Obama' Dream

[whistler]

There doesn't need to be millions of citizens fighting the government. A few dozen taking out the loudest mouthed most annoying will work and there are certainly more than a few dozen who are sick of hearing loud mouthed blabber from people who should just move to Korea or Somalia or Tibet or wherever either the U.N. are deified or peaceful meditation reigns or whatever suits them. Rather than attempting to ruin our country they should just go elsewhere that's already ruined.

"Once I used to join in Every boy and girl was my friend. Now there's revolution, but they don't know What they're fighting. Let us close our eyes; Outside their lives go on much faster. Oh, we won't give in, We'll keep living in the past" ~ Ian Anderson

 

[whistler]

Obama's government, the government of the United States is repressive and becoming more so. NOTHING that is being done enhances freedom, they are only taking it away.

It is nothing new, it has been going on since Lincoln started his war on states rights. It is just accelerating now. All the pieces for the coup are in place.


FINE, forget gun control, for now. It would seem you know little about it.

Use health care then. IF it such a good idea, why was force needed to implement it? Seems to me that IF it were a good idea most people would JUMP on it with rings on their fingers and bells on their toes. I wonder if THAT was put up as an amendment, as it should have been, if it would have passed, I doubt that too.

Why is it that you like a large, overseeing federal government? I don't understand? Why do you feel that things like redistribution of wealth is good idea? How does redistribution NOT infringe on my right to own private property, which wages are? Explain please.

I'm not much for the health care plan but I agree something needed to be done. The insurance companies and HC providers are out of control with their pricing. I don't believe the concrete is dry on it yet. As far as redistribution goes, unless you are on the very top or the very bottom it isn't going to affect you one way or another. Taxes are a way of life.

 

[whistler]

Obamas dream. Just substitute these words, " The night they drove America down" in the song.

Oh great! A confederate sympathizer! Not at all surprising.

 

[layoutshooter]

I'm not much for the health care plan but I agree something needed to be done. The insurance companies and HC providers are out of control with their pricing. I don't believe the concrete is dry on it yet. As far as redistribution goes, unless you are on the very top or the very bottom it isn't going to affect you one way or another. Taxes are a way of life.

First off, who says HC providers are out of control? How much of the "pricing" is due to government interference and unneeded regulations? How much isdue to lawyers and bogus law suits? Besides, you did not answer my question, why was force needed? Why not amend the Constitution and do it right?

As to taxes, mine are going up, again, so other's who don't earn can have it. I already pay in excess of 50% of every dollar I earn, why do they need more? Taxes are out of control. Again, you did not answer the question, why is redistribution of wealth a good idea? How does that inspire people to work more and how is that NOT an infringement on the right to own private property?

 

[layoutshooter]

Oh great! A confederate sympathizer! Not at all surprising.

The Confederates were correct as far as the Constitution goes. They did, however, pick the wrong issue and the wrong side of that issue to make a stand on. That war COULD have EASILY been avoided, hundreds of thousand of lives saved, millions of dollars in property damage avoided, if Lincoln was not so hell bent on gutting states rights. What a guy!

Even AFTER Ft. Sumter was fired on, it could have been avoided, Lincoln wanted that war. Just another fine example of the government using military force in defiance of the Constitution. A trend that continues today with Mr. Peace prize.

 

[whistler]

First off, who says HC providers are out of control?

I just did. The costs are out of control because of the law suits you describe but also because the HC providers know they can load up the procedures and they will get paid.

How much of the "pricing" is due to government interference and unneeded regulations?

A lot. I think this will be reduced under the current plan.

Besides, you did not answer my question

Answer mine and I'll answer yours.

why was force needed? Why not amend the Constitution and do it right?

Good question. When was this brought up by the opposition? The party of no kept saying "no".

As to taxes, mine are going up, again, so other's who don't earn can have it. I already pay in excess of 50% of every dollar I earn, why do they need more? Taxes are out of control. Again, you did not answer the question, why is redistribution of wealth a good idea? How does that inspire people to work more and how is that NOT an infringement on the right to own private property?

Take the bad with the good. Be happy you are are an intelligent, ambitious, prosperous young man and take one for the team.

 

[whistler]

The Confederates were correct as far as the Constitution goes. They did, however, pick the wrong issue and the wrong side of that issue to make a stand on. That war COULD have EASILY been avoided, hundreds of thousand of lives saved, millions of dollars in property damage avoided, if Lincoln was not so hell bent on gutting states rights. What a guy!

Even AFTER Ft. Sumter was fired on, it could have been avoided, Lincoln wanted that war. Just another fine example of the government using military force in defiance of the Constitution. A trend that continues today with Mr. Peace prize.

Beware the Military Industrial Complex.

 

[layoutshooter]

Take the bad with the good. Be happy you are are an intelligent, ambitious, prosperous young man and take one for the team.

I am NOT a young man any more, I am FAR past young. I cannot afford nor do I have enough time left to take anymore for the team. I did my duty, in spades. I own no one anything. I have given FAR more than I have taken. Too bad my wages go to those who don't.

My retirement has been wiped out, primarily due to government stupidity, the tax burden, and my advancing age is making it impossible to rebuild it. I will likely die in this truck, supporting others than my wife and myself. GREAT SYSTEM!

I will therefor do as I learned when I lived in England. They too had crippling taxes there. Their top rate, just for income tax, was 98% They would stop work when they reached a certain amount of money made, because it was not worth the effort. They did a LOT of under the table stuff to avoid the taxes. I will do the same.

Shoot, if it continues I just may stop writing the check every quarter. I earned it. I SHOULD be able to use it as I see fit. The Idea of FORCED CHARITY is just wrong. The idea of government being involved in charity is wrong.

 

[layoutshooter]

Beware the Military Industrial Complex.

Yep, got to get them Democrats out of it too! Keep in mind, it WAS a Republican that made the first warning on that. Not that I like Republicans, they suck ALMOST as bad as the Democrats.

I have no use for the entire bunch in Washington, or Lansing for that matter.

 

[LDB]

Please stop feeding the trolls.

 

[layoutshooter]

Please stop feeding the trolls.

I am bored, nuthin' else to do!

 

[Turtle]

Yeah Yeah, blah blah...

Classic response from someone who would rather dismiss as irrelevant anything that doesn't line up with their beliefs, even if what they are dismissing is an irrefutable truth.

First let me compliment your ability to successfully execute a Google search.

Thank you. In return I won't bother to point out your inability or refusal to do the same.

Secondly, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is far more inclusive and far more represents what I believe in.

Perhaps, but the UNUDHR is just that, a declaration/ It is not a treaty and is thus not legally binding in any way, shape or form. It's purely a feel-good declaration, which is the bread and butter of the UN.

Many, if not all of the countries I mentioned are signatories of that declaration, yet they do not follow the UNUDHR principles at all. While the right to free speech is preserved in the UNUDHU, and is granted formal recognition by the laws of most nations, the degree to which the right is upheld in actual practice varies greatly from one nation to another. In many nations, particularly those with relatively authoritarian forms of government, overt government censorship is strictly enforced. Censorship also occurs in other forms, such as the propaganda model of dissemination of information, and there are very different approaches and departures from the UNUDHR to issues such as hate speech, obscenity and defamation laws, even in the so-called liberal democracies, such as those of Europe.

The idea of widespread free speech is alive and well, but in practice it's severely limited and enjoyed by a relative few.

 

[whistler]

Classic response from someone who would rather dismiss as irrelevant anything that doesn't line up with their beliefs, even if what they are dismissing is an irrefutable truth.

Not irrefutable and, furthermore, What you are accusing me of can be characterized as exactly what this forum is here for.

Thank you. In return I won't bother to point out your inability or refusal to do the same.

You're welcome and thanks to you as well.

Perhaps, but the UNUDHR is just that, a declaration/ It is not a treaty and is thus not legally binding in any way, shape or form. It's purely a feel-good declaration, which is the bread and butter of the UN.

I agree. I didn't say it was a treaty or law of kind. All I am saying it is more in line with what I believe.

Many, if not all of the countries I mentioned are signatories of that declaration, yet they do not follow the UNUDHR principles at all. While the right to free speech is preserved in the UNUDHU, and is granted formal recognition by the laws of most nations, the degree to which the right is upheld in actual practice varies greatly from one nation to another. In many nations, particularly those with relatively authoritarian forms of government, overt government censorship is strictly enforced. Censorship also occurs in other forms, such as the propaganda model of dissemination of information, and there are very different approaches and departures from the UNUDHR to issues such as hate speech, obscenity and defamation laws, even in the so-called liberal The idea of widespread free speech is alive and well, but in practice it's severely limited and enjoyed by a relative few.

Sadly, this true. It does not however change the fact that I subscribe to these principles.

 

[muttly]

Pretty relentless exchange.

 

[layoutshooter]

"Sadly, this true. It does not however change the fact that I subscribe to these principles"

You might, I don't know. Much of what you say in here paints a different story, but then, you could just be fishing. Obama and the U.N. don't.

 

[whistler]

"Sadly, this true. It does not however change the fact that I subscribe to these principles"

You might, I don't know. Much of what you say in here paints a different story, but then, you could just be fishing. Obama and the U.N. don't.

Honestly, other than your disdain for the U.N., what is your problem with the UDHR?

 

[layoutshooter]

Honestly, other than your disdain for the U.N., what is your problem with the UDHR?

I did not say I have a problem with it, other than it is a joke. It is a worthless piece of paper. It also does not limit the power of government to a subservient position to the People. Government should ALWAYS be controlled by the People, NEVER the other way around.

The U.N. is worthy of disdain, even more that our government is, and that is saying something.

We also know that our government, the U.N. and most other government don't give a rat's patute about it either.

 

[Turtle]

Not irrefutable and, furthermore, What you are accusing me of can be characterized as exactly what this forum is here for.

Well then, instead of saying, "Yeah Yeah, blah blah," it would probably be better to refute it if you can. That sort of thing can move productive and thought provoking discussions along far better than the equivalent of "talk to the hand" will.

I agree. I didn't say it was a treaty or law of kind. All I am saying it is more in line with what I believe.

Oh, OK. You had me confused when you stated, "...excluding the Middle East, most people of the world enjoy freedom of speech," which I refuted, and then you came back in response a link to the UNUDHR as justification for your statement.


As for the question to Layout about what problems he has with the UNUDHR, I agree with him completely - it's a worthless piece of paper. Most countries who signed that declaration did so and immediately went right back home and continued things as normal, as if the declaration never happened. The few countries who altered existing laws to acknowledge the declaration did so while at the same time enacting new laws to allow them to get around the declaration in any way they see fit. The declaration didn't change a thing.

 

[aristotle]

The States got placed under the federal thumb by ceding power to Washington. Washington should never cede any authority to the United Nations, unless our nation's sovereignty no longer matters. The UN is on a march to make itself the ultimate governing body; to sit in judgment of all nations, to levy global taxes. The UN is a latent cancer ready to go big.

 

[Humble2drive]

As to taxes, mine are going up, again, so other's who don't earn can have it. I already pay in excess of 50% of every dollar I earn . . .

WTF!!!!! What happened there? No accountant? No tax preplanning?
Sounds stressful. You should apply for anxiety disability and ride this thing out in 47 percent style.