Parts of it and I have problems with the law. The most distasteful
things are usually wrapped in appeals to patriotism. As I understand
it, it requires legislative renewal. That's a Good Thing. More than
anything, I can't help but wonder what its supporters will say after
its powers are wielded by President Barry HUSSEIN Obama.
When extraordinary circumstances require unusual laws - say ones
that have the potential to become used to abuse civil liberties
because the problems of the moment may mandate it - we should
at least demand two things:
Sunshine - The law is clear, its terms and scope precise, and its
effects clearly laid out for all to see.
Sunset - The law in question should have an expiration date -
and a short one at that.
I don't worry about Patriot *right now*. I worry what happens when
it becomes a permanent fixture of American law and gets in the hands
of some future petty tyrant or wannabe dictator (and no, for all you
Bush-haters, that's not W, however much you don't like him). I'd like
to see laws like Patriot automatically expire annually and force
the politicians to publicly re-declare that we still need them.
On a broader note, what we really need to do is amend the Constitution
and replace the House and Senate with one legislative branch that
*makes* laws - and requires a 2/3 majority for passage, and another
branch that *repeals* laws with a simple majority. Having a built
in process to get rid of contentious laws quickly would go a long
way to eliminating abuses that are latent in something like Patriot.
Again, I speak as someone who grants that some parts of Patriot
are probably necessary *at the moment*, but it ought not to stand
Tim Daneliuk email@example.com
Not a big deal, but I can't stand her grading voice. I think she
would make a (slightly) better President than Obama. If she makes
it, I won't be watching her speeches. I have nicknamed her "Screamin'
Meemee." Poor Bill.
Number one reason, I don't know of any other reason that she is using to run
for office except to fix the health care system. About 16 years ago her
husband put her in charge of doing just that. Reason enough for me.
One issue I see is that far too many people are in the category of "I
got mine and don't give a $hit about anyone else". Note that this is
a 2 phrase sentence with an "and".
'Cause, you see, I do "got mine" but see lotsa problems in our current
health care system.
Some fundamental problems, as well as a few other thrown in (but not
an all encompassing list):
It's employer dependent.
Heaven forbid you need/want to change jobs if you have one of those
dreaded "pre-existing conditions". Or get laid off. Or...
You can spend a ton of dough on health insurance if you're not
employed, but, heaven forbid you actually try to use it - or they'll
raise your rates. Heck, they raise your rates anyway. Regularly.
You can be excluded from buying health insurance.
Accountant types screen your needs. Medical, pharmaceutical,
Doctors tend to act in ways to not 'annoy' the insurance companies at
Seems like a number of tales have been told about insurance companies
denying care. They are FOR PROFIT institutions and YOUR health isn't
their primary concern. Suing them isn't the answer.
Please don't say one can shop around for a better plan. Usually, they
aren't that much different, and those that are very, very costly.
Emergency room care ain't free.
The focus on not helping "freeloaders" is ridiculous 'cause the
problems extend well beyond those "lazy a$$ed SOBs not willing to
work" for which you don't want your hard earned tax $ to go toward.
Fri, Feb 29, 2008, 4:59am (EST-3) firstname.lastname@example.org (Jeff) who doth
<snip> There's an angry old man running around this group with a
signature that declares her the terrorists' choice. <snip>
LMAO Silly, if you'd read the sig, it plainly says that is from a
bumper sticker. I thought it was funny, and still do. Angry? Another
5 second psychoanalysis of me. No, I'm not angry. However, the
prospect of Hillary as president DOES scare the crap out of me. I
believe she is not morally qualified for the position; not qualified
period for the position; and totally untrustworthy. In otherwords, I
simply consider her the worst possible candicate out of a selection of
really lousy choices. The thought of any of them in office scares me,
she just scares me the most.
I have no plans to change the sig yet.
10 Out Of 10 Terrorists Prefer Hillary For President - Bumper Sticker
I do not have a problem with a woman president - except for Hillary.
Were you old enough to know what was happening when Carter was
President, the number of ways he screwed up from the day he was sworn
Clinton had the morals of a billygoat, but did a pretty good job. Come
to think of it, if Kennedy had lived, he might have done something to
earn the name he has; he was reputed to be ready to screw a snake if
someone would hold its head. Truman may have been moral in the true
sense of the word, and Ike came close--but missed. Hell, even Nixon
was a far, far better President than Carter, something I never thought
I'd say about that weirdo.
So, no, I don't spend a lot of time worrying about Presidential
morals. If you do, more power to you, but, I hope, less to your
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:02:29 -0800 (PST), Charlie Self
I am old enough.
I happen to believe that a President's legacy is formed more by the
times than anything they actually do. Economic and social upheaval
cycles are a reality and presidents who inherit them can have little
impact on them other than to promote good fiscal and policy restraint
while weathering the storm. If the times were good, the president is
considered a good one. If the times were bad then maybe not.
Jimmy Carter happened to be in office during one of the worst economic
periods since the depression. The worst stagflation brought on by the
first oil crisis, the one no one could see coming (I was in the
industry, believe me, no one saw it coming), and the negative impact
of social welfare programs established during the Johnson era.
Mortage rates went to 15% and gasoline tripled almost overnight.
Years later, when Powell or Swartzkoff I can't remember which, was
asked who was responsible for the effectiveness of the smart weapons
and the short duration of Desert Storm, he replied that Jimmy Carter
was so appalled by war and the potential loss of life, he promoted and
approved research into any weapon system that would shorten the
duration of any future conflict and particularly any that would be
selective with regard to infrastructure rather than killing humans.
I've always remembered that. Of course, legacy credit for that
outcome will be given to Bush senior.
Additionally, Carter has done more with his time for the betterment of
the human race since his presidency than any other president in my
Just my opinion.
This is not meant as a shot at you Charlie. I believe your statement is a
very pragmatic response common to many good and well intended people.
However, I fear that our shift towards pragmatism has gone too far in this
country. I think that there needs to be a reassertion of principles and
ethics in all of our thinking and discussions. When we dismiss principles
as the core of our thinking what are we left with?
Read my earlier response. Then go back and read some biographies of
earlier Presidents. There is no shift. Ethical behavior died with
George Washington, if it ever existed at all in politics. It is time
we recognize that, instead of scrabbling for an ideal candidate, who
doesn't and cannot exist. We vote on issues, just as the country as
whole has for its entire existence. Morals only enter into the picture
when some horses' ass gets jealous of another politician, or thinks he
sees a way to grab an edge.
Morals or ethics whatever word you choose, are hard to find in today's
society--but they were no easier to locate in the 1770s and 1800s than
they are now.
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.