If you are going to argue a point...back up your claims with documentation...or shut the eff up!!!
You need to take your own advice and butt out.
Your insinuation into things is not appropriate and not wanted, though, you probably haven't the manners to understand.
You repeatedly post pure bs, adulterated only by publication out of the blue and without basis, via the far right-wing propaganda machine and clearly haven't the where-with-all to know the facts. You are a Party line hack cut and paster of right-wing talking points and nothing else.
IP: Logged |
posted
straight from Billary's own website no "propaganda" no "slander",
no lies by me, anyway...
read it and weep budge.
March 2, 2004 Senator Clinton Welcomes Approval of Assault Weapons Ban and Closure of Gun Show Loophole Provisions
Washington, DC – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) issued the following statement upon Senate passage of amendments reauthorizing the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole:
"The vote reauthorizing the assault weapons ban is a vote in support of a public safety initiative that works. According to a report issued by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the assault weapons ban passed ten years ago has resulted in a substantial decline in the use of those weapons in crimes.
Law enforcement officers know this ban has made their work safer which is why so many of them, across the country, lined up to support it. I believe we should put the interests of the men and women who protect us from crime ahead of the interests of the NRA. Assault weapons are designed for one thing – killing people.
Closing the gun show loophole is also a tremendous step forward. That loophole allows people who are otherwise prohibited from buying guns to buy them from unlicensed dealers at gun shows without facing a background check. This includes terrorists and other criminals who are purchasing these guns in order to do violence. Closing the loophole will give meaning and value to our system of requiring background checks for the purchase of guns and will not hinder purchases made by law abiding citizens.
I urge my colleagues in the House to support these provisions and I call on President Bush to ensure they become law."
posted
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Amendment (Feinstein Amdt. No. 2637 ) Vote Number: 24 Vote Date: March 2, 2004, 11:38 AM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2637 to S. 1805 Statement of Purpose: To provide for a 10-year extension of the assault weapons ban. Vote Counts: YEAs 52 NAYs 47
posted
"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans ...... And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities." -- U.S. President Bill Clinton, on MTV 3-22-94 In this comment, in addition to declaring the Constitution a "radical document," Bill Clinton is totally ignoring the Fourth Amendment.
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans." -- William Jefferson Clinton, USA Today, March 11, 1993.
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step." -- Janet Reno
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, "I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." --U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95
"The American people must be willing to give up a degree of personal privacy in exchange for safety and security." -- Louis Freeh Director of the FBI, 1993
‘The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non ["something essential" lit. "without which not"] for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police.’’ -- Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
The first step is to take weapons off the streets and to put more police on them. The Brady Bill, which my husband signed into law in 1995, imposes a 5-day waiting period for gun purchases, time enough for authorities to check out a buyer's record and for the buyer to cool down about any conflict he might have intended the gun to resolve. Since it was enacted, more than 40,000 people with criminal records have been prevented from buying guns. The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act banned 19 types of military-style assault weapons whose only purpose is to kill people.
Source: It Takes A Village, by Hillary Clinton, p.126 Sep 25, 1996
seems to me that if anybody is "guilty" of lying about the Gun Ban it's well? it's Hillary herself...
as a matter of act? she does that alot... almost as much as Bill does...
i can do this for weeks on end Budge. find the lies.
you don't really want me to keep posting all of them do you? cuz there's literally thousands of their lies in print. i did not have seckshal relations wit doze wimmen ..LOL.
i think Obama is pulling away from her too fast for her to make up enough ground by the convention, but we'll see waht the super-DEAL-egates do..
they'll prolly destroy their own party on the eve of a "gimme" election.... circular firing squad etc....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
banned 19 types of military-style assault weapons whose only purpose is to kill people.
like it or not? the constitution was NOT written for sportsmen ...
it was written for the people to be able to kill or maim other people in their own defense...
it says so in so many words...
Militia:
* Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws. * The entire able-bodied male (and perhaps female) population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.
* A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up. * A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.
* A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
it had nothing to do with the State or the government in it's use...
well regulated meant practiced and efficient....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by T e x: "seems to me that if anybody is "guilty" of lying about the Gun Ban it's well? it's Hillary herself..."
What'd she lie about?
very simply Tex, according to budge? it isn't even a gun ban, yet she and Bill continue to call it one. that's the first lie. it goes on and on and on... when i get called a liar and a slandereer for repeating their words? i tend to raise the level my assault.
remeber that i began "bashing" the Clintons due to their behaviour after Iowa. a large portion of the Democratic party agreed with my decision that Bill was not good for the party. Hillary herself has obviously told him to tone it down.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by T e x: not asking about beedge... are you saying sometime she said it isn't a ban, then later says it is?
tp my knowledge? neither of the Clintons have ever called it anything other than an assault weapons ban...
which? oddly enough means budge is correct and i agree with him one one point. it was not a ban, and never was.
there is much more tho, it was never about ASSAULT weapons (full auto or select fire "storm troopers" weapons) and these SEMI-AUTO weapons are not ASSAULT weapons.. they are simply semi-automatic weapons that, in most cases, have some "miltary STYLE" features..
these features make them no more or less dangerous than other guns never mentioned in the ban....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
I thought the point was to remove semis that could be easily converted to full, first, and also had "extras" not usually associated with hunting, ie, again "one-step away" from true assault weapons...
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
posted
"easily"? converted? none of them are "easy" unless you are a machinist. and then you can make one from any gun...
some are easier than others. but the list of banned guns was not nearly all about conversions...
the ban also did nothing to act upon legally available full auto weapons....
most important? the constitutions said absolutely nothing about hunting and or sportsmen...
in other words? this law showed just as much disrepsect to the constitution as Bush has with his eavesdropping laws and other laws...
here:
read the Supreme courts decision on sawed off shotgus...
the argument FOR the government was that a sawed off has no use to a militia:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use ofa `shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees theright to keep and bear such an instrument," wrote McReynolds. By this standard, the Court found that Congress had not violated the Second Amendment by passing the Firearms Act. "Certainly," McReynolds added, "it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
McReynolds was also the author of the controversial decision in United States v. Miller 307 U.S. 174 (1939), which is the only Supreme Court case that directly involves the Second Amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clark_McReynolds
it's a thin argument, but the govt wants to go both ways in their argument. on one hand? they banned sawed offs because they aren't useful for defense, on the other hand? they wanted to ban military style weapons which BY DEFINTION are used in defense...
by calling them ASSAULT weapons? they make them sound like they are only used to ASSAULT people, but a true assault weapon is a machine gun or a short barreled select fire (full auto) weapon...
simply put? it's just gun grabbing....
banning a gun cuz it has a bayonete lug on it is the epitome of spitting on the constitution cuz a bayonnette is really only as good as a defensive weapon...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
We were at a hospital emergency room on Monday around 4 pm. It was a hospital that also specializes in kids sicknesses. It was packed.
I commented to my wife how busy it was considering the time of day. She stated that a lot of people do not have insurance so they can't go to many of the doctors unless they have the cash. Most hospitals have to take them no matter what.
It really ties up the hospitals and emergency rooms but they have no choice. Sad situation.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: We were at a hospital emergency room on Monday around 4 pm. It was a hospital that also specializes in kids sicknesses. It was packed.
I commented to my wife how busy it was considering the time of day. She stated that a lot of people do not have insurance so they can't go to many of the doctors unless they have the cash. Most hospitals have to take them no matter what.
It really ties up the hospitals and emergency rooms but they have no choice. Sad situation.
Around here, there's designated hospitals. True, no emergency room can turn down an emergency--as far as I know--but then there's interpretations. As in, for example, "we don't expect patient death within one hour."
The problem is, as structured, the system demands payment even if you declare upfront that you're broke, homeless, etc. Well, let's say, the very competent medical staff goes on to provide top care despite your stated inability to repay. Then, later, you're charged, let's say, $112,00.00
on a bill that could've been $15,000 (or less--just trying to keep it real).
And, kids? It happens alla time...
So, no matter what, you gotta dig outta that mess before you can go on to anything major...Sure, you'll have a few months before it shows up on your credit report. But once it does? Well, even apartments do credit checks, now...
In other words, you need to be able to turn that medical emergency around post haste...
Otherwise, if you're marginal...it might be wise to start packing your "street bag."
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
We know the hospitals bill everyone like they bill the insurance companies. But the insurance companies get them to take a lot less under their contracts.
Real tough for those families to get out of that hole unless they can change their name easily.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: I forgot about that part of it.
We know the hospitals bill everyone like they bill the insurance companies. But the insurance companies get them to take a lot less under their contracts.
Real tough for those families to get out of that hole unless they can change their name easily.
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: I forgot about that part of it.
We know the hospitals bill everyone like they bill the insurance companies. But the insurance companies get them to take a lot less under their contracts.
Real tough for those families to get out of that hole unless they can change their name easily.
chicken and egg... In other words, we know hospitals overcharge ($350 for Kleenex, lol--may not be "accurate" but you catch my drift), versus Insurance Companies that deny *everything* ... at least on first-round presenatation.
So... no wonder that hospitals overcharge: They can't get paid by their major insurance providers...
Viscious circle.
It must be stopped...
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
quote:It appears by law emergency rooms must see any patient reguardless of ability to pay.
ya, logically, there's no other way.
And I agree. Stabilize the patient: keep 'em alive and healthy and don't spare one drop of magic medicine. Well... maybe a few drops could be spared, once they're stabilizing...
But for Pete's Sake, do *NOT* dogpile the extra bennies as though it's a president or Hugh Hefner...
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
quote:The problem is, as structured, the system demands payment even if you declare upfront that you're broke, homeless, etc.
The "system" doesn't demand payment, the hospitals, doctors, nurses, cleaning staff, administrative staff, and everyone else demands payment and they certainly must receive it or they won't be there.
Should a doctor work for free because people don't want to pay for insurance? Should a nurse work free because people are too lazy to work? Should the manufacturer of a cat scan machine sell the machine for free because millions of homeless people choose to be drug addicts? RIDICULOUS.
People need to be responsible for their actions. Health care is NOT a right. It is a product and like any other product, you've got to pay for it.
In my opinion, one of the BIG problems with the "system" is that the government does not require a significant co-pay for people on medicaid. That's why the emergency rooms are filled with medicaid patients who have a cold. It doesn't cost them anything to go to the emergency room, so they go for every little thing. I have very good insurance, but it has a significant co-pay. I think about that co-pay and only go to the hospital when I have a REAL EMERGENCY. When I have a cold, I go to Kroger's and buy cold medicine.
IP: Logged |
posted
...Back to the issue of cities not wanting homeless on the sidewalks. In reality, the truth is a little stronger than that. The truth is that many cities don't want the drug addicts, homeless, and other deadbeats anywhere in the city and they are increasingly passing laws to get the deadbeats out.
In Ohio, many cities (including mine) have "nuisance" laws that fine the landlord if the police are called to a rental property frequently. The PURPOSE of these laws is to force landlords to evict the "undesirable" people from the property and therefore the city. Of course, the city won't say that in so many words, but that's the clear purpose for these laws and "off the record" the city council people will tell you so.
I met with our city's nuisance board this week to discuss an apartment building we took over. The building currently contains many druggies, homeless living with the druggies, and other deadbeats. The city had already fined the previous owner of the building repeatedly for having a lot of police calls to this address.
The reality of the situation is that the city is forcing landlords to be the defacto police. Since landlords can't arrest the deadbeats and can't change their behavior, the only thing the landlord can do is evict the tenants. Of course, I would do that anyway. There is no money to be made by housing drug addicts, drug dealers, criminals, and other deadbeats. I'm in business to make money, not house non-paying criminals. My purpose in meeting with the nuisance board was to proactively let them know that I was evicting the problem tenants so that they wouldn't attempt to fine me while I was getting all this done.
IP: Logged |
if health care is not a right ? then there are no rights.
what you fail to understand is that "universal" health care is in everyones very best interest because it keeps diseases that you can actually catch by breathing the same air at a minimum.
the plague doesn't discriminate, it sure as heck didn't discriminate when it took over a 1/3 of Europe. of course it was transerred by fleas that had fed off of infested rats. got rats in any of your buildings? LOL..
did you know that nobody WON WW1? it was called off early due to a flu pandemic. the flu doesn't discriminate either. and if you want a pandemic? just ignore sick people for a year or two, you'll have one quick.
if you guys would stop providing slums for peopl to live in? they wouldn't live in 'em? LOL...
Bush says he's created plenty of jobs so it must be somebodies fault we have poor people... median household income has dropped under Bush significantly...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
