O/T: Fired Up, Ready To Go

Page 7 of 9  
Lew Hodgett wrote:

Are you sure you really want to ask the question of how the government taking over 1/7 of the US economy equates to socialism -- the control of enterprise by the government? Or ask how having one citizen pay for another's health insurance is socialism? You really don't see how that is socialist?
--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It would be socialism, if it were happening. I haven't been able to find anything in any of the proposed bills that takes over private enterprise. Could you post some references? Thanks, Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Douglas Johnson wrote:

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. This isn't about what has been proposed, this is about the pleasure some folks take in being enraged over what they'd like to think is being proposed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

More to the point, what does government control of the health care system have to do with socialism.... EVERYTHING!
--
Jack
Got Change: General Motors ====> Government Motors!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:10:21 -0500, Jack Stein wrote:

If you don't think that land redistribution and socialism are bedmates, you need to read a little more history :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

What does owning private property have to do with SOCIALISM?
--
Jack
Got Change: Private Property ======> Government Property!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

ummm, you might want to check *your* numbers. Latest Rasmussen poll has opposition at 55% compared to 42% support for Obamacare. Other polls show similar results, even after heavily weighting democrat to republican in the sample bases. Worse for your argument, 44% strongly oppose the plan while only 23% strongly support it.
<http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

OK, how does transferring land that the government was holding to private individuals equate to socialism? Seems like that is shrinking government and government control of property and transferring it to private hands, the exact opposite of socialism. The government did not take that land from someone else to give it to another.
--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

It's not "socialism," it's tyranny when the government uses imminent doman to obtain the land in the first place so they can sell it to another private person or corporation.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's worse than that. In the case cited, Thomas Jefferson proposed giving away land that the government stole from it's previous owners. No imminent domain or other legal process. Just armed troops.
Of course, that is how most of the world's land has changed hands at some time or another.
-- Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Douglas Johnson wrote:

I hate to be a spelling Nazi but it's _em_inent domain. For some reason seeing it spelled "imminent" is bugging me like nails on a blackboard. "His land was in imminent danger of eminent domain" might be a way to remember it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your point is eminently correct. Do you know of a web sight that shows the difference?
-- Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Douglas Johnson wrote:

Well you might sight the difference at the WSU site, http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/eminent.html . For sight and site I cite http://homepage.smc.edu/quizzes/cheney_joyce/citesitesight.html .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

In this case, it was not eminent domain, this was frontier land. ... and no, Doug Johnson, I'm not going to engage you on your silly statements below.
--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:35:03 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Tell that to the Indians :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

Worcester vs. Georgia (1832)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Who took it from a group preceding them. None of us popped up here owning the land.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DGDevin wrote:

Death panels? Paid-for abortions? Treating illegal aliens? Rationing? Waiting lists?
I agree they are not in any of the pending bills. But here's the dirtly little secret:
They are not NOT in there! There is no language prohibiting them. If the people so quick to accuse health-care reform opponents of exaggeration and scare-mongering were serious, they'd add:
"No provision of this Act shall be used in any way to promote, advise, or provide for ..."
The fact that such additions are resisted speaks volumes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

heysoose christos, this has got to be the stupidest thing I've heard yet from looney HeyBub. Why should there be any language prohibiting them? This isn't constitutional, it can be ammended or struck (either way) at any time in the future.
idiot.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Scott Lurndal wrote:

Because all the bills set up agencies to administer the programs. Without the prohibitory language, the regulatory agencies are free to establish whatever criteria, requirements, permissions, or prohibitions the bureaucrats choose.
While you are correct that the bills - or eventual law - can be amended or changed, the fact that these conditions are not there at the outset is indicative of nefarious intent.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Flat not true. My mom had two hip replacements, one at 80 and one at 82. Medicare ("the government") approved and paid for both of them without the slightest problem.
I'm glad your wife is doing well. Those things are scary.
-- Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.