On Inauguration Day each president recites the following oath, in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
George W. Bush justified, and CONTINUES to justify his crimes by declaring "I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people."
No. It isn't. It never was. It is to protect the Constitution of the United States! I know, as you once so famously complained: ďStop throwing the Constitution in my face! Itís just a goddamned piece of paper!"
Sorry. But YOU took the oath. YOU failed to uphold that oath. Failed miserably. You failed to preserve, protect OR defend the Constitution. That makes you a criminal. And ignorance - even in your case - is no defense.
You have the right to remain silent.......
I've decided to wait for the 2nd generation model. I understand it will be much more powerful, and will need far less electricity to provide a full charge.
It will be called....wait for it.....
The Nissan BUD
This topic has been moved by the moderator of this forum.
It can be found at:
I've been heartened and encouraged by the tone of several recent posts here and the comments they've elicited. Most of us, I'm starting to believe (or hope), have very similar views when it comes to firearms and all the related social, constitutional, legal and political issues.
Sure, there are extremists on both sides who make a lot of noise here (and wouldn't this be a duller place without 'em!), but I'm convinced they make up a tiny percentage of the gun owners in this forum as they do in the country at large. But their ability to influence the quality of discourse is often way out of proportion to their numbers. Insults and fear-mongering are the tools they use, and by adopting their tactics we give them a legitimacy they do not deserve. They are the only grabbers. They are the only nuts.
As a gun owner, I'm not sure which epithet I find more insulting and inaccurate - "Nut" or "Grabber". Sorry, Folks, but I AM NEITHER! Does owning several firearms make me a "Nut"? Some on the fringe would insist, "YES!" Like the overwhelming majority here (I'd wager), I would much prefer to be labeled (if labeling is your thing) a
And I don't want to "grab" anyone's guns, and I don't want anyone to "grab" mine, either. But I also don't get all bent out of shape when new laws (even stupid and ineffective ones), threatening to limit my purchasing choices, are proposed. Does this make me a "Grabber"? Some on the fringe would also insist, "YES!" I haven't come up with an accurate, catchy label to describe what I see as a reasonable, level-headed stance on the issue. And again, I'd wager my views reflect those of the majority.
So let's reserve the name-calling for those wingers who truly are worthy.
And thus ends my
In September, 2008, George Bush gave a prime-time televised speech to pitch his financial bailout package to Congress and the American people. It worked. In a matter of mere months Congress approved, and the President signed, a bill allocating hundreds of billions of dollars to be given to banks and other financial institutions.
I found the text of that remarkably effective speech, and by substituting a few words and adding a few sentences I think I may have hit upon something. Imagine President Obama going prime-time with this:
"Good evening. This is an extraordinary period for America.
Over the past few weeks, many Americans have felt anxiety about their health and their future. I understand their worry and their frustration. Nearly 50 million Americans have no health insurance. Many more find themselves at the mercy of the Insurance and Pharmaceutical Companies, who are more concerned with profit than with providing quality care.
We're in the midst of a serious health care crisis, and the federal government is responding with decisive action.
I'm a strong believer in free enterprise, so my natural instinct is to oppose government intervention.
Under normal circumstances, I would have followed this course. But these are not normal circumstances. Our current health care system is not functioning properly. There has been a widespread loss of confidence.
The government's top health and economic experts warn that, without immediate action by Congress, thousands of Americans will die prematurely. Thousands more will be forced into bankruptcy.
I know that a health care reform package will present a tough vote for many members of Congress. It is difficult to pass a bill that commits so much of the taxpayers' hard-earned money. However, I can assure you that a universal, single-payer health care system, like the one proposed in House Resolution 676 (Medicare For All), will actually cost LESS than the inefficient system currently in place. How will it work? Well, back in 1948, when Great Britain enacted universal health care, they sent out a pamphlet to all British citizens. It stated:
'Your new National Health Service (NHS) begins on July 5th. It will provide you with all medical, dental and nursing care. Everyone, rich or poor, man, woman or child could use it or any part of it. There are no charges except for a few special items. There are no insurer qualifications, but it is not a charity. You're paying for it mainly as taxpayers and it will relieve your money worries in times of illness.'
Pretty straight forward, and a good place for us to start. I promise you this - All decisions concerning your health care will be made solely by you and your doctor. The government will not have the power to deny or restrict any treatment options. No one will be refused coverage due to pre-existing conditions. You will be able to choose any doctor or hospital you wish.
I know that Americans sometimes get discouraged by the tone in Washington and the seemingly endless partisan struggles, yet history has shown that, in times of real trial, elected officials rise to the occasion.
And together we will show the world once again what kind of country America is: a nation that tackles problems head on, where leaders come together to meet great tests, and where people of every background can work hard, develop their talents, and realize their dreams.
Thank you for listening. May God bless you."
It's become apparent to me that until we overcome the language barrier that separates us, political dialogue in this country will continue to be an exercise in futility. It is with this in mind that I hope to put together a "Webster's For Wingers" if you will, as a kind of central reference source. For example:
1. elitist. "Dr. Howard Dean M.D. is educated".
-synonyms: communist, fascist, French
1. unqualified. "Senator and Constitutional Law Professor Obama is qualified to be President".
1. zygote, embryo
Get the idea? Please feel free to contribute your own favorite words and definitions.
I just did. Doesn't take long - It's concise, to-the-point and written in easily understood language. It addresses pretty much every pertinent issue. Hell, even the insurance company employees who would face potential job loss are taken into consideration.
Read it, and then tell me, please - with the exception of a few
Why would ANY American, left or right, oppose this bill? What could ANY RATIONAL, DECENT HUMAN BEING FIND OBJECTIONABLE IN THIS BILL? Too simple? Too ethical? WHAT??
"Beginning January 1, 2010, all Americans will be eligible for Medicare coverage from the moment of their birth."
There haven't been ANY cures discovered for ANY diseases since 1928. Let me repeat that:
There haven't been ANY cures discovered for ANY diseases since 1928.
In 1928, penicillin - the first antibiotic - was discovered by accident. Antibiotics actually cure most bacteria-caused diseases.
Since then, however, nada. Sure, new "treatments" are being developed every day. And sometimes they work miracles (e.g. chemo and radiation therapy to treat some cancers). Hardly qualify as "cures", however. And vaccines have been developed to prevent some diseases. But not a single case of polio has ever been cured. If you were already stricken, the polio vaccine was useless to you. Stem cell research looks promising, but it will likely be years or decades before we see results.
Modern medicine can do amazing things - When something "breaks", they can usually fix it. But when it comes to disease, relief of symptoms is often all they can provide.
So when we're urged to "March For The Cure", or to "Find A Cure For Jerry's Kids", I fear the organizers are selling false hope. I don't know whether they are just good people filled with a naive optimism, or amoral cynics willing to do anything it takes to increase donations. I'd like to believe the former.
Bottom line - Forget about discovering cures. Hasn't happened in nearly a century...
With the loss of 4 more troops on Monday, the combined U.S. military death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan has hit 5001.
Yes, I know, it's just an arbitrary number. And yes, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed. And let's not forget the casualties suffered by other coalition forces.
But let's face it, there's a tendency among certain factions in America to place the value of human life on a sliding scale. To them, American lives are far more precious than the lives of some furriners. So in part, I'm posting this with them in mind.
Actually, I have two reasons for reporting this grim milestone:
Reason #1:Someone had to do it! Far as I can tell, I'm the only person on the planet who noticed. Not a single mention from the usual news sources. Nothing gleaned from Googling.
Reason #2: Seems like a good time to ask the aforementioned pro-warriors a question they haven't heard in a while. Five or so years ago, if you asked them whether the cost of the war was worth it, their reply was most likely, "Would you prefer that Hussein was still in power?" (It was all they had. It's still all they have.) So, let me ask them again, "Has it been worth the loss of 5000 American lives?"
(Not for the fainthearted......)
In 1970 the gap between the top 100 CEOs' average pay and the pay of average workers was 45 to 1 ($296,170 to $6,542), reflecting the restraints of lingering New Deal financial controls and mores. As those controls weakened, the gap increased to 127 to 1 by 1980. As deregulation, tax cuts, and the union bashing of the Reagan era took hold, the gap jumped to 321 to 1 by 1990. In 2000, as "financial innovation" pumped up fantasy finance, the ratio of CEO pay to the average workers' pay hit an obscene level of 1,510 to 1. And then by 2006, at the height of the fantasy finance boom, it climbed to a whopping 1,723 to 1 ($50,877,450 to $29,529). The financial sector soaked up trillions of dollars of wealth accumulated by the very rich, while average real wages remained stagnant.
Who is your health care provider? Your HMO? The company that issued your insurance policy? If you answered "yes", then you're a living example of how corporate lobbyists succeeded in shaping ("framing") the health care issue.
Let's cut through the crap - Doctors are health care providers. Nurses are health care providers. Paramedics are health care providers. Medical technicians are health care providers. Hospitals are health care providers.
Insurance companies, on the other hand, are health care middlemen. They are health care profiteers. They don't "provide" - They ration. They limit.
Somehow, it is taken for granted that corporations deserve a prominent role in any health care reform negotiations. After all, they're the ones who provide the stuff, right?
Haven't we had enough of this Orwellian B.S.?
"Enhanced interrogation" is to torture as "health care provider" is to profit-driven corporation.
Posted by tucsonlib in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Fri May 08th 2009, 03:21 AM
Okay. I'll give you several "winnable" arguments. But first, let me ask you something: What if we had a health care system that allowed you to choose any doctor and any hospital you wished, including specialists? (You wouldn't need to first get "referred".) medical procedures and treatment options would be decided by you and your physician. Neither the government nor some insurance company could deny you treatment, and no approval would be necessary before you are treated. EVERYTHING would be covered - no co-pays, no deductibles and no need to buy some "insurance supplemental policy". Most of your prescription drugs would be free, and those that weren't would only cost you a few dollars. This system would also cover your dental and long-term care expenses. And oh, I forgot to mention, this health care system would cover each and every American citizen.
So, what do you think? Okay, I know what you're thinking - "Sounds wonderful. But you're living in a fantasy world. For starters, such a system would be prohibitively expensive."
But what if I told you that every advanced nation on Earth (except the U.S.A.) already has in place a health care system pretty much like the one I described? Sure, their systems may not be perfect (what system is?) but don't believe the propaganda about substandard care or long waits. Ask the man or woman on the street! I can tell you that not only are my Canadian, British and Swedish friends satisfied with the health care they receive, but they find it unbelievable that in America - supposedly the wealthiest and most generous country on the planet - some 50 million people have no medical coverage at all. And even those with insurance are still at risk of losing everything should they be stricken by catastrophic illness or injury.
So, if Sweden, say, can provide all their people health care, why can't we? Don't we bill ourselves as the greatest, richest, most free country of them all?
Want to know the excuse I hear most often? Goes like this: "Well, those are teeny, tiny countries with populations that are so much smaller than ours. It's easy for them to cover everybody, but a system like that couldn't work here - we're so much bigger, and we have so many more people!"
Does this make any sense to you? Apparently it somehow does to them.
Okay, so let's get to those winnable arguments. You make some excellent points in your comments. You seem to favor giving everyone a choice - go with the private, for-profit insurance companies, or opt for a public plan - like Medicare. Sounds pretty good to me. So why is the insurance industry so vehemently opposed to this idea that they're spending hundreds of millions of dollars to try to keep the public plan option out of any health care legislation? They admit that it's because a public plan would represent "unfair competition". They know that they could never compete with such a plan, and that eventually they would go out of business.
It really gets down to a fundamental question that is seldom asked: What, axactly, do health insurance companies do? They'd like us to believe that, well, they provide people with health care, of course! But of course, that's baloney. DOCTORS, and NURSES, and HOSPITALS provide people with health care. So again, what do they DO? What purpose do they serve? And the truth is, they're a business. Their purpose is to make a profit. They are corporations, and as such are required BY LAW to make profit for their investors their top priority. And how do you make a profit? By taking in more money than you pay out in
claims. Insurance companies aren't in business to provide you with the best possible health care; they are, ironically enough, in business to limit, or even deny claims whenever and wherever they can.
There are so, so many reasons single-payer is the only sensible choice. We could talk about how much cheaper (yes, cheaper) it would be compared to our present system. We could talk about universal coverage as a national security issue. (The current flu pandemic scare is only one case in point.) Or how about making U.S. industry better able to compete with foreign competitors, who aren't saddled with having to pay for their workers' insurance?
But since I'm getting bleary-eyed, I'll just leave you with this: A profit-based health care system is morally and ethically indefensible. It's like if your local fire department told you that you have to pay up front or they'll just let your house burn...
But the bottom line? Providing every American with health coverage is simply the right thing to do. We're all in this together, after all....
You've hit the nail on the head, so prepare for the inevitable flaming. Here's the sad truth - While claiming to care about all of our Constitutional Rights, it is the RKBA that trumps all the others in their eyes. I'm pretty certain the reasoning goes something like this: "If the government should ever succeed in grabbing all our guns, then there would be nothing to deter them from taking away the rest of our freedoms." So, when Bush basically came right out and declared: "Here's the deal - Your rights to free speech and assembly; your freedom from illegal search and seizure; your right to a fair trial; the laws banning cruel and unusual punishment; in short, any so-called "civil rights" you thought you had are no longer in effect. But hey, you can keep your guns!" - Those fearless defenders of the 2A apparently missed the irony of the situation and figured it was a pretty fair arrangement. Their silence spoke volumes: "As long as I can keep my guns, then at least I know I'm free!"
And while they're quick to criticize "gun-grabbers" (often justifiably), for their ignorance or hypocrisy, they are incapable of recognizing or admitting to any similar flaws on their side of the argument. Examples? Where to begin...
How about the very notion that one's liberty and freedom is somehow dependent on the availability of certain manufactured, inanimate pieces of metal?
Then we have this very OP - wherein the poster decries "the lie that the Democratic Party is the party of gun-grabbers." Who does he think is responsible for perpetuating this lie? (Besides the fear-mongers on the extreme right) Just look at the topics posted in this forum. Most are little more than conspiracy theories about the evil "gun-grabbers" in Washington who are coming to take yer guns away.
And finally, the speedy deletion of this comment will provide the ultimate proof that the extreme fringe element who dominate this forum will not or can not engage in honest debate or consider the possible validity of opposing viewpoints.
The ten most recent threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums.
Fewer people getting married.
By No Elephants
I'm sorry to hear things have been so bad over here, and here's why --
By Leopolds Ghost
Happy Fathers' Day to all the Dads.
By No Elephants
Deleted. Triple post.
By No Elephants
Deleted. Triple post.
By No Elephants
NSA vs Snowden -- Follow the Money
Jeb Bush : 'Immigrants create more businesses than do US citizens' and "are more fertile..."
By Leopolds Ghost
Enthusiast, did you get a pm from me this morning?
By No Elephants
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - James Kenneth Galbraith
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.