rtwo

Evidently, you didn't read the article. She has an abusive ex-husband, which is why she has the conceal-carry in the first place. That's number one. Number two, after Columbine, and several other school shootings, to laugh off the idea of self protection is just ignorance.

Monckton, who is presenting these "ideas" is doing so as a way to highlight the stupidity behind the plans that are -actually- taking place. This is much like Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal". He's simply satirizing the government's current actions.

I doubt even Hillary thinks it'll only cost 110 billion.

Have you read the plan? This is my opinion. Either we elect some pure libertarian like Ron Paul and do away with government entirely. Basically, just have a minimal government that protects the borders and keeps the mail running, or we elect people that actually believe that the public sector has a positive role to play in society. Lets just pick one though. What I don't get is these "conservatives", that would trust the federal government to have a role in their local elementary school, but would trust that same government with hundreds of billions of dollars to attempt to democratize Iraq. Thats pretty ridiculous if you ask me. That's doesn't even make sense... that's like "I don't get why people don't just go for total anarchy, or else let a totalatarian regime take over!!" okay, number one... libertarians don't want to get rid of governmnet entirely. Anarchists do. Number two, that's kind of the point. As a conservative libertarian, I'd much rather the government stuck to dealing with real and actual crime, protected the borders and watched out for national interests (which, depending on your opinion, may include democratizing Iraq)... but pretty much left us alone as long as we aren't hurting eachother. The problem with the belief that "the public sector has a positive role to play in society" is that, while the concept is fine, the reality is that the government, especially democrats, tend not to leave well enough alone. Hillarycare is a great example of this. Let's say I was on board with the government funding healthcare for a certain segment of society (I'm -not- ... but just for the sake of argument). Fine. Government is playing its "positive role." But wait. Hillary doesn't want to just fund healthcare for a certain group. She wants to make it a -requirement- --- and "individual mandate". Now, she's not merely playing her "positive role" -- she's unnecessarily limiting freedom.

Yes, we would. We are footing the bill for emergency room visits for nonemergencies and maternity care for millions of people who are not entitled. Yes; have a choice of health plans, paid for according to income. But, NO free ride for anyone unless they are disabled or over 70. I personally know people from South America and Mexico who won't sign up for the company plan because they can go to the clinics and the emergency rooms. Everyone should have to pay their way. Yes, good idea. Unfortunately, it won't happen. Yes, this is true. I have taken others to these clinics and they are packed to the ceiling ALL the time. And English is not spoken too often. The bottom line is....we need an overhaul of the health care system in the U.S. and all the partisan sniping and political posturing won't change that fact. Whether it's 'Hillary Care', or something totally opposite, things have to change. I would be inclined to vote for the candidate that has some ideas that are workable. We speak with our votes, folks, so vote for the candidate that makes health care a priority. I would disagree... I don't think healthcare is the government's job, so I don't care where it is on their list, as long as they're not planning on interfering with private lives.

Have you read the plan? Might add, it's not really a "plan" so much as it is a blueprint... meaning Hillary can sell it to the American people before attaching all the stuff most Americans would object to that are necessary to make it work.

Have you read the plan? Have you read my responses?

The wealthiest 10% pay more in taxes because the wealthiest 20% have more wealth and income than the bottom 80% combined. If you are successful in this country, then you get the benefits of all the public infrastructure, security, oversight, education, and environmental protection, and without all that public sector investment, you would stand little chance of being so successful. From an economics perspective, those are externalized costs. In return, you pay a little higher income tax (yet lower payroll tax), than those that earn less pay. Its quite a deal actually. Of course, don't just ask me, ask guys like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, because they agree with me on this. If you are not successful in this country, you also get all the benefits of public infrastrucure, security, oversight, education and environmental protection. The playing field is fairly level (and would be more so with deregulation...). As for the simplest math, I have no problem with rich people paying more in taxes... even if we had a flat tax, or even a VAT, it would be the same. The rich would pay more. 20% of 1000 is more than 20% of 10. Simple, and no problem. But redistribution of wealth isn't the government's job. The wealthiest 20% have more money because of market forces. I have no problem with that. And, just so you're fully aware of where I'm coming from, my family and I are technically below the poverty line. I just don't feel as though I'm somehow entitled to more (of somebody else's) money by simple virtue of being poor.

For one, the business owners in this country are largely calling for universal healthcare. The healthcare costs they currently incur make it very hard to compete with their foriegn compeditors, virtually all of which get the benefit of Universal Health Care. Secondly, if Paris Hilton pays a hair more in taxes so that we don't have 50 million uninsured in this country, then I think that the vast majority of Americans will see that as a moral and just trade off. This is what I don't get. The cost of what she is proposing is less than the costs of the war in Iraq. Why is no one worried about who has to pay for the war in Iraq. I guess its ok to hand the bill for Bush's social experiment in Iraq to our children, but heaven forbid that we do anything in this country for anyone that actually lives in it. Before anything else, I'm going to need a cite for "business owners in this country are largely calling for universal healthcare." That, and a definition of "largely". I should also ask, are you in favor of corporate bailouts? Wouldn't some bailouts help with the cost of healthcare? Before you ask, no... I'm not in favor of corporate bailouts. I'm for the government staying out of stuff. As for Paris Hilton, etc... look. I don't really care what she does, what she pays, and who's covered because of it. Fact remains, the plan runs contrary to basic concepts of freedom, no matter how its paid for.

Well, if you actually read her plan, you will see that there are tax credits to help pay for insurance in it. So, she would be cutting your taxes. -somebody's- gotta pay for it. Oh, right. The rich again.

Rush knows someone who has. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/sit...5111.guest.html Have you read it? Are you for it? Oh, well Rush certainly would be an objective voice on the matter, wouldn't he? I mean come on, thats like reading a communist op/ed on U.S. economic policy. I have read the summary of the plan, not the entire plan yet though. Going by the summary, it looks like a good idea and I would imagine that should she be elected, it will have strong support among the American people. You can read the summary here: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/heal...an/summary.aspx I will say this, at least the Democrats actually have plans to address the problems we have in this county. If you go to the Democratic Candidates websites, you will find real plans and real ideas. This is in contrast to the Republican Candidates having a paragraph of "principles" on a handful of issues. I mean come on, someone ought to tell Fred Thompson that "Federalism" is not going to be the defining issue of next years election. Hmmm.... yeah. Force healthcare on people, whether they want it or not. Penalize people if their healthcare happens to be better than government standard. Put all the risk on the insurance companies (penalizing them for denying coverage), thereby most likely forcing many companies out of business (thus, by the way, adding to the unimployment lines). Envision a day in which you "have to show proof of health insurance" in a job interview, thereby forcing people who don't already have insurance to be dependent on government before they can even get a job that -offers- health insurance, creating a catch-22 that ensures as many people depend on the government as possible... you're right, Forrest. Sounds like a super-duper plan. Forget Thompson, I'm voting for Hillary. I'm so tired of running my own life...

Yup. And it's terrible.

*shrug* Even if it wasn't a purely biased source... a couple of bad people doesn't mean the overall ideas are bad. Fortunately, I don't vote for bad people. Actually, I don't vote for -people- at all. I vote for ideas. The reality is, the Dems could be some of the most honest people on the planet (they're -not-, but that isn't my point), and I still wouldn't vote for them, because I disagree with pretty much everything they stand for as a party.

The fear is that some people will point at a preacher who gives a sermon that includes how homosexuality is wrong and state, "That preacher is inciting violence by his statement that being gay is evil. He's producing an atmosphere of hate." Then here comes the cops and locks up the preacher for 'hate crimes'. Then here comes the civil lawyers to sue the church into the poor house. Even if the preacher is found not guilty and the church wins the civil trial, the legal costs would bankrupt the average church. I understand the fear, the bible speaks of persecution after all, but the bill just doesn't allow for any of that. I'd like someone to show me where in the bill there is a provision for arresting people for opinions. Won't happen because....it isn't there. they said that abortion would never be legalized either! This is allowing attacks on the constitution to be set up in future legislation. We should not be creating thought crime legislation. Why do we need this so called protection for minorities? whats the purpose? Are you saying that the law that covers this crime isn't enough?? IF its not enough then what about us!???If itsnot enough for a minority then its too weak to protect us. We should make the law tougher, not create preferential laws. No, this bill seeks stiffer penalties for hate crimes; i.e. an act of violence toward someone because of their race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, gender, age or whatever. NOT penalties for thinking of doing these things. Nor for talking publicly about minorities in a negative way. The only exception would be inciting to commit violence and, I'd have to say, that few preachers do that. Without laws to protect minorities from some segments of the population we would still be seeing lynchings! And, come on, how would a law that regulated thought be enforced? Would we have a Psychic Swat team??? We already -have- penalties for doing these things. Lynchings didn't stop happening because we made stiffer penalties for killing black people... they stopped because we enforced the laws that already existed.

You realize thats virtually the same universal healthcare plan that Howard Dean was pushing back in 2004. That's not what it sounded like to me. But if it is, I don't like it. Frankly, I can't believe a Republican is actually pushing for a plan like this. "Must buy health insurance"? Says who? Why does the government get to tell me where my money goes? Even if I do get a "choice"... is it really a choice if I don't get to decide not to buy at all? This plan helps exactly one group of people: the insurance companies. Much like, as the article pointed out, mandated car insurance. Tax credits are the same thing as government subsidy in this case... it just has a different label attached. The end results are the same: The government doesn't have any money, so by giving certain individuals a "tax credit" for buying health insurance, they shuffle money around and in the end, the unsubsidized taxpayer ends up subsidizing it.

This is true, Burning Ember, and it has been pointed out before. It's a good idea to read the text of the law in question and not just depend on what someone tells you. There is NO law in the U.S. against preaching anything.... Nevertheless, you still have the point made in the OP, in which a person -was- arrested simply for witnessing about Christ. And, as has also been pointed out before, while preaching, per se, isn't a "hate crime" yet, additional penalty based upon what the person was "thinking about" or the reasons why he did it (race vs. jealously, say) is a dangerous, slippery slope.

Them's fightin' words! t. UNFORTUNATELY ted, they may get their way. Have you seen the price of beef?? I looked at a Ribeye the other day, and thats all i could do is look at it in the grocery store. they wanted 11.00 per pound for it. Hamburger is 2.80 a pound. chicken is over 1.50 a pound for a fryer. I haven't had a steak or a hamburger in so long, i forgot what they taste like I may just start stocking up on the red meat just to irritate Algore.

How would they know? For most of them, it's all they've ever known. Of course they'll say they like it. Exactly. It's not as though they have a choice... how can you say, "X number of Canadians prefer nationalized healthcare..."? Preference requires options.

How would they know?

From IMAO: "stand against radical Islam: support the separation of church and murder."

Are they still on that? Wow. My 2.5-yr-olds don't even hold a grudge that long.

So what's your definition of "privacy" then rtwo? From dictionary.com, emphasis added. If you're tooling around on a public street, by definition, you're not engaging in a private activity that can be "intruded" upon or "disturbed". Unless the cameras can see through clothing or pick up traces of your conversation... where'd I put that foil hat? Now I'm afeared.

Frankly, I'm not so sure a photo of a public street violates anybody's "privacy"... the view that it does presents a very distorted definition of the word.