Healthcare bill will pass the senate.

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3193484
Vini, that's your pat childish answer whenever someone disagrees with your slanted viewpoint. Well hey, I can turn it around and say if you don't like the direction this country is heading, YOU MOVE. It's people like you with one-sided logic that's actually destroying the makeup of this country. If you got rid of everyone on the far right (like yourself), and everyone on the far left (hate to disappoint you, but that's not me), you'd probably see this country run more efficiently for the betterment of ALL Americans, regardless of their party affiliation.
And i would say that if everyone from the far left and right would just adhere to the friggin US Constitution and stop with all the self serving interpretations we would be in a lot better shape. And you move ,you live closer to the boarder than I and you might like it better over the boarder in Mexico.

 

[stevedave08]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3193492
Here in San Antonio, I'm already taxed like Germany's system. I pay approximately 4% of the appraised value of my home on an annual basis in property taxes. In the last 5 years, the appraised value of my home has gone up over 40%, when in reality, I couldn't sell it for anywhere close to what the County appraisers have it appraised for. Of that 4%, one percent goes to the County Healthcare system to help fund the County hospital and its associated clinics. The County hospital takes in all the indigent 'uninsured' individuals that cannot afford health insurance and pretty much provide them free healthcare. Of course they're supposed to treat only those who have emergency illnessses, but someone with just a high fever is considered 'emergency' in their minds. So if the Federal healthcare bill took this route, I'd probably save money on my taxes in the long run.
I'll agree with you on that. The house that I live in now, I've had for a long time. It was rented out (by me) for several years before I decided to move in there, fix it up and make it my home. I was paying $4,800 a year in taxes at their highest. When I moved in, I applied for my homestead exemption. When I got my taxes the next year, they had only gone down about $300-$400. The assessed value went up as soon as my homestead exemption went into effect. What a coincidence. I'd much rather pay based on sq footage than by some imaginary assessed value hat only the county goes by, and if that money went toward the healthcare for my family? I'd be happy as Veni Vidi Vici at a tea party. Except if someone asked me a question, I could answer it coherently without going off about the "storm".

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3193493
I currently reside in Ocala FL.Maybe someday we can sit down a have a debate about the storm and my arrogance .I call it boldness and confidence in my beliefs BTW.
It is ironic, it is ok for senators to call anyone who disagrees with Obama a racist. But it isn't ok, for you to disagree with them. Otherwise you're a jerk fringe nutcase or whatever word they used.. In their minds discourse is, you must be respectful, and they can say or do whatever they want. And it is all above board...
Never mind their arguments are so bad they are insulting.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by SteveDave08
http:///forum/post/3193498
I'll agree with you on that. The house that I live in now, I've had for a long time. It was rented out (by me) for several years before I decided to move in there, fix it up and make it my home. I was paying $4,800 a year in taxes at their highest. When I moved in, I applied for my homestead exemption. When I got my taxes the next year, they had only gone down about $300-$400. The assessed value went up as soon as my homestead exemption went into effect. What a coincidence. I'd much rather pay based on sq footage than by some imaginary assessed value hat only the county goes by, and if that money went toward the healthcare for my family? I'd be happy as Veni Vidi Vici at a tea party. Except if someone asked me a question, I could answer it coherently without going off about the "storm".
Here is your coherent answer to health care,Its not provided for in or by the US Constitution and is referred to in the X amendment.And please dont go the with the general welfare clause argument its been debunked many times.

 

[stevedave08]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3193497
And i would say that if everyone from the far left and right would just adhere to the friggin US Constitution and stop with all the self serving interpretations we would be in a lot better shape. And you move ,you live closer to the boarder than I and you might like it better over the boarder in Mexico.
Surprisingly, I agree, as long as we're not talking about going back in time hundreds of years by not amending the constitution when needed, be it due to technological advancements, scientific discoveries, or advancement as people as a whole.
A good example would be weapons.
"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."
"The concept of a universal militia originated in England. The requirement that subjects keep and bear arms for military duty dates back to at least the 12th century when King Henry II, in the Assize of Arms, obligated all freemen to bear arms for public defense. King Henry III required certain subjects between the ages of fifteen and fifty (including non-land-owning subjects) to bear arms. The reason for such a requirement was that without a regular army and police force (which was not established until 1829), it was the duty of certain men to keep watch and ward at night to capture and confront suspicious persons. Every subject had an obligation to protect the king’s peace and assist in the suppression of riots."
If you want to be a strict constitutionalist, then conceptually, no private citizen should ever have owned a gun after our military and law enforcement system was put into place.
I'm simply using this as an example against your logic. I am completely against banning private ownership of weapons. I own several and feel that if someone is of sound mind and judgement and wants to own weapons for the defense of his family and property then so be it. In case of an invasion by another country (which is most improbable) citizens would be able to fight back if they needed to. However, does a Joe Schmoe really need a grenade launcher attached to his AR-15? I have an AR, but cool as a grenade launcher might be, I've never had the compulsion to buy one. Even if you did buy one, it would be illegal to buy the ammo for it. It makes no sense, but I'm going off on a tangent. Veni, lets go fishing sometime.

 

[fishtaco]

It always is sad when someone starts going on about the Constitution in one post, then seems to suggest armed revolution by the MINORITY is the answer in another. Like it or hate it, the Dems and Obama are the legally elected majority in this country and for every statement by the founding father's you can find trying to bind your religion into the working laws of this country you can find others that lean the opposite direction to the point where the founding father's seem to be pandering both ways. I'm also wondering why the founding father's very heavy involvement with the Mason's is ignored even though one needs not look far to come the conclusion it played just as much if not more of a role in the foundation of this country as the Christian faith. In conclusion, I don't like people threatening me with armed conflict because they where voted out of power and as a independant and moderate voter, why in the world would I vote the anything the far-right conservatives want for this country when it reminds me more of the type of religious theocracy one would see in Iran than anything the founding fathers had in mind.
Peaceful transfer of power is one of the truly great things about this country and if you don't like the current government, vote to change it next election and leave your guns and bibles at home.
Fishtaco

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by SteveDave08
http:///forum/post/3193513
If you want to be a strict constitutionalist, then conceptually, no private citizen should ever have owned a gun after our military and law enforcement system was put into place.
You do know the supreme court did just have a ruling and did not accept your interpritation of the amendment...
Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3193515
It always is sad when someone starts going on about the Constitution in one post, then seems to suggest armed revolution by the MINORITY is the answer in another.
Peaceful transfer of power is one of the truly great things about this country and if you don't like the current government, vote to change it next election and leave your guns and bibles at home.
Fishtaco
If you want to talk Minority, lets talk this healthcare bill, there isn't majority support for this healthcare bill...

 

[stevedave08]

Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3193515
It always is sad when someone starts going on about the Constitution in one post, then seems to suggest armed revolution by the MINORITY is the answer in another. Like it or hate it, the Dems and Obama are the legally elected majority in this country and for every statement by the founding father's you can find trying to bind your religion into the working laws of this country you can find others that lean the opposite direction to the point where the founding father's seem to be pandering both ways. I'm also wondering why the founding father's very heavy involvement with the Mason's is ignored even though one needs not look far to come the conclusion it played just as much if not more of a role in the foundation of this country as the Christian faith. In conclusion, I don't like people threatening me with armed conflict because they where voted out of power and as a independant and moderate voter, why in the world would I vote the anything the far-right conservatives want for this country when it reminds me more of the type of religious theocracy one would see in Iran than anything the founding fathers had in mind.
Peaceful transfer of power is one of the truly great things about this country and if you don't like the current government, vote to change it next election and leave your guns and bibles at home.
Fishtaco
That's the funniest part to me. In the eyes of the "storm brewers", for lack of a better and non-slandering name, they are the militia and are defending the constitution when, in fact, the militia is now what we call our armed forces. Should there be a "storm", guess who the "storm brewers" will be up against? THE UNITED STATED MILITARY.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by SteveDave08
http:///forum/post/3193513
Surprisingly, I agree, as long as we're not talking about going back in time hundreds of years by not amending the constitution when needed, be it due to technological advancements, scientific discoveries, or advancement as people as a whole.
A good example would be weapons.
"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."
"The concept of a universal militia originated in England. The requirement that subjects keep and bear arms for military duty dates back to at least the 12th century when King Henry II, in the Assize of Arms, obligated all freemen to bear arms for public defense. King Henry III required certain subjects between the ages of fifteen and fifty (including non-land-owning subjects) to bear arms. The reason for such a requirement was that without a regular army and police force (which was not established until 1829), it was the duty of certain men to keep watch and ward at night to capture and confront suspicious persons. Every subject had an obligation to protect the king’s peace and assist in the suppression of riots."
If you want to be a strict constitutionalist, then conceptually, no private citizen should ever have owned a gun after our military and law enforcement system was put into place.
I'm simply using this as an example against your logic. I am completely against banning private ownership of weapons. I own several and feel that if someone is of sound mind and judgement and wants to own weapons for the defense of his family and property then so be it. In case of an invasion by another country (which is most improbable) citizens would be able to fight back if they needed to. However, does a Joe Schmoe really need a grenade launcher attached to his AR-15? I have an AR, but cool as a grenade launcher might be, I've never had the compulsion to buy one. Even if you did buy one, it would be illegal to buy the ammo for it. It makes no sense, but I'm going off on a tangent. Veni, lets go fishing sometime.
There is nothing in the 2nd amendment tying arms ownership to being in the militia. It says to insure the ability to form up a militia the right to own firearms would be enshrined. Just because we no longer need militia's doesn't eliminate that right without removing it through the amendment process.
This is the problem we have with our government now days. The politicians presume and assume to interpret the constitution how they think it should be applied to current situations. Free speech is free speech whether it is delivered by a town crier or the internet although electrionic media wasn't even a dream back then. That doesn't change over time yet there are a whole lot of people who try to use the militia argument to remove our right to possess guns. If the government would just respect the 10th amendment we would all be better off

 

[dragonzim]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3193463
Your ignorance on the subject makes a discusion with you impossible.Let me just say this just because you dont believe in GOD dosent mean the founders of this country did not and btw they did .Read dumbass and you shall find the truth on the subject.
It was the same founders who set us up so that there would be a SEPARATION between church and state. That line is so thin now you could shave with it.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by DragonZim
http:///forum/post/3193539
It was the same founders who set us up so that there would be a SEPARATION between church and state. That line is so thin now you could shave with it.
Where in the constitution or bill of rights is that again?
And give me examples of how the line is thin....

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3193492
Here in San Antonio, I'm already taxed like Germany's system.
No you aren't. You pay an apprised property tax, which they do. Then ON TOP OF THAT TAX they pay a set price per square foot their homes are over the alloted limit given/ plus a penalty.

 

[reefraff]

I think a revolution would be good for the country but I am not talking about taking up arms. We arent even close to it coming to that point. I would love to see about a 40% turnover in the up coming election with a lot of those Tea Party people getting elected. Despite what the media is reporting there are a broad range of political views represented at those rallies, it isn't just a bunch of right wing nut cases.

 

[stevedave08]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3193537
There is nothing in the 2nd amendment tying arms ownership to being in the militia. It says to insure the ability to form up a militia the right to own firearms would be enshrined. Just because we no longer need militia's doesn't eliminate that right without removing it through the amendment process.
This is the problem we have with our government now days. The politicians presume and assume to interpret the constitution how they think it should be applied to current situations. Free speech is free speech whether it is delivered by a town crier or the internet although electrionic media wasn't even a dream back then. That doesn't change over time yet there are a whole lot of people who try to use the militia argument to remove our right to possess guns. If the government would just respect the 10th amendment we would all be better off
Disclaimer. I'm against eliminating the right to bear arms.

I was using it as an example for strict constitutionalists. Conceptually, it was tied to the militia, although I do agree that private citizens should always have the right to keep and bear arms. I don't believe the militia has been removed, as much as it's now become our military and there is really no need for a militia. Private citizens can keep and bear arms and we have the U.S. military in case of conflict (foreign or domestic). There is no national organized militia of private citizens. Little groups of wannabe comandos are around, but nothing significant.

 

[fishtaco]

There is nothing in the 2nd amendment tying arms ownership to being in the militia. It says to insure the ability to form up a militia the right to own firearms would be enshrined. Just because we no longer need militia's doesn't eliminate that right without removing it through the amendment process.
This is the problem we have with our government now days. The politicians presume and assume to interpret the constitution how they think it should be applied to current situations. Free speech is free speech whether it is delivered by a town crier or the internet although electrionic media wasn't even a dream back then. That doesn't change over time yet there are a whole lot of people who try to use the militia argument to remove our right to possess guns. If the government would just respect the 10th amendment we would all be better off[/QUOTE
You know the very best way to keep everyones gun rights? Show up at the capital with signs that say "this time we are not armed".
Fishtaco

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by SteveDave08
http:///forum/post/3193549
Disclaimer. I'm against eliminating the right to bear arms.

I was using it as an example for strict constitutionalists. Conceptually, it was tied to the militia, although I do agree that private citizens should always have the right to keep and bear arms. I don't believe the militia has been removed, as much as it's now become our military and there is really no need for a militia. Private citizens can keep and bear arms and we have the U.S. military in case of conflict (foreign or domestic). There is no national organized militia of private citizens. Little groups of wannabe comandos are around, but nothing significant.
I got what you were saying, I was just using your example of the militia argument as what happens when we allow politicians to ignore the rule book. Another example is Abortion. Nowhere in the constitution is it addressed yet we apply a standard of privacy around abortion that exists in no other aspect of out lives. And for the record I am not for banning those either.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3193552
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3193537
There is nothing in the 2nd amendment tying arms ownership to being in the militia. It says to insure the ability to form up a militia the right to own firearms would be enshrined. Just because we no longer need militia's doesn't eliminate that right without removing it through the amendment process.
This is the problem we have with our government now days. The politicians presume and assume to interpret the constitution how they think it should be applied to current situations. Free speech is free speech whether it is delivered by a town crier or the internet although electrionic media wasn't even a dream back then. That doesn't change over time yet there are a whole lot of people who try to use the militia argument to remove our right to possess guns. If the government would just respect the 10th amendment we would all be better off
You know the very best way to keep everyones gun rights? Show up at the capital with signs that say "this time we are not armed".
Fishtaco
Yeah, that makes the case

I wouldn't carry around a sign like that but I sure wouldn't wish the job of confiscating my guns on anyone either

 

[fishtaco]

Enjoyed everyones comments except for Vedi's on the bottom of this thread, but it is time for me to mount up and move out in the urban assault vehicle and make the trek into town to find the perfect present for the wife and stimulate the economy a little bit.
Fishtaco

 

[stevedave08]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3193491
Good arguments from the left, example.
http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/w...are-birthers-/
People who oppose this bill are extreemists. From the floor of the senate...
Umm, yeah, what did he say that wasn't true? He specifically called out birthers and fringe people. It absolutely is true that the GOP is using these people to build up steam. You don't see them correcting anyone, or trying to quell unreasonable comments/actions by these people that are based on blind assumptions or just straight up hatred.

 

[stevedave08]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3193555
I got what you were saying, I was just using your example of the militia argument as what happens when we allow politicians to ignore the rule book. Another example is Abortion. Nowhere in the constitution is it addressed yet we apply a standard of privacy around abortion that exists in no other aspect of out lives. And for the record I am not for banning those either.
I got you. I totally agree with you on all of that.