Of course he's not backing off the public option. Single payer is the end game. And he knows the way to get there is to establish this so-called public option.

The gov is supposed to break up monopolies, not establish and run them. And that's what this is going to be. Government operated monopoly.. with no other place to go, when all the private companies are run out of business by a government system that literally prints its own money rather than having to go onto the open market to raise capital, people needing healthcare coverage will be forced onto the government coverage rolls.

that's neither choice, nor competition.

The Op most certainly did misrepresent the facts of what happened by suggesting the American excercising his rights was "allowed near Obama". He most certainly was not. Never was he within range, as it were, of Obama with his rifle. But that's not the idea the OP was trying to get across..

Rather, you were trying to say some gun-toting nutjob was trying to get near the president, ie threatening the president, with his rampaging assault weapon...

The POTUS was never in any more danger as a result of this man's presence than he normally faces when he makes a public appearence.

It's quite clear and transparent what you were trying to do. All I did was call you out on it.

well certainly it is considered an assault weapon by some, indeed many but it is only through ignorance and liberal anti-gun activism that the AR has been branded as such. I never disagreed that some people consider it an assault rifle. I know this misconception exists and is prevalent here in the US and elsewhere. my contention is that they are wrong (at best) in branding it so as it does not meet the design and operating criteria to be an assault rifle. that's all I'm saying.

talk about fear-mongering and the spreading of mis-information. The OP tagline would suggest to someone that didn't know anything about the situation that some nutjob with an automatic rifle was allowed in the handshake line awaiting an opportunity to cap the president.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The actual facts of the case are that a free American was out excercising his God-given rights and liberties. He was a threat to no one. There are no laws prohibiting him from what he did. He threatened no one. None were shot or shot at. Everyone went home happy.

But let's not let the facts of the case prevent liberal Obaaaaama fanatics from taking the opportunity of seeing a gun in the hands of a "regular person" to rail against American Liberties..

if you lived in a state where open carry is legal, the same thing would happen to you.. nothing..

people, please understand, guns are not evil, autonomous killing machines. That's what this man was trying to get across. It is indeed possible to be in possession of a weapon and not go around on a wanton killing rampage..

I highly reccomend you bring something with a little more junk-in-the-trunk than a .223/5.56 AR15 for bear defense.. A .44 Magnum perhaps, maybe a .454 Casull or S&W .500. A shot (or even multiple shots) from a 223 AR15 will do little more than piss off an already angry bear. I imagine you'd have to hit him several times over to do real damage,(ie to stop the threat)

Couple things though. A, it's not a clip, it's called a magazine. B, the Nazi Sturmgewehr of 1943/44 (MP43/MP44) is considered to be the first true assault rifle.(and had they been able to field them in any significant number at all or a couple years sooner, Europe would look nothing like it does today. That is to say, the Germans may well have been able to stem the Allied invasion and extend Hilter's occupation of continental Europe.) The M1 Garand was a battle rifle.

That aside, you miss my point. The AR15 is NOT an assault rifle, "scary looking" as it may be, (though it's not, it's actually quite an attractive piece of engineering). The definition/criteria I use is one that's widely accepted and generally applied thoughout the firearms community. To be an assault rifle, it has to have a selector switch, and be designed to be fired in full-auto mode. The AR, lacking both of those design features, is not an "assault rifle". The soviet designed AK47 seen carried by mujahedeen and viet cong soldiers, is the archetypal assault rifle. The WASR and other AK knock-offs that can only be fired in semi-auto mode are also NOT assault rifles.

old news. this has been commonly known since the 80's

Let's clear something up real quick.. The man had an AR15. The AR15 is NOT an "assault rifle", not in any sense of the term. It's a semi-automatic, magazine fed, small caliber rifle. It is the model that the military's M16/M4 is based on but the similarilty ends with the AR's safety switch. It is not capable of automatic fire, a key defining characteristic of an "assault rifle".

Second, why the need to identify anyone with a gun as some kind of nut job? are you afraid of people practicing their freedoms?

The proof that the man isn't a nutjob is the fact that NOTHING happened with him.. He didn't take a pot shot at the president, he didn't threaten anyone with it, he didn't try to enter the main "federal area" that follows the president and SS. It was a non-event to all but the anti-Bill of Rights liberal fascists..

People made the arguement back in the 90's before Texas adopted concealed carry. they argued that people would get in daily shoot-outs over traffic disputes and so on.. The fact is that the crime rate in Tx has precipitously fallen since the adoption of concealed carry..

people need to get over this crippling fear of firearms.. the gun itself did not and does not cause any violence, no more than a pen causes spelling errors. the man at the protest yesterday proved that.

I plan on depending on neither when I get there. know why?? I know without a doubt in my heart and mind that there will be nothing left, despite all the money I already have and will continue to pour into both during my working life..

the wise will do likewise..

it;s cool. no one got the Braveheart reference anyways..

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2009/aug/16/video-rep-massa-i-will-vote-against-interests-my-d/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXWmVBadWvU&feature=player_embedded

and they say democracy is dead in America..

you mean long time liberal activist and campaign contributor to all things leftist/liberal/democrat, George Soros? oh yes, what a wonderful pile of crap he is..

and so federal stimulus money goes to welfare recipients buying flat screens and XBOX's.. subprime XBOX's anyone?

links??

if you can't do math, please don't dream up some calculation, fail to do it and then tell us what the result of that calculation is.. height of ignorance.



Kerry O: We're all very sorry for your loss. It's never easy to watch someone die. I've done it many times over. And my days of seeing loved ones pass are not behind me for "Only the dead know the end of war". And I've watched my family split over what's supposed to happen at "the end" and those divisions are largely uhealed, almost a decade later.

but for all that, I still don't want any kind of government involvement "directing" me or us when my mother and father face their fate.

as for morphine v chemo, chemo sucks and morphine's dandy but give me the choice and don't leave it to the federales.

besides the so-called death panels and even the public option are coming off the table..

"You know what.. maybe this isn't going to help. maybe you're better off not having the surgery but taking the pain killer"

Obama, in his own words, telling us how "costs" will be cut.

Expensive surgery? no problem, here's a vicodin

Hips degenerated? no problem, here's a vicodin

osteoporosis got you down? here's a vicodin

got gout? no problem, here's a vicodin..

arthritis? yeah, we know cortizone is better but that's expensive! no problem, here's a vicodin.

I find it, well, hysterical that those who argue so vehemently for a strict separation of church and state will cite scripture to justify the need for government social programs.

low premium/high deductible policies are how young healthy people who don't sit at the doctor's office all the time save money on the monthly expenses.. If I can make a $20/mo payment rather than a $100/mo payment and in exchange go from a $200 or $400 deductbible to 600 or 800, that's a risk I'm willing to take. I save $80 for food, car ins, beer, etc.. or just save it twd the deductible.

So you can see that over the course of a few months, I've covered my deductible and still kept my monthly cost down.. Doesn't anyone remember high school economics??

(But I hit on the key word there, didn't I? risk... little word. risk. but it means huge things. it could be called something else too. life.)

Now, It doesn't make sense if you have some chronic disease, but if you're generally healthy, it makes sense. It's just betting on yourself not to go to the hospital for anything short of a broken arm.. If i get a cold, I go see the GP, the family doctor and she writes me a script for whatever it is that's bugging me, ask me how life's treating me and if I'm still off the cigarettes.. office visit, no big deal, $50 bucks and 15-20 in meds.. she knows to write me up for the generic and that I don't need the expensive stuff. I'm out of there for under a bill.. most people spend that going out at night, more if you're married with chillins.. get it? tcob. don't come to me every time you get a splinter in your hand. You've been shown how to take one out plenty of times. Its time you took it out yourself.

get what I'm saying? I could go on but I think I've made my point..

then chances are you don't know many puerto ricans or that much about Puerto Rico at all. More puerto ricans live in New York city than on the island of puerto rico. the three biggest puerto rican cities are NY, LA and Miami.. in fact relatively few ethnic puerto ricans live on/in puerto rico.. that is to say compared to how many live in the US..

"Let your speech be better than silence or be silent."

inside deals with the drug companies? you mean like the one Obama just stuck??

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/08/10/pharma/index.html

that healthy skepticism doens't seem to extend to an entity that when pitted against the private sector can only survive with the help of tax-payer subsidies.. Amtrak, USPS etc..

besides.. what's the point in deciding how you feel about an issue once it's been settled? that seems slightly, umm, like cowardice.. Did Ben Franklin, or Jefferson or Adams wait to see who would win at Concord Bridge to decide on what side they would support? do you sit on the fence in all matters? just blow where ever the wind takes you?

I think we may all agree that there are problems with the lack of availability to care in some places and for some people. Where we differ is in our philosophy on the approach to the solution.

The Democrats are in control of both chambers of congress and control the white house. Give them a chance to solve a problem and it should come as no big surprise, their solution to this problem involves a massive new beauracracy and the spending untold amounts of money yet to be taxed from the American people..

If you recall, there were repeated calls from the Bush White House for tort reform and the easing of restrictions barring insurance companies from competing across state lines but that didn't happen. (There were also repeated calls to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before they wrought their destruction on the country but that didn't happen either thanks to Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and Co.)

By and large, affordable health insurance is available to people. Those that don't have it** either don't want it at all or don't want it bad enough to give up the booze or cigarettes or copies of People magazine or a dozen other things that, if they went without, they'd likely be able to afford that low premium/high deductible policy that could get them in to see the proper doctors when needed.. I saw one today.. they advertise them on broadcast tv all the time, during the day during soaps, late at night after all the re-runs are over... It's out there to buy..


but that's not what they want.. they want someone to give it to them.. just like they've been given "free lunch" all through public school (by the way, the vary concept violates one of the most basic American principles ie, "no such thing as a free lunch") just like they were given no money down loans on a house they couldn't afford (we all saw how well that turned out for the economy), just like they were given $3500-4500 to trade in an old car in exchange for a new car (payment)...

by the way.. all those people that screamed from the roof tops how awfull the Bush budget deficit was need to look at how much Obama has pile on.. $1.8T with another $1.3T for the coming fiscal year.. that's more than $3T in the first half of his term in office onto a deficit that's taken over 230 years to accumulate to just over $11 trillion.. (that's an increase of oer 25% for those keeping score at home) and more than quadruple even the largest deficit year of the Bush Admin..

Hope and Change

(** with the exception of those that have been dropped for coming down with catastrophic illness and the like. I'm not sure how big a problem that is exactly but to the extent that it exist it needs to be addressed.. and the pre-existing conditions folks out there need to know that they're basically bringing in a wrecked car and asking for collision insurance.. )

Oh, I'm quite aware that I do not live in this country alone. Poll after poll after poll show that the majority of Americans

A)think the state of healthcare in the USA is good

B)oppose a government run healthcare system (in fact more people fear the coverage they'd get under gubment healtchcare than without it)

and

C) are insured and like the insurance they have.

Put simply: We do not want it, Sam Iam, We do not want Obama's PLAN!!!

So stop advocating theft from the pockets of some Americans so that Democrats in DC can buy votes from other Americans for the sole purpose of maintaining their own power.