Benghazi fiasco

[PsyOps]

Which brings up a question; are you able to see something you disagree with being legal and accepting of it?

Put another way, is your idea of a more perfect union a matter of everything being as you think it should be or a collection of things you agree with as well as things you don't agree with?

Okay, I have no idea what this has to do with believing something is an abomination and believing that abomination is constitutional. If something is so evil as to be an abomination how can it even be remotely constitutional?

But I’ll to try to answer your question…

I believe abortion is wrong, but I also recognize this is a deeply personal choice that I don’t think government should have a role in forbidding. I believe government telling women what they can or can’t do, regarding their person (not their body, but their person), violates the 4th. This is the antithesis of Obamacare, which tells you, by virtue of being born, you must buy something. There is nothing in the RvW decision that demands anyone do or not do anything. However, banning something does force someone NOT to do something may want or need to do.

I believe seatbelt laws are wrong, but I believe having them are in the interest of maintaining stable commerce. More people will definitely be hospitalized as a result of not wearing seatbelts, and not be able to afford the care they receive, thus shifting the cost on everyone else that can afford it. It raises risk in driving for everyone forcing auto insurance rates to go up for everyone.

I take each issue independently. But I believe the constitution is clear on some things. I fail to see how the SCOTUS found Obamacare to be a tax while ignoring the mandate. Regardless of whether the issue of taxes binds the entire law, forcing someone to buy something by virtue of existing cannot be anywhere remotely constitutional. It’s not a tax until you violate the mandate. Until then, the mandate stands alone and is in violation of the 4th, 10th, and 14th.

 

[Larry Gude]

Okay, I have no idea what this has to do with believing something is an abomination and believing that abomination is constitutional. If something is so evil as to be an abomination how can it even be remotely constitutional?

But I’ll to try to answer your question…

I believe abortion is wrong, but I also recognize this is a deeply personal choice that I don’t think government should have a role in forbidding. I believe government telling women what they can or can’t do, regarding their person (not their body, but their person), violates the 4th. .

Would you please read that again.

 

[Larry Gude]

There is nothing in the RvW decision that demands anyone do or not do anything. .

I understand that but, it does allow infanticide and I would submit that I can make a pretty good case that slaughtering one million babies a year is a good bit more onerous to freedom and liberty than having to buy health insurance.

 

[Larry Gude]

I believe seatbelt laws are wrong, but I believe having them are in the interest of maintaining stable commerce. More people will definitely be hospitalized as a result of not wearing seatbelts, and not be able to afford the care they receive, thus shifting the cost on everyone else that can afford it. It raises risk in driving for everyone forcing auto insurance rates to go up for everyone. .

Right there is the seed of Obamacare, Mitt Care, socialized medicine; the acceptance that medical expenses are a community expense. They absolutely should not be. That they are, that, in 1986 my guy, Reagan, signed into law the Emergency Medical Care Act, that is the root cause of why health care costs are so out of control; the socializing of a good or service and the inevitable result; artificial restriction on supply and the attendant effects on demand; cost goes up, quality goes down.

If you want to talk about being forced to buy something, there it is, the root of the evil in this problem; the acceptance that my medical costs are yours.

All Obamacare does is formalize, after much elaboration and expansion and bloating, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is THE problem.

 

[PsyOps]

Would you please read that again.

And would you please read the entire context of what I wrote again. RvW does NOT force anyone to do something or not do something. I believe the act of abortion is wrong. But there is nothing in any law that forces a woman to have one or not have one. RvW simply says that it is legal for a woman to have one. The abomination in Obamacare is the law that requires EVERY HUMAN BEING IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA buy something or be penalized for not doing so. See the difference? Is there any other law in this country that forces you to do something, that you may not want or need to do, simply because you exist?

 

[Larry Gude]

And would you please read the entire context of what I wrote again. RvW does NOT force anyone to do something or not do something. I believe the act of abortion is wrong. But there is nothing in any law that forces a woman to have one or not have one. RvW simply says that it is legal for a woman to have one. The abomination in Obamacare is the law that requires EVERY HUMAN BEING IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA buy something or be penalized for not doing so. See the difference? Is there any other law in this country that forces you to do something, that you may not want or need to do, simply because you exist?

We are getting ahead of ourselves here. I'll wait and give you a chance to read #44.

 

[Larry Gude]

And would you please read the entire context of what I wrote again. RvW does NOT force anyone to do something or not do something. I believe the act of abortion is wrong. But there is nothing in any law that forces a woman to have one or not have one. RvW simply says that it is legal for a woman to have one. The abomination in Obamacare is the law that requires EVERY HUMAN BEING IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA buy something or be penalized for not doing so. See the difference? Is there any other law in this country that forces you to do something, that you may not want or need to do, simply because you exist?

And while I wait, I will question your moral compass if you think allowing abortion is not heinous and is less awful than having to buy health insurance.

We fought a civil war over slavery to pay for our sins. Abortion is far, far worse than slavery. If you are in chains, you are alive and have a chance. If you are aborted, killed in the womb, that is far worse.

We have to come to grips, as a society, with the evil of abortion, the filthy evil that it is. And we have. We just wash the whole mess away and say "well, it's up to the 'mother'." If we can swallow that and can't swallow having to buy health insurance, what does that say about us?

 

[PsyOps]

I understand that but, it does allow infanticide and I would submit that I can make a pretty good case that slaughtering one million babies a year is a good bit more onerous to freedom and liberty than having to buy health insurance.

How so? We’re now seeing in at least two cases (Tiller and Gosnell, and now maybe another on in MD) that infanticide happens, but it is not legal. I have always maintained that legalized abortion can lead to more atrocious and extreme interpretations of the law. With every ‘liberty’, if that liberty is not exercised with moral restraint, people will take it to the extreme.

The only thing I can say about the evil of abortion is that it is not in the law that makes it evil. Again, no one is forced to have one. The evil is in our society in how we are becoming more and more desensitized towards death, and how we have become less inclined to accept responsibility for our mistakes. This is not a matter of law, it’s a matter of societal degeneration. WE – the people – must change. No law can enforce this.

However, Obamacre… the evil is in the law. Again, it forced every single person, by virtue of merely existing, to buy something we may not want, or even need. That is an innate evil in the law.

 

[PsyOps]

Right there is the seed of Obamacare, Mitt Care, socialized medicine; the acceptance that medical expenses are a community expense. They absolutely should not be. That they are, that, in 1986 my guy, Reagan, signed into law the Emergency Medical Care Act, that is the root cause of why health care costs are so out of control; the socializing of a good or service and the inevitable result; artificial restriction on supply and the attendant effects on demand; cost goes up, quality goes down.

If you want to talk about being forced to buy something, there it is, the root of the evil in this problem; the acceptance that my medical costs are yours.

All Obamacare does is formalize, after much elaboration and expansion and bloating, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is THE problem.

What exactly are you forced to buy in this instance? For each individual, there is no seatbelt law if you don’t own, or even ride in, a car. But the basic premise of what you’re talking about, I agree. What should be and what is appear to be diametrically opposed things. If we held each person responsible for their own expenses and hold every completely responsible for their own actions I suspect our population would be a lot smaller but we would be overwhelmingly more free. What folks don’t want to understand is that a free society requires you to take complete responsibility for yourself, act responsibly, and live with the consequences of your own actions. This has been completely lost today.

 

[Larry Gude]

What exactly are you forced to buy in this instance?

By forcing ER's (the medical/industrial complex) to provide care, that's one.

By providing monopolies for the ER's so they may recoup their costs by passing it on to you and me, that's two.

 

[PsyOps]

By forcing ER's (the medical/industrial complex) to provide care, that's one.

By providing monopolies for the ER's so they may recoup their costs by passing it on to you and me, that's two.

Ah... I misunderstood you. I thought you were talking about seatbelt laws.

I can't disagree with you. But, in all humanity, can/should they really refuse care? When it comes to providing catastrophic care, there has to be a charitable mentality towards helping those that would otherwise die. But, I don’t agree with laws that force them to; then forced to shift the cost on to the rest of us when the patient can’t pay.

Again, this doesn't compare to something like Obamacare. ER service is by-need; only people that show up need it. Again, Obamacare forces every single human in this country to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty. I can think of no other law we have that does this – forces everyone, by their mere existence, to buy/hold something.

 

[Larry Gude]

Ah... I misunderstood you. I thought you were talking about seatbelt laws.

I can't disagree with you. But, in all humanity, can/should they really refuse care? When it comes to providing catastrophic care, there has to be a charitable mentality towards helping those that would otherwise die. But, I don’t agree with laws that force them to; then forced to shift the cost on to the rest of us when the patient can’t pay.

Again, this doesn't compare to something like Obamacare. ER service is by-need; only people that show up need it. Again, Obamacare forces every single human in this country to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty. I can think of no other law we have that does this – forces everyone, by their mere existence, to buy/hold something.

What do you think happened before 1986, folks just died on the sidewalks???

And this doesn't compare to Obamacare; it is worse. When you open that door, as Reagan did, that is the moment it would have most easily not been opened and every day after that it gets harder and more difficult to close it or even slow it down. THAT is how gummint works. Absent 1986, no Obamacare.

 

[MarieB]

The H2 Channel (part of the History Channel) was advertising last night that a documentary on the Benghazi event will be shown this Friday @ 10pm. Their website is not showing the title of the show yet in that time slot.

H2 TV Show Schedule on History.com

They specifically referred to Benghazi?

I just looked again, and there is no show guide and it only mentions presidential cover ups. Perhaps it will only get a mention?

America's Book Of Secrets — Episodes, Video & Schedule - H2 on History.com

 

[mamatutu]

They specifically referred to Benghazi?

I just looked again, and there is no show guide and it only mentions presidential cover ups. Perhaps it will only get a mention?

America's Book Of Secrets — Episodes, Video & Schedule - H2 on History.com

Yes, I have heard the commercial several times. Thanks for the reminder; I had forgotten! I hope it is about Benghazi.

 

[mamatutu]

It's on. H2.

 

[MarieB]

It's on. H2.

It's leading off on Benghazi

 

[mamatutu]

It's leading off on Benghazi

You were right. I wanted the whole thing to be on Benghazi. Didn't tell us anything we didn't already know, except whether to question that it was a cover up, which is the purpose of the show. Oh, well. Maybe, we will know the truth at some point.

 

[MarieB]

You can tell they changed the focus and are piecing things together


It's still interesting though

I have questions though about their somewhat linking certain events

 

[mamatutu]

You can tell they changed the focus and are piecing things together


It's still interesting though

I have questions though about their somewhat linking certain events

I liked the end when it was said that the only way the American people can protect themselves is to exercise their right to vote, but then we can't be too sure about how protected we are. We already know that! But, you are right, the show was interesting. Hope it doesn't rain as much as predicted this weekend. I have flowers to plant! Good night.