[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[Nelson]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> > >
> > >  
> > > 
> > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > On Behalf Of Nelson
> > > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 8:12 PM
> > snip
> > > 
> > > The Mexican border is a war zone? The folks wading the Rio Grande or
> > > climbing the fence are armed and need to be engaged in a gun battle?
> > snip
> >While The people walking in are a problem, there is more concern
> > about armed military incursions
> 
> 
> 
> I think that assertion, "armed military incursions", is pure bullshit.
> Please provide verifiable corroborated evidence that the Mexican
> military has made armed incursions across the US border.
> 
> You sound like a nutso xenophobe.

  You sound like a fairly wise thoughtful person--- I will try to get
some links that were responsible for this assertion from another site
and post them for your consideration.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> >  
> > 
> > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Behalf Of Nelson
> > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 8:12 PM
> snip
> > 
> > The Mexican border is a war zone? The folks wading the Rio Grande or
> > climbing the fence are armed and need to be engaged in a gun battle?
> snip
>While The people walking in are a problem, there is more concern
> about armed military incursions



I think that assertion, "armed military incursions", is pure bullshit.
Please provide verifiable corroborated evidence that the Mexican
military has made armed incursions across the US border.

You sound like a nutso xenophobe.



 and heavily armed drug shipment
> guards- as in a hum vee with a 50 cal. on it.
>People are being killed there while the government is looking the
> other way.
>The border patrol is no match where they are out manned and out
> gunned by invaders.
> There is quite a bit of information on the subject but, most
> people are busy with other concerns.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[Nelson]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  
> 
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Nelson
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 8:12 PM
snip
> 
> The Mexican border is a war zone? The folks wading the Rio Grande or
> climbing the fence are armed and need to be engaged in a gun battle?
snip
   While The people walking in are a problem, there is more concern
about armed military incursions and heavily armed drug shipment
guards- as in a hum vee with a 50 cal. on it.
   People are being killed there while the government is looking the
other way.
   The border patrol is no match where they are out manned and out
gunned by invaders.
There is quite a bit of information on the subject but, most
people are busy with other concerns.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[Roberto]

 (snip)
> > Unlike the USA, Switzerland has tended to stay the hell out of other
> > countries politically and militarily.
> >
>   That is a good point and, America would do well to see the 
connection.
>However, I doubt that was the deciding factor in  Hitler's plan to
> take over everything.

Perhaps Adolf's desire to 'take over everything'-
Had more to do with meglomania fueled by Pervitin, a methamphetamine 
drug newly developed by the Berlin-based Temmler...
And, an abusive childhood, and all kinds of mental issues.
Also, much of the German population ended up addicted to these drugs.


http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,354606,00.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[Marek Reavis]

Excellent retort, Ruth!

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
>  wrote:
> >
> > Ruth wrote:
> > > So, you would rather have 47 million people uninsured?
> > >
> > No, I would rather have universal employment, so that
> > everyone could afford their own medical care.
> 
> Wouldn't that be nice!  The problem is that even if you are 
employed,
> you might not be able to afford medical care and might not be able 
to
> purchase health insurance.  Which is what I have said several times
> already.   Every year more small employers drop health insurance.
> 
> >
> > > And it isn't the old people that are uninsured, it a
> > > mix of people.
> > >
> > Old people are already insured through Medicare, Medicaid
> > and the drug prescription plan passed by Congress. Many old
> > people already have a medical plan carried over from the
> > previous employer when they retired.
> 
> That is what I said.
> >
> > > For example, young people with jobs that don't offer
> > > insurance or the insurance costs too much.  They feel
> > > bullet proof and go without.
> > >
> > That's my point - young people don't need medical care
> > because they're not sick and they hardly ever get hurt in
> > accidents. My question was, why should the young people
> > have to pay for medical care for old people? Are you
> > suggesting that the government force the young people to
> > pay? If so, that could cause a riot. Hillary Clinton
> > suggested that the government garnish the wages of those
> > young people who resist paying. Is that fair?
> 
> Of course not all young people need medical care, but you cannot 
predict
> if you will need care. Rather than garnishing wages of those who 
won't
> buy insurance, I prefer either a national plan paid through income 
taxes
> on a progressive basis, or a plan like Senator Wyden's plan, that 
allows
> for insurance companies to stay in the mix, but the bill for your
> insurance is paid through your income taxes.  Then no garnishing is
> necessary.
> 
> I have paid for insurance my whole life.  When I was young, I didn't
> need it, but it is insurance against the risk of something bad
> happening.If my premiums paid for someone else's illness, well 
that
> is the nature of the world we live in.  Spread the risk and no one 
will
> have to pay so much that it breaks the bank.  It is like people 
without
> children paying costs of education.  Even though they do not 
directly
> benefit, the country as a whole benefits.  If we all pay for heath 
care
> the country as a whole will benefit.  Odds are it will increase
> employment because small employers won't have to worry about 
offering
> health insurance to compete.  Employers will be less likely to hire
> people part time or only on a contract basis in order to save money 
on
> benefits.  It is good for the country to have a healthy population.
> 
> Interestingly, young people are more and more worried about having
> benefits at their job.  They want insurance.   They want a 401k.  
They
> are worried about security.  A national health plan would remove one
> worry that just about everyone has.
> >
> > > Some will have accidents. Some will get cancer. They
> > > are screwed.
> > >
> > You want to see screwed? A government-run universal
> > health care system. The U.S. Goverment can't even secure
> > the nation's borders and you want the young people who
> > were born here to pay for the medical care of the illegal
> > aliens? The U.S. Government could't even prevent an attack
> > on the World Trade Center. It has already been established
> > that the government got us into a quagmire in Afghanistan
> > and Iraq. The U.S. Government can't even take care of it's
> > own wounded soldiers! The U.S. Government brought on a
> > crises in the present Medicare system; lost a war in
> > Vietnam; failed to prevent North Korea, Pakistan, India,
> > and Iran from getting nuclear weapons. What makes you
> > think the U.S. Goverment could run a medical care system?
> 
> As people on this forum love to say: non sequitur!  What does
> Afghanistan and Iraq have to do with health care funding? Medicare 
is
> noted as a very good and efficient  and most all people on Medicare 
love
> it.  The crisis has to do with funding.  If we simply had a national
> plan that everyone paid into, I have a hard time imagining the cost
> would increase.  Already our costs are double or more than most
> industrialized countries.  Ever read about the billions in insurance
> company profits?
> 
> I am talking about government for funding, not government run 
hospitals
> or government employed doctors.
> >
> > > Some will get treated anyway, but because they are
> > > judgment proof the health care providers eat the cost
> > > and pass it along to everyone else.  The problem is
> > > that people can't say they don't need health insurance
> > > because they are healthy.  He

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ruth wrote:
> > So, you would rather have 47 million people uninsured?
> >
> No, I would rather have universal employment, so that
> everyone could afford their own medical care.

Wouldn't that be nice!  The problem is that even if you are employed,
you might not be able to afford medical care and might not be able to
purchase health insurance.  Which is what I have said several times
already.   Every year more small employers drop health insurance.

>
> > And it isn't the old people that are uninsured, it a
> > mix of people.
> >
> Old people are already insured through Medicare, Medicaid
> and the drug prescription plan passed by Congress. Many old
> people already have a medical plan carried over from the
> previous employer when they retired.

That is what I said.
>
> > For example, young people with jobs that don't offer
> > insurance or the insurance costs too much.  They feel
> > bullet proof and go without.
> >
> That's my point - young people don't need medical care
> because they're not sick and they hardly ever get hurt in
> accidents. My question was, why should the young people
> have to pay for medical care for old people? Are you
> suggesting that the government force the young people to
> pay? If so, that could cause a riot. Hillary Clinton
> suggested that the government garnish the wages of those
> young people who resist paying. Is that fair?

Of course not all young people need medical care, but you cannot predict
if you will need care. Rather than garnishing wages of those who won't
buy insurance, I prefer either a national plan paid through income taxes
on a progressive basis, or a plan like Senator Wyden's plan, that allows
for insurance companies to stay in the mix, but the bill for your
insurance is paid through your income taxes.  Then no garnishing is
necessary.

I have paid for insurance my whole life.  When I was young, I didn't
need it, but it is insurance against the risk of something bad
happening.If my premiums paid for someone else's illness, well that
is the nature of the world we live in.  Spread the risk and no one will
have to pay so much that it breaks the bank.  It is like people without
children paying costs of education.  Even though they do not directly
benefit, the country as a whole benefits.  If we all pay for heath care
the country as a whole will benefit.  Odds are it will increase
employment because small employers won't have to worry about offering
health insurance to compete.  Employers will be less likely to hire
people part time or only on a contract basis in order to save money on
benefits.  It is good for the country to have a healthy population.

Interestingly, young people are more and more worried about having
benefits at their job.  They want insurance.   They want a 401k.  They
are worried about security.  A national health plan would remove one
worry that just about everyone has.
>
> > Some will have accidents. Some will get cancer. They
> > are screwed.
> >
> You want to see screwed? A government-run universal
> health care system. The U.S. Goverment can't even secure
> the nation's borders and you want the young people who
> were born here to pay for the medical care of the illegal
> aliens? The U.S. Government could't even prevent an attack
> on the World Trade Center. It has already been established
> that the government got us into a quagmire in Afghanistan
> and Iraq. The U.S. Government can't even take care of it's
> own wounded soldiers! The U.S. Government brought on a
> crises in the present Medicare system; lost a war in
> Vietnam; failed to prevent North Korea, Pakistan, India,
> and Iran from getting nuclear weapons. What makes you
> think the U.S. Goverment could run a medical care system?

As people on this forum love to say: non sequitur!  What does
Afghanistan and Iraq have to do with health care funding? Medicare is
noted as a very good and efficient  and most all people on Medicare love
it.  The crisis has to do with funding.  If we simply had a national
plan that everyone paid into, I have a hard time imagining the cost
would increase.  Already our costs are double or more than most
industrialized countries.  Ever read about the billions in insurance
company profits?

I am talking about government for funding, not government run hospitals
or government employed doctors.
>
> > Some will get treated anyway, but because they are
> > judgment proof the health care providers eat the cost
> > and pass it along to everyone else.  The problem is
> > that people can't say they don't need health insurance
> > because they are healthy.  Health is not something that
> > is a matter of personal control.  Sure you can live a
> > healthy life, but you still can get cancer, be born with
> > diabetes or other chronic illness, or have an accident.
> > I personally have seen far too many of those young healthy
> > people who suddenly are not healthy a

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[Richard J. Williams]

Ruth wrote:
> So, you would rather have 47 million people uninsured?
>
No, I would rather have universal employment, so that 
everyone could afford their own medical care. 

> And it isn't the old people that are uninsured, it a 
> mix of people.
>
Old people are already insured through Medicare, Medicaid 
and the drug prescription plan passed by Congress. Many old 
people already have a medical plan carried over from the 
previous employer when they retired.

> For example, young people with jobs that don't offer 
> insurance or the insurance costs too much.  They feel 
> bullet proof and go without.  
>
That's my point - young people don't need medical care 
because they're not sick and they hardly ever get hurt in 
accidents. My question was, why should the young people 
have to pay for medical care for old people? Are you 
suggesting that the government force the young people to 
pay? If so, that could cause a riot. Hillary Clinton 
suggested that the government garnish the wages of those 
young people who resist paying. Is that fair?

> Some will have accidents. Some will get cancer. They 
> are screwed.
>
You want to see screwed? A government-run universal 
health care system. The U.S. Goverment can't even secure 
the nation's borders and you want the young people who 
were born here to pay for the medical care of the illegal 
aliens? The U.S. Government could't even prevent an attack 
on the World Trade Center. It has already been established 
that the government got us into a quagmire in Afghanistan 
and Iraq. The U.S. Government can't even take care of it's 
own wounded soldiers! The U.S. Government brought on a 
crises in the present Medicare system; lost a war in 
Vietnam; failed to prevent North Korea, Pakistan, India, 
and Iran from getting nuclear weapons. What makes you 
think the U.S. Goverment could run a medical care system?  

> Some will get treated anyway, but because they are 
> judgment proof the health care providers eat the cost 
> and pass it along to everyone else.  The problem is 
> that people can't say they don't need health insurance 
> because they are healthy.  Health is not something that 
> is a matter of personal control.  Sure you can live a 
> healthy life, but you still can get cancer, be born with 
> diabetes or other chronic illness, or have an accident.  
> I personally have seen far too many of those young healthy 
> people who suddenly are not healthy any more and cannot 
> get health insurance at any price.
>
Sure, there are going to be some people who need help - 
that's where charity comes in. But you are going to have a
failed plan if you try to make all the young people pay to
take care of all the older people, many of whom failed to 
take care of themselves. Yes, there are those who get sick 
and we should not judge them, however there are many 
respondents here who would agree that people don't eat 
right, don't exercise, and refuse to work. Why should I
be forced to take care of them?

I've got a simple plan for young people:

1. Finish school and get a degree.
2. Get a good job with benefits and save some money.
3. Don't get married until at least 22 years old.
4. Don't have any children until you're 35 years old.
5. Have only 2 children, with at least 5 years between sibs.

Country will grow!

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  
> 
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Nelson
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 8:12 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of
USA'
> 
>  
> 
> > > "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a 
> > > free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall 
> > > not be infringed."
> > 
> > And where are the militias who bear arms to protect
> > the security of their states?
> >
> They are on the southern border war zone- should be hearing
> something from there soon.
> 
> The Mexican border is a war zone? The folks wading the Rio Grande or
> climbing the fence are armed and need to be engaged in a gun battle?


Mexico is a deadly threat to the region. They're hiding their weapons
of mass destruction related programs thought crimes. But we know where
they are. They're in the area around Mexico City and east, west,
south, and north somewhat. We don't want to wait for the smoking gun
to show up in the form of all KFCs being turned into Taco Times.

See this excellent animation by Mark Fiore:
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0615,fiore,72857,9.html

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[Rick Archer]

 

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Nelson
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 8:12 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

 

> > "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a 
> > free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall 
> > not be infringed."
> 
> And where are the militias who bear arms to protect
> the security of their states?
>
They are on the southern border war zone- should be hearing
something from there soon.

The Mexican border is a war zone? The folks wading the Rio Grande or
climbing the fence are armed and need to be engaged in a gun battle?


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.19/1257 - Release Date: 2/3/2008
5:49 PM
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Regarding religious and political free
> speech, the  Democrats would have a tuff time passing legislation on
these
> issues so they get  their judges to legislate from the bench. Let's
look at the
> most obvious and  first instance in my life time that I'm aware of.
Everybody
> knows education is a  states responsibility and school prayer was
common up
> until the early sixties  but the USSC ruled it could not be done. Some
excuse of
> a separation of church  and state which is no where in the
constitution but
> found in a letter by Thomas  Jefferson to the Danbury Ct. Baptists
assuring them
> the Federal government would  not establish an official Church of
State.
> However, the first amendment does  guarantee that the government shall
not
> establish a state religion NOR prohibit  the FREE exercise there of.
So if some
> federal judge is telling people where and  when they can or can not
pray that is
> prohibiting the free exercise there of  claus, especially if it is the
will of
> the people in that school district to  begin the day that way.


So you blame the democrats for abolishing formalized school prayer?  Why
thank you. :)  The 1963 joint decisions on school prayer had ONE
dissent.  Interestingly, the cases, as are so often true, were more
about the power of the federal constitution versus the power of the
states.  There was a long history going back probably 100 years that the
federal government was to remain neutral on religious questions and do
nothing to promote a religion.

  Some of the current justices, like Thomas, would say that if a state
wanted school prayer that would be fine, it is not the federal
government's business.  My bet Thomas would go so far as saying that if
a state wanted to establish a state religion, it could do so.

Me, I believe in the right of the individual to be free from state or
federal coerced religious practice.  A good, solid liberal position.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[Nelson]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"  
> wrote:
> >
> > Ruth, excellent response and post.  I disagree only with your 2d 
> > Amend. analysis.  Gun ownership by the individual is fundamental to 
> > this country; in the last few years many constitutional experts have 
> > examined the 2d Amend. and construed it to guarantee rights to the 
> > individual, rather than the government militia.  In my read that's 
> > exactly what it states.  
> > 
> > "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a 
> > free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall 
> > not be infringed."
> 
> And where are the militias who bear arms to protect
> the security of their states?
>
   They are on the southern border war zone- should be hearing
something from there soon.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 2/3/08 6:46:12 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> Be  careful when you listen to the candidates talk about this stuff. I
> know the  market and I know health insurance. They do not. They get
> stuff third and  forth hand and put their own spin on what they learn
> and cherry pick facts.  The health care problem in the US is a big,
> messy problem with many facets.  Don't minimize it. 
> 
> 
> 
> I think Mitt Romney probably is in a better place to know more than
you  
> since he helped develop a health care program for his  state.
> 


Well, you don't know my bona fides, so fair enough.   But I trust that
you know that Romney himself did not develop the Mass. plan and the
odds of him reading all the dang census bureau reports and other
research is about nill. 

(FWIW, I do know more about health insurance than Romney :))

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[MDixon6569]

In a message dated 2/3/08 11:52:01 A.M. Central  Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Higher taxes: This doesn't  have anything to do with your party
affiliation. If you spend a lot,  generally taxes have to go up. The
republicans have been spending a lot of  late, but have not touched the
taxes. If they go up under the dems, it could  be because we have to pay
for the prior republican  spending.



Democrats attack religious freedom or political speech?  Ha! Show me. 
Don't forget that the federal government is not allowed to  support a
particular religion or any religion.


I agree Republicans  have lost their way when it comes to fiscal policy, 
spending like drunken  sailors and they paid the price for this in the last 
election. However in a  growing economy all that is necessary to eliminate 
deficit 
spending is hold the  line on spending and the revenues will grow into the 
budget. So  a tax hike  is not necessary.< Regarding religious and political 
free 
speech, the  Democrats would have a tuff time passing legislation on these 
issues so they get  their judges to legislate from the bench. Let's look at the 
most obvious and  first instance in my life time that I'm aware of. Everybody 
knows education is a  states responsibility and school prayer was common up 
until the early sixties  but the USSC ruled it could not be done. Some excuse 
of 
a separation of church  and state which is no where in the constitution but 
found in a letter by Thomas  Jefferson to the Danbury Ct. Baptists assuring 
them 
the Federal government would  not establish an official Church of State. 
However, the first amendment does  guarantee that the government shall not 
establish a state religion NOR prohibit  the FREE exercise there of. So if some 
federal judge is telling people where and  when they can or can not pray that 
is 
prohibiting the free exercise there of  claus, especially if it is the will of 
the people in that school district to  begin the day that way.< How about free 
speech? Lets look at McCain/ Feingold  for example. Ah Yes, but you say McCain 
is a Republican and it had bipartisan  support. McCAin is not called a RINO 
for nothing and it was the Democrats that  really pushed the issue of 
restricting free political speech through this bill  that Bush so unwisely 
signed into 
law.So lets look at another , the Fairness  Doctrine which democrats first 
imposed on the FCC and want to bring back so they  can force Talk Radio to 
present their sides to any argument which most talk  radio listeners don't want 
to 
even listen to.  




**Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. 
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp00300025
48)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[MDixon6569]

 
In a message dated 2/3/08 6:46:12 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Be  careful when you listen to the candidates talk about this stuff. I
know the  market and I know health insurance. They do not. They get
stuff third and  forth hand and put their own spin on what they learn
and cherry pick facts.  The health care problem in the US is a big,
messy problem with many facets.  Don't minimize it. 



I think Mitt Romney probably is in a better place to know more than you  
since he helped develop a health care program for his  state.



**Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. 
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp00300025
48)

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 2/3/08 6:00:05 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> 7. From  the 2004 Census, it appears that families with incomes between 
> $50,000 and  $75,000 is the fastest growing group of uninsured.
Also, from the 
> Kaiser 2005  employer health benefits survey, the percentage of
employers offering 
>  insurance has decreased every year for the past six years, almost
entirely 
> in  the small group market, with 40% of employers not offering any
health  
> insurance. Interestingly, 98% of employers which have 200+ employees
offer  health 
> insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> Her's one more number for you. About half of those 47 million
uninsured  
> people can afford to buy their own health insurance but choose not
to because  
> they know they can just show up at an emergency room and not be
turned away.  
> Mitt Romney in the presidential debate from the Reagan  Library.
> 


Not true.  First, it is true that emergency rooms are required under
federal law to treat emergencies to the point the person is
stabilized.  For example, they do not provide chemotherapy to cancer
patients.  They do not dispense drugs.  Plus, the care is NOT free. If
you can afford health insurance, you can bet that hospital emergency
room is going to try to collect from you if you do not pay them.
Hospitals frequently garnish people's wages for unpaid health care.  I
once had a person testify in a state legislative body about how she
got ill and ended up in the hospital.  She was 21 and without
insurance.  The bill went unpaid.  The collection agency the hospital
hired to get their money told her that is she wasn't going to pay her
bills it would have been better if she died.  I can give you many many
more such stories.  

The second untruth is that there are no good figures on how many of
the uninsured can actually afford insurance.  The problem is that the
insurance market is so fragmented that one person in one place might
be able to afford insurance, but in another place cannot.   Plus, if
that person has preexisiting conditions, they very well may preclude
that person from buying insurance at all, even if they can afford it. 

Take a family earning $50,000 a year.  The employer drops health
insurance.  The family goes to buy on the individual market.  Some
family members get turned down.  Dad has high cholesterol and high bp,
both controlled with drugs.  He still probably will get turned down. 
One of the kids has asthma--might get turned down.  Mom had a
hysterectomy a few years ago, she gets turned down.  Maybe they can
buy on a risk pool or get a HIPAA plan.  Depending on the state, each
family member might have to buy their own plan.  The cost can be in
the thousands a month.  They seem like middle income people but they
can't afford insurance.   

Be careful when you listen to the candidates talk about this stuff.  I
know the market and I know health insurance.  They do not.  They get
stuff third and forth hand and put their own spin on what they learn
and cherry pick facts.  The health care problem in the US is a big,
messy problem with many facets.  Don't minimize it.  
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[MDixon6569]

 
In a message dated 2/3/08 6:00:05 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

7. From  the 2004 Census, it appears that families with incomes between 
$50,000 and  $75,000 is the fastest growing group of uninsured. Also, from the 
Kaiser 2005  employer health benefits survey, the percentage of employers 
offering 
 insurance has decreased every year for the past six years, almost entirely 
in  the small group market, with 40% of employers not offering any health  
insurance. Interestingly, 98% of employers which have 200+ employees offer  
health 
insurance.



Her's one more number for you. About half of those 47 million uninsured  
people can afford to buy their own health insurance but choose not to because  
they know they can just show up at an emergency room and not be turned away.  
Mitt Romney in the presidential debate from the Reagan  Library.



**Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. 
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp00300025
48)

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ruth wrote:
> > It isn't like people are going to lose their will
> > to work if they get health care paid for by tax
> > dollars.
> >
> They might if they don't need any health care or if
> they are forced to buy government health care when they
> don't need it. Why should young people be forced to pay
> for the health care of older people? It doesn't make
> any sense. It's a crazy ponzi scheme just like Social
> Security.
>
> "There is an analogy between the compulsory aspects of
> the candidates' health care proposals and Social Security.
> A young man or woman would be crazy to participate in the
> Social Security system if he or she had any choice. If
> anyone saved 12.4% of his earnings over a lifetime, he
> would not only have far more money in retirement than
> Social Security can provide, it would, equally important,
> be his money, to invest and dispose of as he sees fit.
> But the government needs young people's money to support
> their grandparents' retirements, so Social Security is
> forced upon them. The same thing, in essence, will happen
> with health care if any comprehensive "reform" plan is
> adopted."
>


I can't answer you in a sound bite, but . . . .

So, you would rather have  47 million people uninsured?  And it isn't
the old people that are uninsured, it a mix of people.  For example,
young people with jobs that don't offer insurance or the insurance costs
too much.  They feel bullet proof and go without.  Some will have
accidents.  Some will get cancer.  They are screwed.  Some will get
treated anyway, but because they are judgment proof the health care
providers eat the cost and pass it along to everyone else.  The problem
is that people can't say they don't need health insurance because they
are healthy.  Health is not something that is a matter of personal
control.  Sure you can live a healthy life, but you still can get
cancer,  be born with diabetes or other chronic illness, or have an
accident.  I personally have seen far too many of those young healthy
people who suddenly are not healthy any more and cannot get health
insurance at any price.

The fastest growing demographic of uninsured are families making between
$50,000 and $75,000 a year.  In large part, the reason for this growth
is that small employers (with less than 100 employees) are less and less
frequently offering health insurance.

Here are some numbers for ya:

1.The number of uninsured is increasing. Current Census estimates show
that, in 2005, 44.8 million people, 15.3 percent of the population, were
without health insurance. (This is a drop from earlier Census estimates
of 46 million however, recent estimate are showing about 47 million.)
The Census only counted people who were uninsured for at least an entire
year.

2. A 2004 study from Families USA found that 81.8 million lacked health
insurance at some point in 2002 and 2003 and most were uninsured for
more than 9 months. Adding to these numbers, the Commonwealth Fund has
found 16 million adults were under-insured in 2003.

3. About 20% of the uninsured are children according to the Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation. The foundation found that about 70% of those
children would be eligible for SCHIP or Medicaid, but parents often are
unaware of the eligibility or daunted by the paperwork. There is no one
out there advertising these programs.

4. Medicaid is administered by the states. States divide low income
people into three groups: children, parents of children, and non-parent
adults. In 40 of 50 states non-parent adults are not eligible for
Medicaid at all, even if they do not have a penny to their name, unless
they are fully and completely disabled. The remaining 10 states provide
some coverage but it is very limited. Look at the Kaiser Family
Foundation website, it reports a lot of this information about Medicaid.

5. In 14 states, more than 1/3 of non-elderly people had no health
insurance for all or part of 2002 and 2003. Texas and California were
the worst.

6. The National Academy of Sciences has found that lack of insurance
causes about 18,000 unnecessary deaths a year. About 1400 is from
undiagnosed high blood pressure. Chronic diseases and cancer do not get
treated in the emergency room. Here is an interesting article on
Houston's problem with one million uninsured and the inability for many
to get treatment for cancer:

http://www.click2houston.com/investi...14/detail.html


7. From the 2004 Census, it appears that families with incomes between
$50,000 and $75,000 is the fastest growing group of uninsured. Also,
from the Kaiser 2005 employer health benefits survey, the percentage of
employers offering insurance has decreased every year for the past six
years, almost entirely in the small group market, with 40% of employers
not offering any health insurance. Interestingly, 98% of employers whi

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Ruth, excellent response and post.  I disagree only with your 2d 
> Amend. analysis.  Gun ownership by the individual is fundamental to 
> this country; in the last few years many constitutional experts have 
> examined the 2d Amend. and construed it to guarantee rights to the 
> individual, rather than the government militia.  In my read that's 
> exactly what it states.  
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a 
> free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall 
> not be infringed."

And where are the militias who bear arms to protect
the security of their states?

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> > > snip
> 
> 
> > 
> > Unlike the USA, Switzerland has tended to stay the hell out of other
> > countries politically and militarily.
> >
>   That is a good point and, America would do well to see the connection.
>However, I doubt that was the deciding factor in  Hitler's plan to
> take over everything.


And I doubt it was because a lot of the population had guns. Even if
they did, they couldn't prevent the German military from occupying the
country.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[ruthsimplicity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Ruth, excellent response and post.  I disagree only with your 2d 
> Amend. analysis.  Gun ownership by the individual is fundamental to 
> this country; in the last few years many constitutional experts have 
> examined the 2d Amend. and construed it to guarantee rights to the 
> individual, rather than the government militia.  In my read that's 
> exactly what it states.  
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free 
> State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be 
> infringed."
> 
> 'Government' in the Constitution (and particularly in the 
> Declaration of Independence) is to be feared for its inevitable 
> inclination to Tyranny, and necessarily then, harnessed and fettered 
> by the laws of the new republic.  It was assumed that eventually any 
> government will go bad and the ability to resist your own government 
> (gone bad) by force of arms was understood to be one of the last 
> resorts to Tyranny.
> 
> The fact that it sits uneasily with many modern sensibilities 
> doesn't mean it doesn't say what it says.  Though that's just the 
> way I see, and there is a lot of disagreement continuing.  I think 
> the Supremes have a  2d Amend. case in this term; I haven't been 
> following it.
> 
> Marek
> 

Well, I didn't really give a second amendment analysis.  I said it was
awkwardly worded which has led to dispute.  Yes, it says what it says,
but what the heck is all that militia stuff about?  (rhetorical
question, you need not answer).  And even if the right is an
individual right, to what extent can government regulate that right?  

Various restrictions on gun ownership have been upheld by lower courts
and most everyone agrees that some restrictions are going to be fine,
even if the second amendment is an individual right. (Otherwise,
people could go around carrying machine guns and hand grenades.) The
case you likely are refering to is the Heller case, discussed in
wikipedia here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller  This case
involved an absolute ban on handguns. Given the current make up of the
court, it wouldn't surprise me if the case was upheld.  But then we
will have flurry of cases trying to find the boundaries of regulation.  

Not really my issue either, and I have not followed the cases.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[Nelson]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> > snip


> 
> Unlike the USA, Switzerland has tended to stay the hell out of other
> countries politically and militarily.
>
  That is a good point and, America would do well to see the connection.
   However, I doubt that was the deciding factor in  Hitler's plan to
take over everything.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> snip
> > > > > 
> > > > > "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
> > free 
> > > > > State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
> not be 
> > > > > infringed."
> > > > > 
> > > > > 'Government' in the Constitution (and particularly in the 
> > > > > Declaration of Independence) is to be feared for its inevitable 
> > > > > inclination to Tyranny, and necessarily then, harnessed and
> > fettered 
> > > > > by the laws of the new republic.  It was assumed that eventually
> > any 
> > > > > government will go bad and the ability to resist your own
> > government 
> > > > > (gone bad) by force of arms was understood to be one of the
last 
> > > > > resorts to Tyranny.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > There's absolutely *ZERO* possibility of any 'militia' being
capable
> > > > of successfully resisting the weaponry and manpower of the US
> > military.
> > > >++ the military is sworn to uphold the constitution and, obviously,
> > > the government hasn't been.
> > 
> > 
> > Then why do you need a 'militia' if you trust the US Military to
> > "uphold the constitution?" And how do you expect a 'militia' to stand
> > up the the US Military if it doesn't?
> snip
> > 
> 
> > Get realistic. Without the US Military, the US would have been no
> > match for the Japanese military.
> > 
>I don't know if the Japaneese or German war machine was larger but
> the German takeover in Europe bypassed Switzerland which is a
> relatively small country where I believe, at the time, it was
> mandatory that all citizens be armed.
> It seems to be a positive factor as they haven't had any sign of a
> war in their country since before America was discovered.


Unlike the USA, Switzerland has tended to stay the hell out of other
countries politically and militarily.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[Nelson]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ruth wrote:
> > It isn't like people are going to lose their will 
> > to work if they get health care paid for by tax 
> > dollars.
> >
> They might if they don't need any health care or if 
> they are forced to buy government health care when they
> don't need it. Why should young people be forced to pay 
> for the health care of older people? It doesn't make
> any sense. It's a crazy ponzi scheme just like Social
> Security.
> 
> "There is an analogy between the compulsory aspects of 
> the candidates' health care proposals and Social Security. 
> A young man or woman would be crazy to participate in the 
> Social Security system if he or she had any choice. If 
> anyone saved 12.4% of his earnings over a lifetime, he 
> would not only have far more money in retirement than 
> Social Security can provide, it would, equally important, 
> be his money, to invest and dispose of as he sees fit. 
> But the government needs young people's money to support 
> their grandparents' retirements, so Social Security is 
> forced upon them. The same thing, in essence, will happen 
> with health care if any comprehensive "reform" plan is 
> adopted."
> 
snip
   Hard to know what to think about the SS figures- it looks like a
chain letter really but some of the figures are curious.
When I started working, I was making a little over 100 a
week(quite a while back) now, on SS I receive bout 250 a week but the
money has lost so much value that it is the equivalent of nearer 25 so
is it coming out even?
   5.00 used to more than fill anyones gas tank where  now 50.00 will
hardly do it- money has really depreciated.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[Richard J. Williams]

Ruth wrote:
> It isn't like people are going to lose their will 
> to work if they get health care paid for by tax 
> dollars.
>
They might if they don't need any health care or if 
they are forced to buy government health care when they
don't need it. Why should young people be forced to pay 
for the health care of older people? It doesn't make
any sense. It's a crazy ponzi scheme just like Social
Security.

"There is an analogy between the compulsory aspects of 
the candidates' health care proposals and Social Security. 
A young man or woman would be crazy to participate in the 
Social Security system if he or she had any choice. If 
anyone saved 12.4% of his earnings over a lifetime, he 
would not only have far more money in retirement than 
Social Security can provide, it would, equally important, 
be his money, to invest and dispose of as he sees fit. 
But the government needs young people's money to support 
their grandparents' retirements, so Social Security is 
forced upon them. The same thing, in essence, will happen 
with health care if any comprehensive "reform" plan is 
adopted."

Read more:

'Forcing Young People Into the System'
Posted by John Hinderaker:
Powerline, February 3, 2008 
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/02/019711.php

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There's absolutely *ZERO* possibility of any 'militia' being 
> capable of successfully resisting the weaponry and manpower 
> of the US military.

Well, the Iraquis have been doing a bang-up job
of pretending otherwise...

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[Nelson]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
snip
> > > > 
> > > > "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
> free 
> > > > State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be 
> > > > infringed."
> > > > 
> > > > 'Government' in the Constitution (and particularly in the 
> > > > Declaration of Independence) is to be feared for its inevitable 
> > > > inclination to Tyranny, and necessarily then, harnessed and
> fettered 
> > > > by the laws of the new republic.  It was assumed that eventually
> any 
> > > > government will go bad and the ability to resist your own
> government 
> > > > (gone bad) by force of arms was understood to be one of the last 
> > > > resorts to Tyranny.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > There's absolutely *ZERO* possibility of any 'militia' being capable
> > > of successfully resisting the weaponry and manpower of the US
> military.
> > >++ the military is sworn to uphold the constitution and, obviously,
> > the government hasn't been.
> 
> 
> Then why do you need a 'militia' if you trust the US Military to
> "uphold the constitution?" And how do you expect a 'militia' to stand
> up the the US Military if it doesn't?
snip
> 

> Get realistic. Without the US Military, the US would have been no
> match for the Japanese military.
> 
   I don't know if the Japaneese or German war machine was larger but
the German takeover in Europe bypassed Switzerland which is a
relatively small country where I believe, at the time, it was
mandatory that all citizens be armed.
It seems to be a positive factor as they haven't had any sign of a
war in their country since before America was discovered.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Ruth, excellent response and post.  I disagree only with your 2d 
> > > Amend. analysis.  Gun ownership by the individual is fundamental to 
> > > this country; in the last few years many constitutional experts
have 
> > > examined the 2d Amend. and construed it to guarantee rights to the 
> > > individual, rather than the government militia.  In my read that's 
> > > exactly what it states.  
> > > 
> > > "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free 
> > > State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be 
> > > infringed."
> > > 
> > > 'Government' in the Constitution (and particularly in the 
> > > Declaration of Independence) is to be feared for its inevitable 
> > > inclination to Tyranny, and necessarily then, harnessed and
fettered 
> > > by the laws of the new republic.  It was assumed that eventually
any 
> > > government will go bad and the ability to resist your own
government 
> > > (gone bad) by force of arms was understood to be one of the last 
> > > resorts to Tyranny.
> > 
> > 
> > There's absolutely *ZERO* possibility of any 'militia' being capable
> > of successfully resisting the weaponry and manpower of the US
military.
> >++ the military is sworn to uphold the constitution and, obviously,
> the government hasn't been.


Then why do you need a 'militia' if you trust the US Military to
"uphold the constitution?" And how do you expect a 'militia' to stand
up the the US Military if it doesn't?



> Also, think Blackhawk down or Afgans knocking off choppers with
> small arms.
> In the forties, Japan observed that it would a disaster to attack
> the US mainland where most of the citizens were armed- that being one
> of the reasons for being armed in the first place.



Get realistic. Without the US Military, the US would have been no
match for the Japanese military.




> > > The fact that it sits uneasily with many modern sensibilities 
> > > doesn't mean it doesn't say what it says.  Though that's just the 
> > > way I see, and there is a lot of disagreement continuing.  I think 
> > > the Supremes have a  2d Amend. case in this term; I haven't been 
> > > following it.
> > > 
> > > Marek


> >++ the DC gun ban was struck down by a local court and is now on
> appeal however, seeing the serious implications of a ruling either
> way, they might just make a ruling only to apply in DC.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[Nelson]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" 
> wrote:
> >
> > Ruth, excellent response and post.  I disagree only with your 2d 
> > Amend. analysis.  Gun ownership by the individual is fundamental to 
> > this country; in the last few years many constitutional experts have 
> > examined the 2d Amend. and construed it to guarantee rights to the 
> > individual, rather than the government militia.  In my read that's 
> > exactly what it states.  
> > 
> > "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free 
> > State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be 
> > infringed."
> > 
> > 'Government' in the Constitution (and particularly in the 
> > Declaration of Independence) is to be feared for its inevitable 
> > inclination to Tyranny, and necessarily then, harnessed and fettered 
> > by the laws of the new republic.  It was assumed that eventually any 
> > government will go bad and the ability to resist your own government 
> > (gone bad) by force of arms was understood to be one of the last 
> > resorts to Tyranny.
> 
> 
> There's absolutely *ZERO* possibility of any 'militia' being capable
> of successfully resisting the weaponry and manpower of the US military.
>++ the military is sworn to uphold the constitution and, obviously,
the government hasn't been.
Also, think Blackhawk down or Afgans knocking off choppers with
small arms.
In the forties, Japan observed that it would a disaster to attack
the US mainland where most of the citizens were armed- that being one
of the reasons for being armed in the first place.
> 
> 
> > 
> > The fact that it sits uneasily with many modern sensibilities 
> > doesn't mean it doesn't say what it says.  Though that's just the 
> > way I see, and there is a lot of disagreement continuing.  I think 
> > the Supremes have a  2d Amend. case in this term; I haven't been 
> > following it.
> > 
> > Marek
>++ the DC gun ban was struck down by a local court and is now on
appeal however, seeing the serious implications of a ruling either
way, they might just make a ruling only to apply in DC.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Ruth, excellent response and post.  I disagree only with your 2d 
> Amend. analysis.  Gun ownership by the individual is fundamental to 
> this country; in the last few years many constitutional experts have 
> examined the 2d Amend. and construed it to guarantee rights to the 
> individual, rather than the government militia.  In my read that's 
> exactly what it states.  
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free 
> State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be 
> infringed."
> 
> 'Government' in the Constitution (and particularly in the 
> Declaration of Independence) is to be feared for its inevitable 
> inclination to Tyranny, and necessarily then, harnessed and fettered 
> by the laws of the new republic.  It was assumed that eventually any 
> government will go bad and the ability to resist your own government 
> (gone bad) by force of arms was understood to be one of the last 
> resorts to Tyranny.


There's absolutely *ZERO* possibility of any 'militia' being capable
of successfully resisting the weaponry and manpower of the US military.



> 
> The fact that it sits uneasily with many modern sensibilities 
> doesn't mean it doesn't say what it says.  Though that's just the 
> way I see, and there is a lot of disagreement continuing.  I think 
> the Supremes have a  2d Amend. case in this term; I haven't been 
> following it.
> 
> Marek

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[Marek Reavis]

Ruth, excellent response and post.  I disagree only with your 2d 
Amend. analysis.  Gun ownership by the individual is fundamental to 
this country; in the last few years many constitutional experts have 
examined the 2d Amend. and construed it to guarantee rights to the 
individual, rather than the government militia.  In my read that's 
exactly what it states.  

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free 
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be 
infringed."

'Government' in the Constitution (and particularly in the 
Declaration of Independence) is to be feared for its inevitable 
inclination to Tyranny, and necessarily then, harnessed and fettered 
by the laws of the new republic.  It was assumed that eventually any 
government will go bad and the ability to resist your own government 
(gone bad) by force of arms was understood to be one of the last 
resorts to Tyranny.

The fact that it sits uneasily with many modern sensibilities 
doesn't mean it doesn't say what it says.  Though that's just the 
way I see, and there is a lot of disagreement continuing.  I think 
the Supremes have a  2d Amend. case in this term; I haven't been 
following it.

Marek

**

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote:
> > >
> 
> > >
> > > Universal healthcare was included in *higher taxes and
> > > redistribution of wealth*. Democrats have fought tooth
> > > and nail to erode the first and second amendments thru
> > > attacks on religious freedom, free political speech, and
> > > the attempts to restrict gun ownership.
> >
> 
> 
> Generally, when I hear words like "socialist" and "agenda" I tune 
out. 
> But . . .
> 
> Higher taxes:  This doesn't have anything to do with your party
> affiliation.  If you spend a lot, generally taxes have to go up.  
The
> republicans have been spending a lot of late, but have not touched 
the
> taxes.  If they go up under the dems, it could be because we have 
to pay
> for the prior republican spending.
> 
> Redistribution of wealth.  This occurs all the time.  We have a 
social
> contract.  We are in this country together.  The constitution gives
> power to the government to tax in order to provide for the general
> welfare.  We tax for roads and other infrastructure.  We tax for
> defense.  We tax for education.  We tax for social security. What 
makes
> universal health care any different?  We provide it through 
Medicare to
> the elderly.  Why not everyone?  It isn't like people are going to 
lose
> their will to work if they get health care paid for by tax dollars.
> 
> Democrats attack religious freedom or political speech?  Ha!  Show 
me. 
> Don't forget that the federal government  is not allowed to 
support a
> particular religion or any religion.
> 
> Gun ownership regulation is not supported by all democrats, that is
> probably why we haven't got very far on gun control.  However, you
> reading of the second amendment is contrary to its historic
> interpretation and at a minimum it is clear that it is perfectly 
legal
> to put some restrictions on gun ownership.  Though I would agree 
with
> people who say that the second amendment is very awkwardly worded, 
which
> has led to many needless arguments.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ruthsimplicity"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote:
> > >
> 
> > >
> > > Universal healthcare was included in *higher taxes and
> > > redistribution of wealth*. Democrats have fought tooth
> > > and nail to erode the first and second amendments thru
> > > attacks on religious freedom, free political speech, and
> > > the attempts to restrict gun ownership.
> >
> 
> 
> Generally, when I hear words like "socialist" and "agenda" I tune out. 
> But . . .
> 
> Higher taxes:  This doesn't have anything to do with your party
> affiliation.  If you spend a lot, generally taxes have to go up.  The
> republicans have been spending a lot of late, but have not touched the
> taxes.  If they go up under the dems, it could be because we have to pay
> for the prior republican spending.
> 
> Redistribution of wealth.  This occurs all the time.  We have a social
> contract.  We are in this country together.  The constitution gives
> power to the government to tax in order to provide for the general
> welfare.  We tax for roads and other infrastructure.  We tax for
> defense.  We tax for education.  We tax for social security. What makes
> universal health care any different?  We provide it through Medicare to
> the elderly.  Why not everyone?  It isn't like people are going to lose
> their will to work if they get health care paid for by tax dollars.
> 
> Democrats attack religious freedom or political speech?  Ha!  Show me. 
> Don't forget that the federal government  is not allowed to support a
> particular religion or any religion.
> 
> Gun ownership regulation is not supported by all democrats, that is
> probably why we haven't got very far on gun control.  However, you
> reading of the second amendment is contrary to its historic
> interpretation and at a minimum it is clear that it is perfectly legal
> to put some restrictions on gun ownership.  Though I would agree with
> people who say that the second amendment is very awkwardly worded, which
> has led to many needless arguments.


Honest, sober, insightful and in my view, accurate commentary.
Refreshing! Thanks for that, 'ruthsimplicity'. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[ruthsimplicity]

>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote:
> >

> >
> > Universal healthcare was included in *higher taxes and
> > redistribution of wealth*. Democrats have fought tooth
> > and nail to erode the first and second amendments thru
> > attacks on religious freedom, free political speech, and
> > the attempts to restrict gun ownership.
>


Generally, when I hear words like "socialist" and "agenda" I tune out. 
But . . .

Higher taxes:  This doesn't have anything to do with your party
affiliation.  If you spend a lot, generally taxes have to go up.  The
republicans have been spending a lot of late, but have not touched the
taxes.  If they go up under the dems, it could be because we have to pay
for the prior republican spending.

Redistribution of wealth.  This occurs all the time.  We have a social
contract.  We are in this country together.  The constitution gives
power to the government to tax in order to provide for the general
welfare.  We tax for roads and other infrastructure.  We tax for
defense.  We tax for education.  We tax for social security. What makes
universal health care any different?  We provide it through Medicare to
the elderly.  Why not everyone?  It isn't like people are going to lose
their will to work if they get health care paid for by tax dollars.

Democrats attack religious freedom or political speech?  Ha!  Show me. 
Don't forget that the federal government  is not allowed to support a
particular religion or any religion.

Gun ownership regulation is not supported by all democrats, that is
probably why we haven't got very far on gun control.  However, you
reading of the second amendment is contrary to its historic
interpretation and at a minimum it is clear that it is perfectly legal
to put some restrictions on gun ownership.  Though I would agree with
people who say that the second amendment is very awkwardly worded, which
has led to many needless arguments.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[MDixon6569]

 
In a message dated 2/3/08 9:18:28 A.M. Central Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

In a  message dated 2/3/08 8:46:19 A.M. Central Standard Time, 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]  writes:
> 
> > And you think the Republicans are going to lay  down and let the
> > Democrats just do as they please if Obama is  elected? The
> > socialist agenda of higher taxes and redistribution  of wealth,
> > with higher energy costs,
> 
> Don't  forget universal health care.
> 
> along with an erosion of the  Bill of 
> > Rights will be resisted strongly by Obama's  opposition.
> 
> Any Democrat who is elected will be  fighting
> tooth and nail to put the Bill of Rights and
> the rest  of the Constitution back together
> again after its merciless shredding  by the Bush
> administration.
> 
> Universal healthcare was  included in *higher taxes and
> redistribution of wealth*. Democrats  have fought tooth
> and nail to erode the first and second amendments  thru
> attacks on religious freedom, free political speech, and
>  the attempts to restrict gun ownership.

This is too ridiculous to even  deserve a comment.




Thank you, you just did.



**Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. 
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp00300025
48)

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[Richard J. Williams]

Robert wrote:
> ...the moral decay, 
>
"He balances a succinct discussion of each school's 
philosophy with the personal and moral (or, often, 
immoral) practices of its gurus." - David Marshall

'World of the Gurus'
by Vishal Mangalwadi
Cornerstone Press, Chicago, 1992 
http://tinyurl.com/2udnsb

> apathy;
>
Why Babaji, won't you put the pipe down, stand up 
and fight to save the children?

'The Fighting Ascetics of India'
by J.N. Farquhar 
University press, 1925

Fortified Temple of Fighting Ascetics:
http://tinyurl.com/2v82ze

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote:
> >
> >  
> > In a message dated 2/3/08 8:46:19 A.M. Central Standard Time,  
> > jstein@ writes:
> > 
> > > And  you think the Republicans are going to lay down and let the
> > > Democrats  just do as they please if Obama is elected? The
> > > socialist agenda of  higher taxes and redistribution of wealth,
> > > with higher energy  costs,
> > 
> > Don't forget universal health care.
> > 
> > along with an erosion  of the Bill of 
> > > Rights will be resisted strongly by Obama's  opposition.
> > 
> > Any Democrat who is elected will be fighting
> > tooth and  nail to put the Bill of Rights and
> > the rest of the Constitution back  together
> > again after its merciless shredding by the  Bush
> > administration.
> > 
> > Universal healthcare was included in *higher taxes and
> > redistribution of wealth*. Democrats have fought tooth
> > and nail to erode the first and second amendments thru
> > attacks on religious freedom, free political speech, and
> > the attempts to restrict gun ownership.
> 
> This is too ridiculous to even deserve a comment.


I've referred to Dixon's similar comments as: 'The continuing empty
rhetoric of a hopeless willfully blind passenger on the freaky leaky
right wing GOP sinking ship.' 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 2/3/08 8:46:19 A.M. Central Standard Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> > And  you think the Republicans are going to lay down and let the
> > Democrats  just do as they please if Obama is elected? The
> > socialist agenda of  higher taxes and redistribution of wealth,
> > with higher energy  costs,
> 
> Don't forget universal health care.
> 
> along with an erosion  of the Bill of 
> > Rights will be resisted strongly by Obama's  opposition.
> 
> Any Democrat who is elected will be fighting
> tooth and  nail to put the Bill of Rights and
> the rest of the Constitution back  together
> again after its merciless shredding by the  Bush
> administration.
> 
> Universal healthcare was included in *higher taxes and
> redistribution of wealth*. Democrats have fought tooth
> and nail to erode the first and second amendments thru
> attacks on religious freedom, free political speech, and
> the attempts to restrict gun ownership.

This is too ridiculous to even deserve a comment.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[MDixon6569]

 
In a message dated 2/3/08 8:50:42 A.M. Central Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Do I  think the status quo will change easily, no.
There will be all kinds of  resistance to change.
But, as we know, in a quatum mechanical  world-
It's all a matter of vibration of the field.
Barack Obama is  inspiring a higher vibration of the field.
If enough people can raise their  vibration the field will allow for 
more evolutionary change.
You will  see, that Hillary or McCain will win where people are rigid 
and afraid of  any real change.
Many Independents and Republicans are going with  Obama.
The whole political field is changing.
The status quo will do  everything it can to remain the same.
It's like the ego will find every-way  it can to hold onto to it's 
illusion of power, and in the same way, as the  vibration increases, 
as the tables are turned over in the Temple, the  status quo hits back 
in every-way it can.
It's a battle of staying in  the hut, or moving to higher ground.
If anyone thinks that Hillary Clinton  or John McCain can lead us to 
higher ground, well, we get the government  we deserve...



Oh Robert, you really are the idealist Chris Mathews spoke about a couple  of 
weeks ago, *full of high hopes and dreams* mixed with a dash of mysticism.  
Hope you aren't crushed too badly when the vibes fade and you all  of  the 
sudden have to wake up. 



**Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. 
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp00300025
48)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[MDixon6569]

 
In a message dated 2/3/08 8:46:19 A.M. Central Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> And  you think the Republicans are going to lay down and let the
> Democrats  just do as they please if Obama is elected? The
> socialist agenda of  higher taxes and redistribution of wealth,
> with higher energy  costs,

Don't forget universal health care.

along with an erosion  of the Bill of 
> Rights will be resisted strongly by Obama's  opposition.

Any Democrat who is elected will be fighting
tooth and  nail to put the Bill of Rights and
the rest of the Constitution back  together
again after its merciless shredding by the  Bush
administration.



Universal healthcare was included in *higher taxes and redistribution of  
wealth*. Democrats have fought tooth and nail to erode the first and second  
amendments thru attacks on religious freedom, free political speech, and the  
attempts to restrict gun ownership.



**Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. 
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp00300025
48)

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[Roberto]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 2/3/08 3:00:24 A.M. Central Standard Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> All the divisiveness needs to end, soon.
> If not, and we get another Republican President-
> Well, that, my friends, could be the end of this Democracy...
> Apathy, lies, division, war-mongering;
> Quite simply, we don't need any-more-of- the-  same
> 
> 
> 
> And you think the Republicans are going to lay down and let the 
Democrats  
> just do as they please if Obama is elected? The socialist agenda of 
higher taxes 
>  and redistribution of wealth, with higher energy costs, along with 
an 
> erosion of  the Bill of Rights will be resisted strongly by 
Obama's  opposition.
> 
 
Do I think the status quo will change easily, no.
There will be all kinds of resistance to change.
But, as we know, in a quatum mechanical world-
It's all a matter of vibration of the field.
Barack Obama is inspiring a higher vibration of the field.
If enough people can raise their vibration the field will allow for 
more evolutionary change.
You will see, that Hillary or McCain will win where people are rigid 
and afraid of any real change.
Many Independents and Republicans are going with Obama.
The whole political field is changing.
The status quo will do everything it can to remain the same.
It's like the ego will find every-way it can to hold onto to it's 
illusion of power, and in the same way, as the vibration increases, 
as the tables are turned over in the Temple, the status quo hits back 
in every-way it can.
It's a battle of staying in the hut, or moving to higher ground.
If anyone thinks that Hillary Clinton or John McCain can lead us to 
higher ground, well, we get the government we deserve...

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 2/3/08 3:00:24 A.M. Central Standard Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> All the divisiveness needs to end, soon.
> If not, and we get another Republican President-
> Well, that, my friends, could be the end of this Democracy...
> Apathy, lies, division, war-mongering;
> Quite simply, we don't need any-more-of- the-  same
> 
> And you think the Republicans are going to lay down and let the
> Democrats just do as they please if Obama is elected? The
> socialist agenda of higher taxes and redistribution of wealth,
> with higher energy costs,

Don't forget universal health care.

 along with an erosion of  the Bill of 
> Rights will be resisted strongly by Obama's  opposition.

Any Democrat who is elected will be fighting
tooth and nail to put the Bill of Rights and
the rest of the Constitution back together
again after its merciless shredding by the Bush
administration.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'The Clinton/Bush Years= Moral Decay of USA'

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What everyone is really concerned about;
>   Under the surface, is the moral decay, apathy;
>   From the 90's,  to date...
>   We need a change alright!
>   All the divisiveness needs to end, soon.
>   If not, and we get another Republican President-
>   Well, that, my friends, could be the end of this Democracy...
>   Apathy, lies, division, war-mongering;
>   Quite simply, we don't need any-more-of- the- same.


Are you gonna run for office?