, Canada, Germany, Bahamas, Jamaica, The Dominican Republic, Barbados, Anguilla, Antigua, Barbuda, Aruba, Curacao, Dominica, Grenada, St Vincent, The Grenadines, St. Lucia, Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama, St. Kitts, Nevis, several other Caribbean police forces, Britain, Australia, and Japan. How many of these countries also have corruption issues - or have a special interest in identifying American gun owners?

These issues are very important to all gun owners, so I respectfully request a quick response to my letter. In three weeks, I will release this letter and your response (if any) in a public disclosure to all gun owners in our state

Mad men. Mad times. (NY)

Interesting read for women. Interesting in general.
http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/mad-men-maddening-times/?hp

Health care and misinformation (Warwick)

“Fear has become the main diet of the Republicans and the insurance industry,” said Miller, the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, which passed H.R. 3200 earlier this month. “Opponents know how close we are to delivering a bill that reflects the goals of President Obama and the change the American people want and deserve, which is why their efforts to mislead the public are only getting more desperate. We won’t allow their lies, scare tactics and political games to stand in the way of passing reforms that will reduce costs, protect people’s choice of doctors and plans, and ensure access to quality, affordable health care for all.”
EXPOSING DECEPTIVE CAMPAIGN OF FEAR AND MISINFORMATION

Some of the myths, falsehoods and misinformation being aggressively peddled by Republicans and opponents of health insurance reform include:

Boehner Peddles “Baseless” end of life myth. Claim that House Dem bill pushes suicide is “nonsense.” House Republican Leader John Boehner continues to get his facts all wrong on the House Democratic health reform bill. This time, the non-partisan FactCheck.org labeled his claim that the House bill encourages euthanasia, “baseless.” According to FactCheck.org: “Our inboxes have exploded recently with worried queries from readers who have heard that the House’s proposed health care bill, H.R. 3200, contains a provision that would require that ailing seniors be pressed to consider suicide in order to save the taxpayers money on Medicare. Most messages mention that this clause appears on page 425 of the legislation…. The claim that the bill would "push suicide" is a falsehood…. At least two Republican leaders have echoed this end-of-life distortion. On July 23, Republican Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the House minority leader, released a statement, along with Republican Policy Committee Chairman Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan, saying that the bill would encourage euthanasia.” [False Euthanasia Claims, FactCheck.org, July 29, 2009]

Republicans use “deceptive assaults” to stop health insurance reform. “Republicans in Washington seem to be shifting into overdrive to keep a health system overhaul from passing Congress before the August recess. Yesterday, July 22, brought two more deceptive assaults (that we know of) on the pending bills, one from Minority Whip Eric Cantor and the other from the top GOP member of the House Immigration Subcommittee, Steve King of Iowa.” [Misleading GOP Health Care Claims, FactCheck.Org, July 23, 2009]

Cantor’s video “inflates” cost of bill by “more than 50%.” “Cantor’s is in the form of a video that accuses Obama and the Democrats of being in a “reckless rush” to finalize a reset of the system. “How much will it cost?” the narrator asks, as photos of House Democrats flash onscreen. “$1.6 trillion?” Actually, in a preliminary analysis released July 14 (and updated July 17), the Congressional Budget Office scored the House tri-committee group bill as costing a net $1.042 trillion. Cantor’s video inflates that number by more than 50 percent.” [Misleading GOP Health Care Claims, FactCheck.Org, July 23, 2009]

Cantor’s ad fails to mention there “is no Republican plan.” “In the sunny wrap-up to the ad, the narrator describes “the Republican plan”: “If you like what you have, you can keep it,” he says. “Access to an affordable basic coverage.” But there is no plan around which Republicans have coalesced. Back in May, some GOP lawmakers offered a bill that would have cut the tax deduction that employers get for offering their employees health insurance plans, and given workers tax credits instead. But there’s been little talk of the bill since then. And Missouri Republican Rep. Roy Blunt was tapped to head a GOP health care task force in February, which was charged “with crafting Republican solutions to increase Americans’ access to quality, affordable health care,” but which so far has produced no plan and seems unlikely to do so.” [Misleading GOP Health Care Claims, FactCheck.Org, July 23, 2009]

Employer Mandate Is Not A “Jobs Tax.” Wonk Room: "If the Energy and Commerce compromise comes to pass, 87 percent of businesses would be exempt from the mandate, since they have a payroll of less than $500,000. Even before the compromise, 77 percent of businesses would have been unaffected by the mandate. The only small employers that will be affected by the full scope of the mandate are firms with few employees who are making a lot of money — law firms, for instance. And chances are, businesses of that sort already provide insurance. " http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/07/30/wsj-job-tax/

Reform Won’t Ration Care. The most common argument for why health reform will ration care focuses on Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER). According to the Wonk Room, conservatives “argue that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) could use the information to make coverage decisions for Medicare. And three, if the government uses the comparative research results to establish best practice guidelines, then doctors who don’t follow the guidelines but rather consider the individual needs of their patients, could be liable for malpractice claims…. the last two arguments fall apart on close scrutiny. The government isn’t mandating that doctors adopt the results of CER and it is not rationing care. Each patient has his or her unique needs and the ultimate decision for how to proceed should be left to the doctor and the patient. Currently, approximately one-third of all treatments have never been proven to produce better outcomes; CER would provide doctors with unbiased information about the most effective treatments, help doctors and patients make better informed decisions, and improve the quality of care.”
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/06/19/republicans-offer-redundant-cer-amendments/

Republicans Opposed Medicare In 1960s By Warning Of Rationing, “Socialized Medicine.” Ronald Reagan: “[I]f you don’t [stop Medicare] and I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset yearstelling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.” [1961] Barry Goldwater: “Having given our pensioners their medical care in kind,why not food baskets, why not public housing accommodations, why not vacation resorts, why not a ration of cigarettes for those who smoke and of beer for those who drink.” [1964] Bob Dole: In 1996, while running for the Presidency, Dole openly bragged that he was one of 12 House members who voted against creating Medicare in 1965. “I was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare . . . because we knew it wouldn’t work in 1965.” [1965]
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/29/medicare-flashback/

Republican claim about coverage for illegal immigrants, “not true.” “King claimed that this is what the Congressional Budget Office’s recent analysis of House health care legislation said. But it didn’t. His press release also said that the 5.6 million would be covered “in large part because the liberal proposal does not include any requirements to verify the citizenship or immigration status of those receiving taxpayer-funded health benefits.” That’s not true, either.” [Misleading GOP Health Care Claims, FactCheck.Org, July 23, 2009]

Canadian style health care? A “straw man argument,” based on opinion piece “riddled with errors.” “One ad claims that ‘Washington wants to bring Canadian-style health care to the U.S.’ But the health care bills moving through Congress don’t call for a single-payer system like Canada’s… Obama, too, has said repeatedly that he doesn’t back a conversion to a single-payer system…. But as we've said about other ads, all this sets up a straw man argument, criticizing Canada's health care system despite the fact that a purely government-run system isn't what's being seriously considered in Congress or being proposed by the president.” [Canadian Straw Man, Fact Check.org, June 17, 2009]

Make money with lies about health care reform. Attack Obama, lie. (USA)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0fXsN35eVk

Ahh the imagination is staggering. First the fear of the Muslim candidate. "He'll by sympathetic toward terror". Then he's "going to take away our guns", and now.
"we'll go to jail if we don't buy health insurance".

Oh.....I forgot, that's right, he wasn't born in the USA.

Obama And Pelosi Buy Health Insurance Or Go To Jail! (Middletown, NY)

Obama And Pelosi Buy Health Insurance Or Go To Jail!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnDxqboVxMY

Obama Doesn't Rule Out Jail Time for Not Having Health Insurance (Middletown, NY)

Obama Doesn't Rule Out Jail Time for Not Having Health Insurance!!!

YouTube - Obama Doesnt Rule Out Jail Time for Not Having Health Insurance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spDVJiW8-cQ

To Wappingers regarding "hmmmm" etc (Hudson Valley)

Two things to consider. One, that a candidate winning not only is eager to but should advance the platform he or she ran on and their constituents supported. Many Obama supporters are eager for health care reform, and it's an issue generally pushed aside during the prior administration. The repercussions, while significant are not on the same level as Afghanistan and the precious lives of our brave men and women in the service. So the second point is that it's good to closely examine what the US does there as to not get trapped in another quagmire .

Many significant changes in American policy such as social security ( check this out yourself), went through several adjustments through amendments before it was where it stood as a largely popular and supported platform of the nation. Liberals who support Obama aren't that pleased with the potential of this health care plan either, but are happy that it's closer to reality then it has been in decades, since Medicare and Medicaid took hold in the 60's.

Afghanistan has never been a successful battle ground for anyone historically. Russians vastly out numbered and powered them in the 80's yet left. There are large questions to be raised and the lives of soldiers and innocent Afghan in the balance.

re: "tied up" (NY)

Are you actually hoping that the score changes in a way that favors Bush?

Also, by your definition that wouldn't be the score. If you're going to consider acts of violence by Muslims against Americans during a sitting administration, you'd want to review events over the past 20 years and more, inclusive of Reagan, Bush I, Clinton.

But it's crazy to look at it that way.

It's Tied Up (Wappingers)

Terrorist attacks on U.S soil.

Bush = 1

Obama = 1

Let Me See.... (Wappingers)

Let me see if I understand this correctly. President Obama wants to take his time and make sure he gets it right on the request for additional troops in Afghanistan and on the Afghanistan policies. But healtcare reform has to be rushed through come hell and high water, like the stimulus bill and if we make mistakes we can fix them later. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Green jobs paying $30 an hour (USA)

http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/career-articles-green_jobs_that_make_30_an_hour-1019

An entertaining read on the never ending Obama birth (question)? (Greenwood Lake)

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/poll-on-obamas-birth-if-not-here-where.php?ref=dc1

Peter Schiff for Senate 2010! (Middletown, NY)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEEEm-Q1-P8
YouTube - Peter Schiff for Senate 2010

GOP leaked stuff to the press re: terror (rosendale)

don't believe me, do research, this failure of a Republican has repeatedly leaked stuff for political gain

It turns out that Congress was briefed on the case on Monday, but Hoekstra was too busy being out of town and talking to Anderson Cooper on CNN. Worse yet, he went to the papers to talk about the case and managed to reveal that the government had tabs on the email of the radical imam that Hasan had contact with. What kind of idiot tells a potential terrorist how we try to keep tabs on him? The same idiot that revealed the secret troop movements in Afghanistan. Hoekstra has proven time and again that he is only interested in publicity (see 2006 press conference on WMDs in Iraq). This ass hole should be impeached

he ran to the press about the monitoring of the emails
How do you think the media knows about the emails? This dickess, traitor ran to the press

He should be arrested and impeached, he revealed FBI activity to the media.

Republicans are not interested in fighting terror, they are only interested in blaming "libs" and scoring political points
I know your a Republican and scared of your own failure. This idiot has leaked stuff 4 times now
all for cheap political points
He should be arrested, charged with treason, impeached immediately and hung in public


How many times is this retard going to leak stuff to the press?

re: didn't start the fire and the question of birthrite (H.V.)

It was a poor ass tactic for Hillary to use. But you're mistaken on the extent. And if for that reason if someone else starts the fire as you quote Billy Joel, then would you like to keep it going or put it out despite the source?
This birther business has caught o n because of a need to create an inane distraction form the real matters at hand.

I have nothing new to respond to as it's unlikely it'll make a difference. If some of you would like to believe Obama wasn't born here. Fine. Go ahead.

So, now what? Let's put a general friendly question to the conservatives.

Who would you like to see in office in 2012? Which specific candidate and which precise issues would you like them to address or redress?
How do you see that happening with respect to congress, even if Republicans regain control of one house?
Who are the key players?
How do you think at that point your opposition will respond and what would be the appropriate response if so?

Do you think the Bush Cheney administration knew about 9-11 and let it happen or used it as a basis for setting policy?
Do you think those policies were constitutional ?
On what basis do you think an elected President or congress has the right, or mandate to advance policies ? By any margin of election? By a wide margin? Or by public polling?
What should we the citizens do in the face of great objection to policies put in place by an opposing sitting administration?

Re; God, guns and birth certificates and more. (Middletown, NY)

You are wrong sir, they showed you a ‘live certificate’ not the same thing!
This can, and was made up at a later date.

And if any of the other presidents you had mentioned had maybe come from another country and had family swearing they had been born in another country, then yes, I would of wanted to verify their legal right to be president too.

I think if I have to show my birth certificate just to get a damn license then the very least Barry could do is show us his ‘just to be president’

I don’t understand why Barry’s supporters are so against Barry showing us his, you know the real one with his little foot print on it and a real doctors name sighed below, and all that stuff.
You would think they would want to get this “birther” (not even a real word) behind them…

On a side note, have you noticed how the left has all this nasty little labels for people who are just asking questions?
Birther…, teabager…. 9-11 conspirator… right wing terrorist…

All for just questioning or protesting our beloved government.

And if the poster from (NYHY) thinks I speak of my own ignorant, then why can I point to real numbers? How can this be faults when I show real sites with verifiable information
Please, you’re wasting our time here, bring something of substance.

And once again, I would ask you to stop putting words in my mouth, I have never sited fox news or Glenn Beck for my info sources.
But I know no mater who or where I obtained my info from, you would belittle them and me for it.
You see, that’s the natural reaction for people on the defensive.

Oh, and anyone that is getting their “facts” from gov.org has more problems than we can address here.

I agree with “Announcing the Beginning of the End of the USA”
I’m sure Roman people never could have foreseen their empire implode, and the USA is no different, it’s this blind faith in ourselves and our government that will be our undoing.

we didn't start the fire (new hampton)

It wasn't the republican party that brought up the issue of Obamas citizenship , it was Hillary Clinton during the campaign , his own party , makes you wonder

re: denial and accusation (Defender of the Constitution)

You stated--> "To the point as proof of birth. You've already been given that." Where is the proof?

Your next statement-->"The fact that you find them on the internet doesn't make them facts."

According to you "logic" Only when Libs post or get information online can they be considered facts----I c.

Your quote--->"But making assumptions and finding internet sites to back your claim doesn't substantiate it at all."

BO's minions posted his "real" BC online as proof according to you. But when I post true documented facts such as his spending of our tax dollars to hide all his documents--you say-->As to your presenting your alleged set of "facts", they're baseless.

Can't have it both ways!

Actually most Libs want it both ways so they can use the side that benefits them for a particular situation.

IF BO has nothing to hide, WHY NOT SIMPLY RELEASE ALL OF HIS DOCUMENTS INCLUDING THE REAL BC AND HIS COLLEGE TRANSCRIPTS, HIS ADOPTION PAPERS, ETC.

Don't you agree that would be the easiest and fiscally responsible thing to do, to put this matter to rest?

Can you answer that honestly?

As Far as BJ and the gang--his was another disastrous and despicable presidency. I thank GOD that the Clintoons are out of office--hopefully forever.

Before you say anything about GWB, I am not a big supporter of his admin as well. He got way to liberal toward the end of his term.

I appreciate the fact that you did not resort to name calling. You seem to have more intelligence than that.

Tell me--How much do you really know about BO?

Did you know what he stood for, his voting record while senator, who he associates with before you voted for him?

Did you vote for him just because he read a good teleprompter?

BO had no executive experience whatsoever and you voted for him to lead your Country? WHY? Why were you so spellbound that made you pull the lever for him.

I am not being critical, i am trying to understand the Liberal mentality that they would put their children's future in jeopardy and not have any conscience about it.

I do not know if you are a Lib, but from the views that you are espousing, you sure seem like one.

re: denial and accusation of "libs are nuts" (Orange County)

To the point as proof of birth. You've already been given that. If your allegations had any merit the National Republican Party would be all over it and had already brought articles of impeachment on this matter. What better way to derail a sitting President from his political agenda then to proceed with impeachment proceedings. There is no merit in that , that's why Richard Steele, Chairman of the GOP is not doing so. And that is why everyone from Newt Gingrich to Lindsay Graham, don't agree with your assertions.
As to your presenting your alleged set of "facts", they're baseless. There is always a refute to any argument. The fact that you find them on the internet doesn't make them facts.
As to your specific question as to why Obama is spending money on what you claim, it's a claim. You trust your resources, fine. This is not a personal attack, I'm not interested in that. You're entitled to your view. But making assumptions and finding internet sites to back your claim doesn't substantiate it at all.
If, and I say "if" Obama is spending what you claim, it's not different from anyone who in the face of false allegation might have to do. When an organized opposition puts enough energy into any claim, you have to defend it. Now I'm not defending Clinton in the following analogy, but despite his other failings he and Hillary spent millions to ward off accusations of wrong doing in the so called "Whitewater " land deals. When the smoke cleared and the endless amount of your tax paying dollars was spent by Karl Rove , they discovered that the Clintons had lost money in Whitewater. So when they discovered he was having sex with an intern ( which I am not defending), they said voila! "got him now". There were and still are endless resources on the net claiming they made millions in Whitewater and killed Vince Foster. So what.

As to being called names by liberals, I'm not doubting that happens. Liberals are also regularly being called names by others.
Maybe in the best interest of having any kind of debate, discussion, argument, or fight, it would be best to not stoop to that.

RE: re: denial and fact check and the birther loons (NY, Orange Cty.) (Libs are nuts)

Its really funny and sad when you ask a Lib a simple question, they go off in all different directions to avoid giving an honest answer.

They do this because they know they are wrong but do not want to admit it.

The best they can do is hurl insults at you, belittle you, or change the subject completely.

For Example. Rational and decent people asked a simple question, which was asked of John McCain and he complied instantly, where is your proof of being a Natural Born Citizen.

Right away the crazy libs and turncoats could not have their Messiah asked such a question, so they had to come up with a "NAME" to call the normal constitutional patriots.

Hmmmm. What is a good name to try to make them look crazy, ahh I got it! Since they are asking about Bo's Birth Certificate, Lets call them----wait for it----ready-----"B I R T H E R S"!!!!!

WOW! isn't that scary!

This is just an example of typical Lib name calling at its finest

I asked before and I am still asking all you Libs out there. WHY IS BO SPENDING 1.7 MILLION OF OUR TAX DOLLARS TO HIDE ALL OF HIS CREDENTIALS?

Simple straight forward question. Can any Lib answer it honestly, without name calling or Blaming George Bush?

Fact is you do not spend that kind of money if you do not have something to hide!

This is not just about the BC, its also about all his other documents that would clear this question one way or another.

Why is that so hard for Libs to comprehend.

I love this Country and I stand for the rule of Law and the Constitution.

The Liberal mentality is traitorous and cancerous to this Country and the Constitution.

Ok Libs--lets hear your lunacy. Try to defend the indefensible.

Name calling does not bother me as I know where its coming from and do not expect alot of intelligent rational thought coming from Libs.

To those who still believe this is a liberal administration..... (NY)

Listen to Charlie Rose interview Sec. of State Hillary Clinton. Now calm down, before you go screaming and jumping up and down about that. Tell me how you disagree with her policy positions ( as a conservative ) on Iran and region.
And remember she speaks for the administration.

re: denial and fact check and the birther loons (NY, Orange Cty.)

It's lunacy. And it's a waste of time to debate. go ahead and chase black helicopters unicorns and crop circles.

You've now been show Obama's b.o. Now show me Reagan, and the Bush's.

As for the Annenberg's. They were very close friends of the Reagans. Check that one out. Last I checked the Reagan's were conservative Republicans and that's different from the not so liberal Democrat Obama.

As to the claim of patriots, yes we know, whoever shouts the loudest must be the most patriotic.

Re: Living in Denial (Truth hurts you I see)

Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1999.

Fact Check is funded by The Annenberg Public Policy Center. The connection of the Annenberg Center and President Obama and Bill Ayers can be traced back to 1993. At that time Bill Ayers received $49.2 million grant from the Annenberg Challenge Fund.

This is called a conflict of interest!

and this--->FACTS about barry’s birth certificate
By mattie14

August 16, 2009

Updated birth certificate posts/videos/lawsuits

FACT: Not a single person can name barry’s actual physical birthplace.

FACT: In June 2009, Snopes “factcheck” and UPI changed their websites from saying barry was born at Queens Hospital to Kapi’olani.

FACT: At the same time, Kapi’olani Hospital took down the “letter” from barry saying he was born there.

FACT: Robert Gibbs said he did not know the exact name of the hospital.

FACT: Robert Gibbs lied when he said the “BIRTH CERTIFICATE” is on the internet.

FACT: Robert Gibbs later said he knew it wasn’t a BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

FACT: barry led to the creation of the “birtherism” by not releasing his actual BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

FACT: barry has seen and once had (may still have) in his possession a copy of his original BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

FACT: barry knows what is on the original BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

FACT: He knew 100% that what was placed on the internet was NOT his BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

FACT: Therefore, the President of the United States has been party to intentional fraud meant to mislead The American People.

FACT: The barrymedia has repeatedly and consistently perpetuated the deception.

FACT: Chris Matthews and Rick Sanchez held up documents and lied that it was barry’s BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

FACT: Factcheck is directly partisan to barry.

FACT: Factcheck, Fight the Smears, Snopes and Politifact all lied and called it a “BIRTH CERTIFICATE”.

FACT: Therefore, their entire “factcheck” was rendered meaningless.

FACT: Fight the Smears website set up specifically to address the BIRTH CERTIFICATE issue declared barry a native born citizen.

FACT: Fight the Smears was taken offline and has suddenly reappeared.

FACT: The two 48 y/o birth notices are not proof that barry was born in Hawaii.

FACT: No one alive can vouch where the information printed in the papers came from.

FACT: The notices do not contain the actual place of birth – neither the city, country or hospital.

FACT: The notices do not state barry’s name.

FACT: The only verifiable information on the notices – the address – no one can firsthand prove barry actually lived there.

FACT: What was placed on the internet is a CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH – not a BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

FACT: A CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH just means an original BIRTH CERTIFICATE exists.

FACT: A CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH is the proper name of the original BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

FACT: That CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH alone is not proof barry was born in Hawaii.

FACT: Contrary to multiple media reports – the CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH has not been given to a disinterested third party to be vetted.

FACT: No one in Hawaii has vouched for that image on the internet passed off as barry’s CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH.

FACT: barry could get a CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH if he was not born in Hawaii.

FACT: What Dr Fukino vouched for and that CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH have not been connected in any fashion.

FACT: Janice Okubo and the registrar looked at the CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH Politifact sent them and concluded: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.”

FACT: Dr Fukino changed the wording from “original BIRTH CERTIFICATE” to “original vital recordS”.

FACT: Dr Fukino cannot declare barry to be a “natural born” citizen.

FACT: barry declared himself to be a native born citizen.

FACT: barry has full and free access to his original BIRTH CERTIFICATE and can obtain a copy at any time.

FACT: barry can stop the controversy by producing his actual BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

MOST IMPORTANT FACT:

Until someone can name barry’s ACTUAL PHYSICAL BIRTHPLACE – no one can say he was born in Hawaii, the United States or anywhere else.

And until his ACTUAL PHYSICAL BIRTHPLACE is known, the release of his BIRTH CERTIFICATE is most definitely a legitimate issue.

Lets see your proof----Show us the real physical BC if you are so sure.

You still have avoided the question as to WHY BO has spent 1.7 million to hide his credentials. All his documents besides the BC are being withheld----WHY?

Living in Denial

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

here's your damn proof. But wait, I forgot you idiots won't accept it ,even if someone/anyone would staple it your head.

RE:God, guns and birth certificates (USA for True Patriots only!)

I agree that we need Health care reform, but not this monstrosity Bo an The wicked Witch of the West is trying to force on the American Public.

If their plan is soo great, why Has Bo lied and not posted it on the Internet for 5 days for all to see?

And to your statement here--->"As to the birth certificate question. It's been shown. It's done. And only the foolish believe otherwise. As to posting it, you show me George W. Bush's, Reagan's, Nixon's, Clinton's, Palin's, Bush the first's and then I'll show you Obama's. deal? lol"


The aforementioned people--they are not running for President, nor do they hold that position. Cheney was made to prove that he was a citizen, why is BO above the law?

It is a Constitutional requirement---You know the Constitution? It is the law of the land that anyone running for the office of President to be a NBC. That means a Natural Born Citizen.

IF BO has shown his "real" BC. Can you explain to all the normal people, why he has spent 1,7 million---tax payers money to boot--hiding all of his credentials?

Any smart comments on that?

Common sense would tell you that he is hiding something if he is blocking access to all his records.

BO is the worst president in history and for all time to come!

Impeach him and all his cronies. Time to clean house and get back to sanity.

re: guns Middletown and source of info (NYHV)

To call someone else ignorant speaks more to your nature then your claim. You espouse your views as defacto matters of reality. And you cite the NRA site, Glen Beck and FOX as your source of info.
So in your opinion those resources are unbiased and truthful in their reporting? If YOU looked into it you'd find that gun right laws have actually strengthened under Obama. But you're blinded by a fixed ideology that makes you so sure that you've got the inside track and lock on reality.

Not.

But here's a point of agreement. Internet control. I totally agree, it's one large step in the wrong direction, just like the alleged "war on drugs".

God, guns and birth certificates

Well God bless America is fine with me too. And so is health care reform, and I support the 2nd. amendment.

In my opinion, it's possible to be a patriotic , God believing, supporter of positions other then conservative ones.

As to the birth certificate question. It's been shown. It's done. And only the foolish believe otherwise. As to posting it, you show me George W. Bush's, Reagan's, Nixon's, Clinton's, Palin's, Bush the first's and then I'll show you Obama's. deal? lol

re: Competition (Warwick)

OK it's like this. If you weren't covered by your job or couldn't afford insurance, say through Empire, Blue Cross, Cigna, Aetna, etc, you'd have an option to buy a government plan.
That way you'd have the opportunity to get your procedure done. As to the competition question, it works this way. By having a strong competitor availing folks of the aforementioned option, insurance companies will do what any business does in the face of people seeking alternatives. They'll compete. And by that, they'll have to offer better deals. Lower prices.
The idea is not to put the insurance companies out of business. Definitely not. The idea is to pull them into a more fair a just way of doing business. Let's say for example that you changed jobs and you had to switch coverage. Right now they are entitled to disqualify you for a pre-existing condition. With this reform, they'll no longer be able to. You'll have to be covered. It's not over reaching. It's no different from asking Del Monte and Heinz and Starbucks and Nabisco to adhere to a standard with respect to their food products. It protects us, the citizens from allowing the individual corporations to make up their own rules as to what's acceptable. We've been living with regulation of that nature for a very long time. Sometimes it fails us, but it works the vast majority of the time.

As to the profit margins in insurance companies, I can't speak to that, I really don't know how much these procedures cost and who makes what exactly. But yes, I agree, of course they're entitled to make a profit. And so are the execs on Wall Street and defense contractors, etc. The point is not to remove profit or to "spread the wealth around". The point is to reign in greed for the better interest of the American people.

Scotty Boy In Trouble (Wappingers)

From Midhudsonnews.com............."Four of the five House members, all Democrats, who represent portions of the Hudson Valley voted for the healthcare reform bill that squeaked by on a 220 to 215 vote Saturday. House Members Maurice Hinchey, Eliot Engel, Nita Lowey and John Hall all voted for it, but Scott Murphy, the newest member who was elected in a special vote earlier this year, voted against it."

Scotty, Scotty, Scotty, don't you know your supposed to be a good little boy like the others above and fall in line with Queen Nancy's wishes. Now you know she is going to be very unhappy about your vote, especially you bing a very new Congressman. Well, I guess that Maury being a communist and Johnny being Nancy's number one butt boy, it's hard for you to fit in with the rest of the stooges. Watch your back Scotty, Nancy is very vicious.

Competition??? (Wappingers)

OK, so here is a true story. My right knee is killing me and I have had torn cartilage removed twice. I have a doctor appointment in a few weeks and I'm pretty sure I know what he is going to tell me. Maybe an x-ray first but probably an MRI. So now I will be going to DRA imaging in Poughkeepsie for the MRI and they will bill my insurance company. I have no idea how much it costs to do an MRI, but I imagine it is like any other business, material and labor costs. The machine, the technician, the report to the doctor, etc. Once they add it all up they will bill the insurance company. They don't do it for free so they have to make a profit of some kind. Anyone know how much that profit margin is, I don't. So lets say for argument, it's 5%. So the lab makes a 5% profit on my MRI and the insurance company pays it.

Now my question. Lets say I have a government run insurance, what will they pay for the same MRI. Will the gov't. pay the 5% profit the lab is looking for, or will they tell the lab they will only pay maybe 1% and the lab has to accept it. So what will that do in the long run? Can the lab say no to anyone with a gov't. plan or will the gov't. force them to accept the plan. With more and more people going on the gov't. plan the lab will start to lose money. Maybe layoffs, maybe eventually go out of business.

So what I'm asking is can anyone explain how the competition of a gov't. run plan will lower costs in a real time situation, using real examples.

RE:re;guns (USA 1st!)

I just have to say it is sure refreshing to read such a post from a well informed common sense person.

I am tired of all the daily Liberal BS that is shoved in True American Patriot's faces everyday.

To think that we have a Traitor for a President is sickening.

He does not care one bit about the rule of law!

If he did he would comply with the mulitiple requests for him to provide his real BC.

Before you sick Libs call me a "Birther"--- I want the rule of LAW upheld, just as McCain was asked to prove his eligibility.

GOD BLESS AMERICA---and yes I said GOD! Dont like that--Get the HELL Out!

re;guns (Middletown NY)

So to the person that claims to live in the whole upper Hudson Valley, when exactly would it be a problem, the day after a bill passes that makes it illegal NOT to register all firearms, or the bill that comes after that one that would makes it illegal if you don’t hand in your registered firearms?

To say “you still have your guns” is a VERY ignorant thing to say indeed. yes we still have the second amendment, but it’s constantly under attack and if ever successful,
would in the eyes of our government and the fools here permanent.

The only way to win back the gun ‘rights’ and the freedoms along with it would be on the battle field.

“And there's no legislation on tap that I know of that's gonna affect the 2nd. Ammendment”

Well just because you don’t keep up on it don’t mean it’s not happening.
Maybe you should go to the NRA site and find out about the many bills and their #s that liberal states like NY put out every month, plus the white house’s on going efforts that your CNN is not covering.
If you want to find out who is attacking the constitution you will need to stop watching CNN and go to a site that support the constitution, sites like the ‘NRA’ or the ‘Second Amendment Foundation’ they supply the bills, their names, numbers, who wrote them, in short who supports the demises of our ‘rights’


If the first amendment was under attack, if we had bills put out limiting 1A
I doubt I would be hearing you say ‘you still have your first amendment, what’s your problem’
No everyone would and is always very concerned when the first is messed with, it should be no different with 2A.

By the way, internet censorship and controls are a form of messing with 1A, so get with it. Don’t ever go along with the state regulating the internet.
The things they claim they are trying to stop are already illegal. This has nothing to do with trying to stop hacking or child porn, (they are already stopped everyday) and everything to do with stopping the voices of the people that aren’t praising them.

Amnesty Bill (Middletown, NY)

Why we are in real trouble, this is democrats at their best.



http://d.yimg.com/kq/groups/17260182/1610997888/name/ftc-vi26.wmv

Guns (upper Hudson Valley)

I'm not on the same page as Obama on all. But nothings change on guns since he's been President. And there's no legislation on tap that I know of that's gonna affect the 2nd. ammendment. So I don't know why another poster here rails on about guns and criminals and loops it in with Obama. That's just not accurate.

re: Middletown respondee (NY)

I still don't see where your right to have a gun has changed since Obama took office. As for your claims to Marxism, it's a big leap. So supporting universal health care automatically classifies someone as a general marxist in your view? Despite any other position? That's it. National health care=scary marxist.

Do you have any friends or family in Canada, France, England or Israel, where they have some ( albeit not perfect) health care for all? Are they all Marxists?
Israel and England Marxist nations? Really. I guess that's why the economy of at least one of those nations is thriving.
Are all their citizens Marxists? So, I have a cousin in England, and because she supports their health care system and the one being proposed there, she's a marxist? End of conversation? No shades of grey?

As to your alluding to violence and the unhappy legions of those who agree with your point of view. I'm not suggesting you're about to go out and shoot someone. But what I AM suggesting that it's absurd to suggest that if one is a true supporter of the great American system.
Obama won by a sizeable margin. An uncontested election. These are the platforms he ran on. If they weren't supported, he wouldn't have won.
It's his right, and duty to those who supported him to enact these policies. That's what elections are about.
If the people aren't happy, then congress will turn in 2010 , and the Presidency in 2012.

It's interesting to me that some conservatives question Obama's right to govern on the platforms he's advancing. But when their guy wins, well, then all bets are off. They ram road it through and if you're not on board, you're not patriotic. What utter hypocrisy.

As to the "birther" business you seem to still buy into. It's nonsense. It's a useful tactic to float an absurd rumor and all the internet sites, youtube links and the rest don't change the facts. Whether you like Dems or Repubs or someone else, they're all big political machines and no one's gonna run a Pres candidate not born in the USA. But that's silly old news.

So in the final analysis while you may not like his policies or Glen Beck may not, go on critique them, it's what we're supposed to do. But this business of "how dare he do this or that". Hey he won.
And if you get Sarah Palin, she'll wanna do what she thinks is right. And if the fantasy of yours of a President Paul comes about, then he'll get to pick his judges and advance his policies.
That's how it works. And any attempt to finese the unfair and considerably "unbalanced" view that you espouse here, including flagging, just doesn't cut it.
But you won't get flagged. Why? Because this liberal founded and owned site doesn't censor or flag your right to speak you peace.

A response to Warwick and others (Middletown, NY)

Well I’ve read some of the posting referring to mine, and I’m not surprised that some have accused me of ‘wanting bullets to fly’ which is not what I said at all, I am a realist, unlike some of you folks, I realize that when people have to work for less then half of their paycheck things will get ugly.
So to the people that have put words in my mouth about wanting people to get hurt, well go fuck yourselves.

Now on to the person that said how much I adore Glenn Beck.
We I’ll tell you, I think he is as phony as some of this politicians we have today, I agree with about 75% of what he says, but I don’t trust him, that other 25% just isn’t consistent with the other things he claims to believe in. I have never said I liked him, so here again we have people putting words in my mouth, so see above.

Now on to the post that asked how I would feel if “my guy” had won and people on the other side of the aisle were getting hostel, well that’s a fair question.
If the government was following the constitution and they weren’t happy about it, well I don’t no, I can’t say it would be reasonable, if they wanted that kind of country there are plenty out there, just make a move.
If they don’t like guns, that’s no problem, most countries aren’t free anymore so that means no guns… well accept for the criminals that is, they will always have them, not that you need one to kill a person.

If you want substandard ‘free’ healthcare, here again, no problem, most countries have crappy healthcare, and the high taxes that go along with it.

As for flagging, well it’s quite simple, we live in a time when some groups would pay to have people write on these sites to push their agenda, yes, some here I have no doubt are employees, but they put their writings all over Craig’s list, this site is not for that, it’s called spamming and as the rules go (funny how socialists don’t follow rules that get in their way) you are suppose to live in the community in which your posting, or at least know the names of the towns or county’s in the area, and that’s all I’m doing, and as for you speaking for the forefathers about flagging, I believe they were for following the rules that had been set up, maybe you should to, that is if you can keep track of all of your names and all of the counties that you live in, lol.

Now for my specialty, GUNS,
For the people that aren’t in the know, there HAS been many attacks on our right to bear arms, but they have all failed, no doubt to the hard work on many people, myself included. We realize that freedom is not the natural state of the human, and as it’s said, freedom is always won on the battlefield, it can be handed down, but if the real threat of revolt is not maintained, freedom will be gone like a fart in the wind. And if you think not I’d like to know how you would stop a government gone crazy?
As I write this there is a bill (HR2159ih) the suspected terrorist act, it would give the federal government the power to say they 'think' you are a terrorist, and without having to show proof immediately take your inalienable right to have a weapon, and if they even bother bringing you to trial, they don’t have to show proof of any kind at the trial, all they have to say is it is that it’s sensitive info, and that’s it.
How would you defend yourself when the accuser is the Fed., and you have no evidence to refute?

You see, the Fed needs to take the guns, but they will never be so obvious to take them from the front door, they always use back door schemes, taxes, licenses, fees, more and more restrictive laws, and finally so many we have just given up on gun ownership, (and this parts important), the remaining group is small enough that it’s easy to take them, and the socialists will see it as a victory for their new age visions.

What I can’t understand here is how they think we are so civilized when they think guns are so dangerous?
I mean if we were so gentle a people why would they feel we need to give them up?
Their logic doesn’t work, it’s just a poorly thought out lie, and many believe this lie because they want to believe that it’s that simple to ‘fix” our violent nature.
To that I say; there are none so blind as those that refuse to see.

And there was one more comment that concerned me, the person that said that I must be watching too much fox news, (I guess they think I have bad info) that no one will go to jail over the healthcare bill.
Well are you saying that you didn’t know that this is Mandatory healthcare insurance?
If you didn’t know, shame on you for supporting something you don’t know anything about.
If you did know, then shame on lying about it here.
Anything that’s mandatory (that is a law), has penalties if not followed, and if you don’t go along with them, you go to jail.
And although I have many problems with this bill, that’s the number one problem I have with it.

Where in the constitution does it say that the state, (let alone the federal government) can make individuals buy a product or service? Social security should be optional, and if it was, I'm betting many would wisely not put there hard earned money in the hands of the federal government.
Think what it would be like if they made us buy government bonds?

I get a kick out of Warwick claiming to be a capitalist, then praising the beliefs of Marxism.
Merely having a business doesn’t make you a capitalist.
You will need to understand and embrace how and why capitalism makes a country strong, then maybe you could claim that, but at this point, no, you are lying to us and probably yourself.

As for those that would judge me, well I fully expected that, when one puts their beliefs out for the world to see, they should realizes they will be judged, I’m not really worried about the judgment by socialists, I know they aren’t going to agree with me, now if New Hampton, or Wappingers was putting me down or putting words in my mouth I would be more concerned.