>> ^bareboards2:

@shinyblurry, have you heard of "Blue Dog Democrats"? They are conservative Dems not much different from right of center Republicans. Obama had to get his own party together.
And the whole "individual mandate" thing came from Heritage Foundation ideas for how it could be done.
Obama started with single payer and ended up with this pastiche of ideas that is somewhat painful.
That is compromise and that is principle.
Republicans gutting the "death panels" from Medicare to make political points, when those "death panels" have been proven to 1) provide comfort to the family and the patient 2) after the patient dies, the survivors have much better mental health because they knew they were following their loved ones' wishes and 3) saves a buttload of money spent on unwanted-by-the-patient extraordinary measures. That is unprincipled.
I'm still mad about the "death panels." Putting political points before what is best for American citizens and American taxpayers. Shameful. Full on shameful.


So, basically what you're saying is, it was okay for Obama to leave the republicans out of the negotiation process, and that he is still a hero because he had to negotiate within his own party? Come on. That's not real compromise, and it certainly isn't real leadership. You have to remember that he promised to bring people together and reach across the aisle; yet when it came to his signature legislation, he took the low road, and that because he could. He was more than happy to leave the republicans out of the loop.

I don't have any comment on death panels because I haven't really researched the issue. By default, I don't trust the government to manage anything right, and certainly not my health care. I agree with the principle of small government, because big government is exponentially more corrupt than small government. In any human institution you will have corruption, because mans nature is inherently sinful. The more power you give, the more corrupt it will be.

@shinyblurry, have you heard of "Blue Dog Democrats"? They are conservative Dems not much different from right of center Republicans. Obama had to get his own party together.

And the whole "individual mandate" thing came from Heritage Foundation ideas for how it could be done.

Obama started with single payer and ended up with this pastiche of ideas that is somewhat painful.

That is compromise and that is principle.

Republicans gutting the "death panels" from Medicare to make political points, when those "death panels" have been proven to 1) provide comfort to the family and the patient 2) after the patient dies, the survivors have much better mental health because they knew they were following their loved ones' wishes and 3) saves a buttload of money spent on unwanted-by-the-patient extraordinary measures. That is unprincipled.

I'm still mad about the "death panels." Putting political points before what is best for American citizens and American taxpayers. Shameful. Full on shameful.

>> ^MonkeySpank:

I'd give the Republican party another 2 terms before it morphs into something else; obviously, extreme-right is not the answer, especially with a larger segment of the new voting population leaning center.

I think the GOP has won the long-term game, or at least it's theirs for the taking.

The thing is, as the GOP has gone further to the right, the Democrats have followed. Despite the hate, Obama may be the most conservative-friendly Democrat in decades: lowest taxes since the 50s, passed The Heritage Foundation's healthcare plan, etc, etc. The GOP has a Democrat in the house doing all their work for them and they get to blame him for any of the problems and call him a communist for doing shit they wanted to do just 15-20 years ago.

Strategically, I wonder if they don't even mean to win this election. If they do, they've put someone nearly identical (based on record, not rhetoric) in the seat, but they get the heat when he screws up. With Obama, they can eat their cake and have it, too.

I copied my response from another discussion, some reasons to own firearms.

Yes firearms were designed for military use, but for us to cover everything we use in our lives that started out or were improved by the military (essentially to make it easier to kill the enemy) would require more effort and space than is practical in an Internet disscussion.

J) The legitimate use of firearms.
The big Taboo, Killing:
The military uses firearms, and other tools to kill the enemy. This enemy is defined by the state who are elected officials. I won't go into depth as to why, as that is best served by a political debate. Suffice it to say that guns could be perceived to actually combat evil.

Hunting: another form of killing, however for most, the game is hunted as a food source. The only distinction I make between wild game, and beef in the store is who does the killing ( and I could use a uphenism for the word kill, but let's call a a spade a spade )(also keep in mind hunters are the leaders in protecting the ecology, ducks unlimmited was and is a group of hunters)

Defense: when another human desires you harm what recourse do you have? You can try to run, try to hide, hope you don't get caught. Call the athorities (provided it is not them who desire you harm) and hope they arrive in time, or fight back. Should you fight back, hopefully you are more powerfull than your attacker, or that they do not have a weapon of some kind.

Simply the presence of a firearm in a potential victims hands, can dissuade an nefarious individual from attempting an attack. Should that fail, and you need to shoot, I would much rather the criminal be injured or killed than myself or a loved one.

Sporting use: primarily enjoyment, competitions, black powder heritage days and cowboy action shoots promote an awareness of history and promote thought on how life was in days gone by.

Bonding: the passing of knowledge between two individuals engaged in an activity both find enjoyable. In the case of parent/child, or mentor/student, the teaching of the responsibilities of firearm use and the skills involved is important. If more people knew how to safely handle/store firearms, accidental deaths would be greatly reduced.


In closing, while I applaud the idealistic and utopic view that any form of killing is wrong and can/should be prevented, this is simply not the way life works.

Trying to persuade others to view the world as you do is the essence of debating, however, forcing your ideals upon another human being is the essence of tyranny. Irregardless of how honorable the intentions

2 million legal Canadian gun owners DID NOT kill anyone today, or yesterday or the day before...we have about 7 million guns...

You are a troll who has no idea of what you are talking about.

from ChaosEngine

You're right. Clearly the solution is to legalise rape, kidnapping, theft, assault and murder since people are doing it anyway.

As a white guy from europe, I feel the same way about my heritage: ie who cares?



BUT. There's some social context here, and context is everything. I could go on about it, but I think you know what the salient part is (slavery); you can research it and think about it yourself. I don't know what it's like to be an african american, but I imagine it plays a huge factor in identity and when shit gets heavy, one starts thinking about that stuff. His return to Africa isn't surprising at all, even if I don't fully understand it the way he does.





>> ^wraith:

A question that always bothered me and that has almost nothing to do with this video: Why do so many African Americans think they have to go to Africa to find their roots? In Europe, in all countries except France, 99% of African people are really first or second generation immigrants from one of the dozens of Nations in Africa.
They have relatives living there.
I understand that.
African Americans have their roots as much in "Africa", as I have my roots in....I don't even know...Germany? France? Russia? Hungary?
I don't even know where my ancestors lived three hundred years ago.
And I don't care.
I don't get it.

Just noticed your postes wern't private, thought I'd post my reply.

LOL I concede I am an ape!

This is long but addresses many of your questions I think. Also your assumption on my thinking was correct...can't remember what it was but I agree.

now on to the LONG post.

A) Willpower while it has limitations, it is not Limited to a finite value. Just ask any smoker who has quit. Or, a recovering alcoholic.

B) Repeat criminals do not appear to have willpower issues, they make conscious decisions to defy the law, and ether justify it to themselves or simply have contempt for the law. Some may feel the law is wrong or simply does not apply to them.

C) If all it took for a human being to lose their humanity, self respect, morality and honor was to be at the losing end of life why have we not seen a violent uprising of the homeless and downtrodden. The addicts who HAVE lost everything and wander the streets trying to survive would therefore be the most justified to go on a rampage would they not?

D) As for American laws relating to firearms, I am a Canadian and therefore will not argue those laws, as I have little knowledge in that area.
As for Canada, the process of licensing requires a full background check, questioning of witnesses towards your character and ultimately is up to the discression of the license issuer, as I mentioned before.

Are there flaws? Yes. But that is a result of the system. Ideally the system would prevent or remove firearms from any individual before violence occurs. However in order for that system to function flawlessly one must live in a system similar to Communist Russia during Stalins reign. Where every action or spoken word is monitored and reported to the government, by agents, or even by family.

Canadian restrictions to licensing are as stringent as the LAW curently allows them to be without infringing ( too much) on an individual's rights.

E) A piece of plastic does not guarantee the holder to be law abiding. However, the process involved to acquire said item does involve scrutiny. And the desire to legally go through that process as opposed to acquiring firearms illegally and with much less effort does say something towards the individuals intentions.

F) Firearms training and safety cources do indeed instill responsibility, confidence in the use, and the safe possession of firearms. Personally I believe everyone eligible should be trained in the safe responsible use of firearms. Whether they choose to own or not. ( we have sex Ed in school, why not gun Ed )

G) As for F*** heads, they will always be F**** heads. One purpose of licensing is to prevent them from acquiring firearms legaly. Thankfully most of humanity does not fit into this category. ( however they do seem to be breeding at an alarming rate)

H) As for the Katana, not only was it a weapon, it was a symbol of honor for samurai and was passed down through generations with a reverence bordering on a relic. Spend time and look up the 7 virtues of the Bushido code.

Regarding Nukes, while their application is abhorrent to any rational human, think about how many were actually used for their intended purpose. TWO!, out of how many thousands. And both were released by human hands. Possession does not equate to application.

I) Yes firearms were designed for military use, but for us to cover everything we use in our lives that started out or were improved by the military (essentially to make it easier to kill the enemy) would require more effort and space than is practical in an Internet disscussion.

J) The legitimate use of firearms.
The big Taboo, Killing:
The military uses firearms, and other tools to kill the enemy. This enemy is defined by the state who are elected officials. I won't go into depth as to why, as that is best served by a political debate. Suffice it to say that guns could be perceived to actually combat evil.

Hunting: another form of killing, however for most, the game is hunted as a food source. The only distinction I make between wild game, and beef in the store is who does the killing ( and I could use a uphenism for the word kill, but let's call a a spade a spade )(also keep in mind hunters are the leaders in protecting the ecology, ducks unlimmited was and is a group of hunters)

Defense: when another human desires you harm what recourse do you have? You can try to run, try to hide, hope you don't get caught. Call the athorities (provided it is not them who desire you harm) and hope they arrive in time, or fight back. Should you fight back, hopefully you are more powerfull than your attacker, or that they do not have a weapon of some kind.

Simply the presence of a firearm in a potential victims hands, can dissuade an nefarious individual from attempting an attack. Should that fail, and you need to shoot, I would much rather the criminal be injured or killed than myself or a loved one.

Sporting use: primarily enjoyment, competitions, black powder heritage days and cowboy action shoots promote an awareness of history and promote thought on how life was in days gone by.

Bonding: the passing of knowledge between two individuals engaged in an activity both find enjoyable. In the case of parent/child, or mentor/student, the teaching of the responsibilities of firearm use and the skills involved is important. If more people knew how to safely handle/store firearms, accidental deaths would be greatly reduced.


In closing, while I applaud the idealistic and utopic view that any form of killing is wrong and can/should be prevented, this is simply not the way life works.

Trying to persuade others to view the world as you do is the essence of debating, however, forcing your ideals upon another human being is the essence of tyranny. Irregardless of how honorable the intentions

So if you read all that I thank you! I'm prepared to say we agree to dissagree and leave it at that but I'm open to more dialog if you wish.

I wish you lived in my area so I could take you to the range to see first hand what it's all about.

Big Ape signing off

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 5 Badge!

Thanks to all who commented!

A few extras:

Romneycare: was a state-level experiment, which is permitted. It is also, AFAIK, a failure that had to be bailed out by the feds.

Obamacare is really just Heritage/Romney Creation: rather than try to argue the small stuff...if somehow "HeritageCare" had made it to the Supreme Court, I would have expected it to crumble because of the unconstitutional mandate just the same as it should have under KING Obama.

It's really about expansion of government power: Presumably this law was to stop "freeloaders" of the health care system. If that's the case, what difference will be made insuring 30 million 'deadbeats' at gunpoint, who can't/won't pay a tax/fine any more than they would originally buy health insurance?

Hundreds of businesses got obamacare waivers, creating a dual caste system where the burden of this horrendous law will lay across the backs of the middle class and small businesses. The "evil corporations" that liberals were hoping to punish evaded them once again, in clear violation of the 14th Amendment (equal treatment under the law).

Paltry 'savings' from an extra 500 billion in new taxes: The 11 to 20 million estimated illegals will continue to bankrupt our hospitals via "free" emergency room visits.

Will you promise to leave the country when Obama is re-elected? I don't have to leave America. Unless obama is given a bus-ticket back to chicago come November, America will leave us. It already has.

Romney won't fix it: The end of the Republic is already on its way. Romney may forestall it a little while, but it's coming.

November is coming... so hilarious.

Will you promise to leave the country when Obama is re-elected?

Also, your boy Rmoney built a a healthcare plan very similar to the one you're so enraged about. Wow, that must sting.>> ^quantumushroom:

Didja read my post before commenting, because health care is not really the issue here, serfdom is.
We have had a very similar scheme in australia for DECADES. If you dont get private health cover, the govt will tax you to a rate where you would otherwise be paying for it anyway, in order to provide public care to those too poor to even pay taxes to begin with.
So why does anyone there bother to buy private health insurance? Isn't socialied medicine just as good or better than for-profit health care?
This ensures EVERYONE IS COVERED EVERYWHERE, no matter the circumstances.
If you have ZERO insurance and you have to amputate a leg, or get coronary bipass surgery....ITS FREE!
We have that here too. Ever hear of Medicaid? What about the "free" care for the 12 million illegals here (more than HALF of Australia's ENTIRE population)
Our standard of care is FAR above yours, WE SPEND LESS GDP PER CAPITA than you for it too!
You're really going to compare an island of 22 million to the USA? You are FAR from utopia.
https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2007/187/9/challenges-heal
th-and-health-care-australia
Access to (Australian) health services is becoming less equitable. Patients’ out-of-pocket costs have grown 50% in the past decade and now, for some, present a sizeable barrier to needed care.
You don't get it because you're not an American. As an honorary member of the Euro system, you will always see government as the solution to everything, and that's fine for you, but that shit doesn't fly here. The settlers didn't flee England in search of a new world in order to have a gigantic leviathan government coddle us. Fucking Obama and King George III of England look a lot alike these days, maybe it's the crown.
Your assumptions are many and flawed. You assume taxocrats (the American left) want to "save" money. They couldn't care less, we've spent 9 trillion on a failed war on poverty. Liberals measure success by the weight of their good intentions, not results.
In other words, insanity.
If this was really about the 30 million uninsured, there's more than enough revenue just to cover them. But Nooooooo, EVERYONE is now a subject of the King, because this corrupt legal decision isn't about health insurance, it's about control. Tyranny. The end of freedom.
Fuck 'em. November is coming.

>> ^quantumushroom:

This corrupt, incoherent decision goes way beyond socialized medicine.
This is what you need to take away from this: the Supreme Idiots have now given the federal mafia unlimited power. Fuck your health insurance or anything else, it does not matter because you are no longer free. The pigs can now penalize you for doing something they don't like, and "TAX" your dumb asses when you DON'T do something they command you to do.
We are no longer free, a message lost on whose who didn't give a damn about freedom to begin with. To you ninnyhammers still whining about "greed", we've only spent 9 trillion dollars on a failed "War on Poverty".
Why you lefties born in America (by accident) just don't up and move to Europe I'll never know. They already have a socialist paradise.


Wait, does this mean I can't legally smoke marijuana now?

Oh what a crock. "Obamacare" -was- the Heritage Foundation plan for healthcare, up to and including the individual mandate. Fucking hypocritical conservatives were all for this very plan 16 years ago. Until it was successfully passed by a black Democrat...now it's freedom destroying socialism.

I don't particularly like it, but it's better than what we had before. Most of all, it's a damned fucking lie to claim it's socialist in any way.

The insurance business model that has served so well thus far?>> ^renatojj:

>> ^KnivesOut:
@renatojj the single provider system you're thinking isn't in the current planYeah I realized that calling it "single provider" would incite that kind of impertinent retort as soon as I submitted my comment. Even though that's not what the bill is about, it shouldn't take a genius to realize that its real intention is to disrupt the insurance business model, leading to an increase in costs over the years that will make socialized healthcare a more attractive option down the road.

Btw, you should be careful not to bunch up libertarians with "right wing", it just advertises ignorance on your part.

I try to get my news from The Heritage Foundation. I know if something pisses them off then whatever decision had been made was just; not what these greedy global capitalist pigs who would steal your fucking shower curtains if they could - would want.


Upvoting right-wing propaganda lies for all to hear.

>> ^KnivesOut:

@renatojj the single provider system you're thinking isn't in the current planYeah I realized that calling it "single provider" would incite that kind of impertinent retort as soon as I submitted my comment. Even though that's not what the bill is about, it shouldn't take a genius to realize that its real intention is to disrupt the insurance business model, leading to an increase in costs over the years that will make socialized healthcare a more attractive option down the road.



Btw, you should be careful not to bunch up libertarians with "right wing", it just advertises ignorance on your part.

The Individual Mandate is an idea from the Heritage Foundation.