Conquer Club

Regardless, this 3 minute and 51 second clip explains quite clearly what the concerns with any possible health proposal would be.

If the Democrats in Congress would take the time to listen to the concerns of their constituents (which are described remarkably well in this clip for it being so brief) then it's possible that they would be able to achieve their objectives.

Unfortunately the odds of this happening are slim to none as the network which this was shown on has been effectively black listed.

http://www.foxnews.com/video/?playerId= ... ct=9123556

Fox has been blacklisted?

Funny, I still get the channels on my TV! Perhaps you are not familiar with the term "blacklisted". It was used to mean a list of people who, during the McCarthy era could not get jobs, sometimes could not rent or buy houses, etc. Lucille Ball was among those so targeted. Many, many folks had their careers ruined by those lists, and without ever having the chance to even know who accused them or, in many cases, what the accusations were. THAT was a black list.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Fox has been blacklisted?

Funny, I still get the channels on my TV! Perhaps you are not familiar with the term "blacklisted". It was used to mean a list of people who, during the McCarthy era could not get jobs, sometimes could not rent or buy houses, etc. Lucille Ball was among those so targeted. Many, many folks had their careers ruined by those lists, and without ever having the chance to even know who accused them or, in many cases, what the accusations were. THAT was a black list.

Player I think he means blacklisted in the fact that anyone who is smart enough to know they're biased, will stay away from them.

No, I think it means they said Obama was black.

If the Constitution bans something that I believe to be necessary in a just (perhaps not the right word, but something to that extent) society, then the Constitution is flawed. I would say, therefore, that it isn't necessarily important from a philosophical standpoint what existing law does and does not allow.

Whether something is just philosophically is completely different than being just legally. Philosophy should not come into play when deciding the legality of an action. If it did, then there would be no point to have the law.

If the Constitution is flawed, there's a process to amend it. Until then, it can't be rewritten, even if you think it's necessary.

Night Strike wrote:Whether something is just philosophically is completely different than being just legally. Philosophy should not come into play when deciding the legality of an action. If it did, then there would be no point to have the law.

If the Constitution is flawed, there's a process to amend it. Until then, it can't be rewritten, even if you think it's necessary.

I'm saying that although something might not be easily done politically, pointing out that it is not within the bounds of the current law does little to convince me of its morality. Women's and minority's rights were not originally entailed by the Constitution, and that is no longer the case. I feel that whatever is needed to be done to get universal health care should be done, and if the Constitution bars it then the Constitution needs to be amended.

GabonX wrote:Regardless, this 3 minute and 51 second clip explains quite clearly what the concerns with any possible health proposal would be.

If the Democrats in Congress would take the time to listen to the concerns of their constituents (which are described remarkably well in this clip for it being so brief) then it's possible that they would be able to achieve their objectives.

Unfortunately the odds of this happening are slim to none as the network which this was shown on has been effectively black listed.

http://www.foxnews.com/video/?playerId= ... ct=9123556

Once again, it seems you did not pay close attention to a link YOU Provided. In this case, even the Fox news guy pointed out repeatedly that the health care bill is not going to deny anyone the right to choose their own doctor, to select private insurance.

What MAY be mandated is that people buy some kind of insurance. The issue is that everyone who does not buy insurance is, admit is or not already covered by tax payers. BUT, that coverage is only for the absolute most expensive kinds of care -- life and death emergency room treatments. Forcing you to get insurance is to SAVE all of the rest of use tax money.

Congress has the specific right to provide for the health and well-being of citizens. Health care certainly falls within that realm.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Fox has been blacklisted?

Funny, I still get the channels on my TV! Perhaps you are not familiar with the term "blacklisted". It was used to mean a list of people who, during the McCarthy era could not get jobs, sometimes could not rent or buy houses, etc. Lucille Ball was among those so targeted. Many, many folks had their careers ruined by those lists, and without ever having the chance to even know who accused them or, in many cases, what the accusations were. THAT was a black list.

I think we're much closer to this kind of thing than you realize. We have Americans being banned from other countries for exercising their right to free speech as well as a disturbing movement in the democratic party which seeks to take away the ability of conservative commentators to broadcast. I've posted an article about the President gathering information on citizens IF they oppose his health care reform. He's making a list and he's checking it twice.. (This is illegal by the way and it has been so since Nixon left office)

We also have a homeland security department which has made a number of disturbing comments which seem to imply that if you oppose the President's agenda, you may very well be a domestic terrorist.

If you need more evidence of what is happening, look at the post immediately following yours. People (seemingly including yourself) will denounce any information which comes from fox and then will pick one of any number of liberal media outlets to be indoctrinated by. For a person to be well informed they need to receive information from a variety of sources with opposing views.

Because there are many liberal outlets (and people do usually choose to watch the more extreme ones primarily) and only one major conservative outlet, I submit to you that you cannot be a well informed individual without watching Fox News.

P.S. You've all done a great job of avoiding any relevant discussion regarding the concerns of the majority of Americans about health care reform. I guess 3:51 is too much time to spend on reconciliation if the clip was broadcast on Fox

PLAYER57832 wrote:

GabonX wrote:Regardless, this 3 minute and 51 second clip explains quite clearly what the concerns with any possible health proposal would be.

If the Democrats in Congress would take the time to listen to the concerns of their constituents (which are described remarkably well in this clip for it being so brief) then it's possible that they would be able to achieve their objectives.

Unfortunately the odds of this happening are slim to none as the network which this was shown on has been effectively black listed.

http://www.foxnews.com/video/?playerId= ... ct=9123556

Once again, it seems you did not pay close attention to a link YOU Provided. In this case, even the Fox news guy pointed out repeatedly that the health care bill is not going to deny anyone the right to choose their own doctor, to select private insurance.

What MAY be mandated is that people buy some kind of insurance. The issue is that everyone who does not buy insurance is, admit is or not already covered by tax payers. BUT, that coverage is only for the absolute most expensive kinds of care -- life and death emergency room treatments. Forcing you to get insurance is to SAVE all of the rest of use tax money.

Congress has the specific right to provide for the health and well-being of citizens. Health care certainly falls within that realm.

I did pay attention. The problem is that YOU do not pay attention or give any credence to anything which YOU do not want to hear.

The senator responded to the question very well. I don't know if you saw a blank screen or what but he made a great point that if Obama and the Democrats really believe that, language protecting people's rights should be included in the bill.

It is not, and until it is the bill is unacceptable. Forcing people to buy insurance is 100% unacceptable. It puts people in debt for breathing and makes our status as a citizen similar to that of a Russian Serf.

We know that this is only the first step in a longer process, even if it is not the intent of the current administration. There can be no compromise on this.

jonesthecurl wrote:No, I think it means they said Obama was black.

i knew it!!!!! i said it this whole time!!!! no one believed me but i knew it!!!!!!!!!!!11

targetman377 wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:No, I think it means they said Obama was black.

i knew it!!!!! i said it this whole time!!!! no one believed me but i knew it!!!!!!!!!!!11

Now that you've grasped basic spelling you may want to look into capitalisation.

GabonX wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

GabonX wrote:Regardless, this 3 minute and 51 second clip explains quite clearly what the concerns with any possible health proposal would be.

If the Democrats in Congress would take the time to listen to the concerns of their constituents (which are described remarkably well in this clip for it being so brief) then it's possible that they would be able to achieve their objectives.

Unfortunately the odds of this happening are slim to none as the network which this was shown on has been effectively black listed.

http://www.foxnews.com/video/?playerId= ... ct=9123556

Once again, it seems you did not pay close attention to a link YOU Provided. In this case, even the Fox news guy pointed out repeatedly that the health care bill is not going to deny anyone the right to choose their own doctor, to select private insurance.

What MAY be mandated is that people buy some kind of insurance. The issue is that everyone who does not buy insurance is, admit is or not already covered by tax payers. BUT, that coverage is only for the absolute most expensive kinds of care -- life and death emergency room treatments. Forcing you to get insurance is to SAVE all of the rest of use tax money.

Congress has the specific right to provide for the health and well-being of citizens. Health care certainly falls within that realm.

I did pay attention. The problem is that YOU do not pay attention or give any credence to anything which YOU do not want to hear.

The senator responded to the question very well. I don't know if you saw a blank screen or what but he made a great point that if Obama and the Democrats really believe that, language protecting people's rights should be included in the bill.

It is not, and until it is the bill is unacceptable. Forcing people to buy insurance is 100% unacceptable. It puts people in debt for breathing and makes our status as a citizen similar to that of a Russian Serf.

We know that this is only the first step in a longer process, even if it is not the intent of the current administration. There can be no compromise on this.

First, he was a state representative, not federal. He did not actually say any bill violated the 10th amendment, he said he wanted to put forward a bill in Georgia to "protect citizens", "in case", to ensure they could choose to pay for their own doctors if they chose. (but, as the interviewer pointed out, people have the right to choose their own insurance and doctor in the bill).

The basic problem is that whether in Georgia or any other state, everyone already HAS automatic emergency coverage. And, they can be forced into bankruptcy or put on the taxpayer's dollar to pay for it. It is not optional, it is mandated that any hospital offer emergency treatment already.

This bill will ensure that you and I do not have to pay the huge bills for such people. They will be required to have their own insurance. If they cannot afford it, insurance will be provided for them by the government. This guy wants Georgia to opt out, but it will wind up costing US more money in the long run.