posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Abxnomore:
Buster you can post all the junk you want. If you want to see health care as a commodity then it says that you are not a man of compassion and care little for your fellow man.

Any person with half a brain and the ability to have empathy and compassion for all of his brethren knows that everyone should be allowed equal access to health care no matter what their race, gender or economic status. It's a moral issue that we provide for all and no one should unduly suffer because they have less.

And in most cases we are not talking about people who have less but middle class families who lose everything because of the way the current health care system is structured if someone should become seriously ill or if they should lose their job in this recession.

What kind of mind set do you have? Are you living in this century? People should beg, go without and die because you think that if the government provides a safety net for all its citizens it's taking away people's rights. That logic is so twisted it borders on evil.

One day the shoe may be on the other foot and you may be speaking differently may learn some of the sad lessons of life the hard way.

---

Posts: 458 | From Miss | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Abxnomore:
Bush acted like a dictator, a fascist not a socialist. No way did he have any socialist policies. Learn the difference. He gave the corporations free reign to further get us where we are today.

So you would have preferred that Obama let all the banks and auto industries fail and millions more lose their jobs and assets? Economists have reported that the recession has bottomed out and we moving out of it.

That was because of the actions the President took and the stimulus bill. I guess you would have preferred to see another great depression and have even more people unemployed and suffering than we already do?

---

Posts: 458 | From Miss | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Abxnomore:
I think it's wonderful that you give to your church and help kids but I don't think it is the role of the church to provide health care nor can they do it effectively or comprehensively for all.

Not everyone belongs to a church or is religious and some churches don't have the resources to do what other churches can do so it's not a level playing field. People should not have to beg or seek charity the of others for health care.

Your analysis of Bush is too simplistic. You may want to say he had socialist policies because he enlarged the role of government but it was in an effort to help big corporations and his rich corporate friends.....that is moving toward fascism and that is what we got with him corporate fascism, where the corporations were totally unregulated and played Russian roulette at the expense of the people. It was all about greed because the safe guards and regulations that were once there to protect the public were lifted.

There has to be some kind of balance between the corporate sector and government. Government needs to regulate to protect the public, when needed. Look what happened in the banking sector when all those bad loans were made that helped caused in big part the banking and financial crisis. All the old rules that regulated them had systematically been lifted since Regan and it got us in one fine mess and ruined the lives of many Americans and our economy.

And to make it clear to others I read a wide variety of news sources, not just Huffington Post, which happens to do a good job in exposing what the mainstream media does not.

If you think you will get the full picture from just reading mainstream news sources or listening to your local news station you are sadly mistaken. I'm very informed on all the issues. I follow the issues very closely both on the left and the right. I have my own opinions, just as you have yours.

---

Posts: 458 | From Miss | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Abxnomore:
The bad loans were made because government was telling Freddy and Fannie 'to give loans' to people that were not going to pay them off and government was compensating them with tax payer dollars. It was actually several select republicans that tried to stop the bad loans but it was blocked. I can show you video of it if you like straight out of the meetings...?

This is only one side of the story. If the regulations that used to regulate the banking industry were in place and not gradually lifted that would not have happened and it was not only loans made by Freddie and Fanny that caused the problem. Were they lifted by many who served to benefit from them yes, corporate and government people alike. It's not news that corporations and government have been in bed together for years. But the movement for change was an attempt to change that. Time will tell.

If I offended anyone I apologize but these kinds of issues get very personal because it's clear few will deviate from the positions they hold.

---

Posts: 458 | From Miss | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by daystar1952:
Yes ABXnomore is right in this respect. He or she said that the government has favored corporations over the people and it will take time to change. I am saying that ABX is right in that point and that we shouldn't jump into any solutions yet until the govt/corporation collusion and corruption is thoroughly investigated.Otherwise we will be more entangled in the schemes of the corporations.

THIS IS WHY THEN IF OBAMA IS REALLY FOR THE PEOPLE AND NOT FOR THE MACHINE OF WORLD GOVT. THEN HE SHOULD FIRST LAUNCH AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN GOVT AND CORPORATIONs BEFORE WE PUT EVEN MORE CONTROL INTO THE HANDS OF GOVT/CORP. HE IS NOT SPEAKING TO THE ISSUE OF COLLUSION AND NEITHER IS MICHAEL MOORE. DOES ANYONE SEE THIS?

It sure is amazing how this issue keeps getting sidetracked.People should learn the tactics of diversion so that they can observe when this is happening to a discussion. The way everyone is going back and forth off the topic is taking away from an important issue, an issue that will help get to the root of our problems. Certain people don't want us to get to the root.

---

Posts: 458 | From Miss | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Henry Ford was a pioneer of "welfare capitalism" designed to improve the lot of his workers and especially to reduce the heavy turnover that had many departments hiring 300 men per year to fill 100 slots. Efficiency meant hiring and keeping the best workers.

Ford announced his $5-per-day program on January 5, 1914. The revolutionary program called for a raise in minimum daily pay from $2.34 to $5 for qualifying workers. It also set a new, reduced workweek, although the details vary in different accounts. Ford and Crowther in 1922 described it as six 8-hour days, giving a 48-hour week,[15] while in 1926 they described it as five 8-hour days, giving a 40-hour week.[16] (Apparently the program started with Saturdays as workdays and sometime later made them days off.) Ford says that with this voluntary change, labor turnover in his plants went from huge to so small that he stopped bothering to measure it.[17]

When Ford started the 40-hour work week and a minimum wage he was criticized by other industrialists and by Wall Street. He proved, however, that paying people more would enable Ford workers to afford the cars they were producing and be good for the economy. Ford explained the change in part of the "Wages" chapter of My Life and Work.[18] He labeled the increased compensation as profit-sharing rather than wages.

The profit-sharing was offered to employees who had worked at the company for six months or more, and, importantly, conducted their lives in a manner of which Ford's "Social Department" approved. They frowned on heavy drinking, gambling, and what we today would call "deadbeat dads". The Social Department used 50 investigators, plus support staff, to maintain employee standards; a large percentage of workers were able to qualify for this "profit-sharing."

Ford's incursion into his employees' private lives was highly controversial, and he soon backed off from the most intrusive aspects; by the time he wrote his 1922 memoir, he spoke of the Social Department and of the private conditions for profit-sharing in the past tense, and admitted that "paternalism has no place in industry. Welfare work that consists in prying into employees' private concerns is out of date. Men need counsel and men need help, oftentimes special help; and all this ought to be rendered for decency's sake. But the broad workable plan of investment and participation will do more to solidify industry and strengthen organization than will any social work on the outside. Without changing the principle we have changed the method of payment."[19]
[20]

---

Posts: 4157 | From Western Massachusetts | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by liesandmorelies:
Buster said:
"I guess you and I are just hearing different stories on cops then... we have both been told differently. The police work for the government and government can not inhibit the first amendment."

Buster, I don't hear stories on Cops, I have talked to cops and understand what they are allowed to do and not. Have you ever heard what I posted for what would be the third time now. "INCITING A RIOT"?????

Again, you seem to not be able to admit anything when you are flat out wrong.

A police officer can and does have the authority to stop "Voice" or physical threat before it happens. Again, you see it daily when officers stop party's, remove people from protest, town hall meetings, concerts even though nothing bad has happened yet.

---

Posts: 458 | From Miss | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by liesandmorelies:
Buster said:
"Do you know about Natural Rights? Just because congress pushes through something doesn't mean it becomes a natural right."

Buster, did you even read what I wrote about healthcare being a right?????

If you are going to get into talking about Natural Rights, then you are getting into religion/philosophy and something totally different than the democratic process of voting things in or out.

For purposes of our discussion we have discussing the democratic process regarding when things are voted upon.

You are getting into semantics, here is exactly what I wrote:

"You are correct Buster, Healthcare is "NOT A RIGHT", it's something that "CIVILIZED" nations offer to "ALL" their citizens in the Industrialized World.

It is something that is provided in the option of an "affordable" method so that the well being of its citizens might have a shot at being healthy, which ultimately helps the whole overall society, by providing healthier citizens, hence healthier workers and contributers.

Keep your plan if you are happy, but we are not going to keep living in the stone ages.

We live in what many Americans would call a "Moral" country, but your telling me we should not even make sure we have an "Affordable Option"???? Gosh forbid we give ppl the right to have that.

I accept that you don't want all people to at the bare minimum have an affordable option, but you need to accept that eventually they will or it will be the demise of our country.

It's an embarrassment that people do not have some kind of plan like this and in my opinion is morally wrong.

If we decide through the democratic process that it's a "Right" then at that point it will be a right.

I pray for that day. It's called progress and doing the right thing. I see Americans that jump up and down and are happy to help like ppl in other country's, but we allow our own to not have care. Now that is mind boggling to me. "

---

Posts: 458 | From Miss | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by METALLlC BLUE:
It happened with Iraq, and it's happening again. Propaganda. Fear is being used to motivate the Republican base instead of facts. They're rallying now more around this one issue than they did with trying to get their candidate into the whitehouse. That tells you a lot.

The problem is magnified now because the stakes are higher. Tell them they'll lose their coverage, or illegals will be given care on their dollars, and their family will have a politician dictating the treatment options between them and their doctors and they'll jump out of their pews, recliners and executive offices on wall street to rally in the streets about the "unjust" nature of Obama's ideas.

It's fear, and it's "common ground" now. Just like the race issue. It "is" alive and it is vibrant and clearly present if you've watched the signs and rallies. Listen to speeches and visit websites that are "anti-obama".

Plenty of sites and people are against him. Do a search. Obama + Racisim + N****** + Evil + Satan

Nut job fanatic Christians (The extreme right ones) are especially vulnerable and vocal to inciting this. The KKK has been vocal, Blacks Against Obama etc.

Read the Presidential Election results yourself just to see the average numbers.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

This CNN polling was based on: 17,836 Respondents, so it's not exactly a small one.

In the end though, that isn't really the primary (or even secondary issue) about what this Health Care resistance is so strong.

Money is to be lost (Not by the public) but by the private corporations in providing care for people who by law they could previously neglect, deny, and ignore.

---

And the left never did any of this stuff.

Posts: 458 | From Miss | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by METALLlC BLUE:
Personally I still think healthcare fits neatly into the "discrimination" bracket as it's now structured.

When someone has more resources to deal with a challenging health condition (Chronic, emergency, whatever), those with less financial resources suffer (often dying) while the other with resources who has a much greater chance of receiving care that can either heal them or improve their quality of life in most cases (but obviously not all).

Why should one american citizen live and another die because they're restricted by a variety of conditions that just happen to have them unable to afford that care.

And don't mock me with the whole "Well should we feed and house them too." Yeah, we should do that too, all the while creating a nation where everyone can find employment and is encouraged and pushed to be as self sustaining as they possibily can be -- depending on the circumstance.

The rich become richer when they (alongside everyone else), raise the standard of living through civility and logic of the lower class. If you want to live in a country of brave and free people, you can't allow your countrymen to be "imprisoned" within poverty, without health insurance, unemployed, homeless, Chronically Ill. That's why we have education to train individuals to meet demands of the economy. You deserve to be secure in your person and safe in the privacy of your home, and so we have officers of law and judges and legislators to create these very laws that define how we behave and should behave as a nation.

Are these people not sometimes corrupt too? Of course they are, and of course those in power often are corrupt and try to manipulate the system we have in place in order to make sure that the ideals we strive for actually fill their pockets. You think that AIG happened on Obama and Clinton's watch? You think the collapse of the economy and the constant spending now necessary to repair it is Obama's fault? Now wait a second, who was the real spending coming from? Oh wait, the prior administration, and a poorly led congress and senate.

We deal with one problem at a time. Right now we've got a nation of seriously sick people, a nation with seriously healthy, yet uninsured people, and a huge group of businesses -- usually smaller pop shops, who can't afford to provide care to their already minimum wage making employees because they don't make enough -- and ironically, they also don't make enough to higher a few more workers yet. Obama took an ecomonmy that was heading for a second great depression to an upswing in 9 months.

Do the math. Our economy needs a massive boost from the floor up. What is at the floor? Citizens of all makes and models. How do you keep workers working? Keep them healthy and motivated to do so. Henry Ford was a smart ****in' dude. While he was a prick in many ways, he knew how to restore broken enonomies. You take care of the foundation, and the foundation will be strong when you build your palace.

If you want to avoid corruption, and avoid a **** economy, if you want to avoid abuse of power, and avoid seeing the rich pay for the poor for ever more, then you need to make an investment. Invest in success through the citizens of your country, and watch them produce "more" product for you. The rich actually get richer if they follow this obvious plan.

Most are too greedy and stupid to recognize the simplicity behind a hugely expanding business. The irony of this is that when in-fact they do make more because they were bright enough to care for those on the bottom, they ended up with so much money that they even freely donated it too -- to create hospitals and universites.

quote:

---

Henry Ford was a pioneer of "welfare capitalism" designed to improve the lot of his workers and especially to reduce the heavy turnover that had many departments hiring 300 men per year to fill 100 slots. Efficiency meant hiring and keeping the best workers.

Ford announced his $5-per-day program on January 5, 1914. The revolutionary program called for a raise in minimum daily pay from $2.34 to $5 for qualifying workers. It also set a new, reduced workweek, although the details vary in different accounts. Ford and Crowther in 1922 described it as six 8-hour days, giving a 48-hour week,[15] while in 1926 they described it as five 8-hour days, giving a 40-hour week.[16] (Apparently the program started with Saturdays as workdays and sometime later made them days off.) Ford says that with this voluntary change, labor turnover in his plants went from huge to so small that he stopped bothering to measure it.[17]

When Ford started the 40-hour work week and a minimum wage he was criticized by other industrialists and by Wall Street. He proved, however, that paying people more would enable Ford workers to afford the cars they were producing and be good for the economy. Ford explained the change in part of the "Wages" chapter of My Life and Work.[18] He labeled the increased compensation as profit-sharing rather than wages.

The profit-sharing was offered to employees who had worked at the company for six months or more, and, importantly, conducted their lives in a manner of which Ford's "Social Department" approved. They frowned on heavy drinking, gambling, and what we today would call "deadbeat dads". The Social Department used 50 investigators, plus support staff, to maintain employee standards; a large percentage of workers were able to qualify for this "profit-sharing."

Ford's incursion into his employees' private lives was highly controversial, and he soon backed off from the most intrusive aspects; by the time he wrote his 1922 memoir, he spoke of the Social Department and of the private conditions for profit-sharing in the past tense, and admitted that "paternalism has no place in industry. Welfare work that consists in prying into employees' private concerns is out of date. Men need counsel and men need help, oftentimes special help; and all this ought to be rendered for decency's sake. But the broad workable plan of investment and participation will do more to solidify industry and strengthen organization than will any social work on the outside. Without changing the principle we have changed the method of payment."[19]
[20]

---

It's a beautiful thing this thing called logic. Obama is simply profit sharing. He's using the same technique. Eventually, everyone gets paid well. These ideas aren't socialistic, they're post-era Capitalistic ideals which are perfectly time tested by many through history. And that my friends is my final comment.

---

Posts: 458 | From Miss | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by liesandmorelies:
Buster said:
"So if healthcare is not a right, then government has no reason to take money from others and give it to another group of people.

Case closed.

If congress comes together and makes a law saying it is a right to kill all arab people. Is it a right?"


Buster, You are right it is case closed with you!

You never admit one thing. I gave you point in case regarding public education and utilities, and you did not respond.

I even drew an illustration regarding if you have cancer and have private insurance and spend more than others who remain healthy, that that would mean you are theoretically stealing based on your definition and you did not admit that.

You pick and choose to your own benefit.

The arab analogy has nothing to do with this and says a lot about how you think. I am happy you wrote it.

You have to live with yourself and your choices. I have to live with mine.

I am happy when I put my head on my pillow at night. I will always do what I think is the "Right" thing to do. Regardless of whether it's a quote law or not. It's called morality, ethics and doing the right thing.

You obviously have your opinion that you think ppl should not have an affordable option because they do not have a "RIGHT" so yes your case is closed. Your mind seems to be closed as well, so what is the point of debate?

You better hope what comes around does not go around or you might be changing your tune.

I wish you peace and all good things in your life, but feel very sorry for you.

CASE CLOSED

---

Posts: 458 | From Miss | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by liesandmorelies:
Truthfinder,

You like to call it entitlement, I like to call it an option that is affordable.

people throw those buzz words like entitlement around and they think it helps to take the eye off the ball somehow. Do you think kids are entitled to a public education? Do you think you are entitled to the access of utilities?

Seems to me we have decided as a country that these things are entitled....

Bottom line is that 47 million ppl do not have healthcare and it's breaking our country by not giving them preventative care and treating them through ER's.

I feel very sorry for anyone in this day and age that believes that is acceptable treatment of a human being.

But then you take it a step further and tell us in the same post quote:
"If the government will get busy and honestly do something about lowering costs, more people could pay for minor care needed themselves, and more Americans could afford to have health insurance to cover `the big stuff."


Huh????? on one hand you tell the government to stay out and let private sector deal with it all and then the next thing everyone is saying to let the government do something about lowering the costs.

Either you want government intervention or you don't. Last time I checked the government does not set prices. That would be Communism.

We blame the government for the mess, when in actuality the problem lies with the greed of corporate America and then when we get to a point where something must be done, we say no government involvement.


You show me where the private sector is offering an affordable option and then I will lay off.

Bottom line is what the truth of the matter is, and I have said this before, people either TRULY believe all should have an affordable option or not!

You and others obviously do not believe they should, because you and I and everyone else know in our hearts that there is absolutely no way possible to dictate to the private sector to make them offer such plan.

We can put into law that the private sector must not discriminate based on pre-existing conditions etc....But, we can't dictate their premium prices. If we do than it would be government involvement and that would be called Communism!!!!!!!!

If we pass a law saying the Private sector must accept pre-existing conditions or cover those that lose their jobs, we have no control over them dictating to us what the premiums will cost, hence our premiums will go up.

By offering another option for those that don't have an option right now or those that are not happy with their current option, and switch would be create competition.

PS the photos of the hooded ppl was not because it was raining.
The ppl who wore hoods also were carrying plastic bladed sickles too. So please at least admit these crass ppl were there and do exist. You can spin how you want, but it says a lot about ppl who think this is acceptable.

Who in their right mind would take ppl like that seriously???

I don't care what side behaves this way, it's vile, evil and wrong. PERIOD!

Many Other country's that offer care for all are doing quite well. You can always point the finger at one or two that may be having problems, but by and large the vast majority are doing very well.

Do you want me to post how much money we pay vs. other country's?????? Do you want me to post links showing how we rank in healthcare vs other country's????

Why are Americans so gullible to think we are the best in every category???? That is naive and again, corporate America wants us to stay that way.

PSS yes, I have been to town Hall meetings in NH as I used to live in New England three years ago and have been to town hall meetings in CA, and NY. I have always been a very well informed voter and have voted for different party's as well.

So please stop insinuating something you know nothing of in regards to whether or not I have gone to a town hall meeting.

I have never seen ppl with strapped on guns that were openly visible. If that is the direction this country is going, then we will probably stop having Town Hall meetings. These bullish are ruining our democratic process.

Of course people can groan mildly, but to rant and rave to the point of shutting down meetings and strap on guns that are visible for the sake of bullying ppl into fear is absolutley against the American democratic way.

That would not be good for any party.

If you want to condone that behavior than that says a lot about what you deem acceptable. I find it repulsive and nutty. Again, my opinion.

Thankfully, I believe the vast, vast majority of Americans would agree with me on that point regardless of whether they are a Republican or Democrat .

Bottom line, like it or not, we are not waiting another forty years for the other side to come up with a plan that they just had the last eight years to put together and they came up with nothing, zilch, nada!!!!!

Bush never even worked on this issue one iota, all the while our country was going broke. Why should I even think for one minute that they will if they win the next election????

This has been the Rights tactic for 40 plus years now. They acknowledge there is a problem, but do nothing. I would rather pass something that we can start working with and change it as we go along, than to do nothing for the next 40 years.

It seems to me that ppl lie when they say "oh, but I really do want everyone to have an affordable option".

I say if Americans really mean that, than they would have proved it by now and we already would have a working plan.

The false sentiment must end. We are moving forward. Obama was elected. It's called Democracy.

I respect your opinion, but can see exactly what is going on here. I am proud to stand for justice and helping my brother out in a time of need. I would hope they would do the same for me in my time of need. That is what America goes around bragging about constantly, so lets see it.

It breaks my heart to think that we consider our country a compassionate, loving country and we don't have an affordable option. Show me where the compassion is there.

Again, as I have said in other posts. If you love your insurance agency. Then keep your plan, but don't deny ppl access if you really do believe everyone should have access.

Peace

---

Posts: 458 | From Miss | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Abxnomore:
Buster I think Liesandmorelies has laid out her information pretty well and I have also tried to make certain points, to no avail. There is no reaching you, period.

The President has outlined a way to reduce costs but it seems you don't like it. Can't make everyone happy.

You are impossible to debate with and surely have blinders on given your last statement:

My answer would be, first. No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy healthcare insurance. You could just save up money for when something bad happens. If you go broke, then go looking for charitable people to help you out or an organization, or church, ect... The problem is buying insurance is like buying a car kinda. The more you spend, usually you get a better made car, more options, more gadgets, ect. Same with insurance, the more you spend the more you get. I think people that are wanting an affordable option but also wanting the best is kinda like wanting to spend $10,000 on a car and expect to get a $200,000 ferarri or something. There are other ways to reduce costs that have already been discussed here.

There is no way to try to reach any kind of an understanding with you when you write a statement such as this. Your statement is so devoid of reality and the experiences that real people endure in our society. Even the terrible health care system we now have is not as bad as what you propose. Your ideas are sheer nonsense, not to mention the moral aspect of them.

It's best that we ignore you as your suggestions are totally nonsensical and don't deserve any further thought.

I have been fortunate in life to have never been in financial need but understand the suffering of others. I truly hope that the day does not come when one day you find yourself in a situation where you accumulated astronomical out of pocket hospital and medical bills and lose everything you own and have to beg from charitable societies to save your life. And, I surely hope in that situation your life will not be compared to the value of a car.

Sometimes, it takes situations like those to humble us and truly understand that our past way of thinking has been wrong.

---

Posts: 458 | From Miss | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

We have to approach this problem so that it will not cause the country more debt. How to make sure that care is not rationed more than it already is. How to bring costs down and make it more available.

I want to do it in a way that does not steal it out of people's pockets and give it to others. I am trying to give you different ways to solve the problem.

Have you noticed I have not said, "It is hard to get through to you" or "you don't know how to reason" or "you are being hard" or "you are closed minded" BUT, you have?

This is why I am going to stop, I want discussion using the facts, you bring harsh words to people that don't agree with you like you have done to me.

Peace out.

---

Posts: 4157 | From Western Massachusetts | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Abxnomore:
"Majority Of Doctors Back Public Option: New England Journal Of Medicine Study"


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/14/majority-of-doctors-back_n_286352.html

---

Posts: 330 | From Colorado, USA | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

But if we really wanted to talk about prevention and your approach then we would have to get after the muti national corporations and stop them from producing all the bad food stuffs that are on the super market shelves and the toxic substances they use to produce so many consumer products, as well. We would have to have a really educated public and also stop them from marketing to children to buy the unhealthy stuff on the supermarket shelf. We would really need an entirely different approach to life and living in this society and an educated proactive population.

---

Posts: 856 | From MA | Registered: Jul 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snailhead:
Hi, a while back people brought up the guy with the gun at the townhall.

He was outside, not in the meeting. Oh, and he wasn't shouting or being rowdy.

And he was black.

---

Posts: 845 | From Eastern USA | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by nomoremuscles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snailhead:
Hi, a while back people brought up the guy with the gun at the townhall.

He was outside, not in the meeting. Oh, and he wasn't shouting or being rowdy.

And he was black.

---

Not true, Snail. Unless there was a second gun-to-townhall toting incident of which I'm not aware.

I saw the gun guy being interviewed on a political talk show. Now, my Lyme has definitely affected my eyes, and my vision is not as clear as it once was, but I am pretty certain this guy had a creamy pink pigment to his complexion.

---

Posts: 458 | From Miss | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged |