web analytics

The Wall…….

By Patrick Van Roy On July 27th, 2019

When I was just a small boy I asked my mother, “Mother Should I build a Wall”

There is no issue that has been a sore spot more than The Wall.  In the 80s Congress screwed the American people and used the last bit of goodwill that the average blue collar american had for the ILLEGALS.  Millions were given Amnesty, we were told that was the price for the Wall.

The Democrat Congress screwed Reagan and the American People and reneged on the Wall, E-Verify, Business Prosecution, and Deportations.  We were promised all those if we gave Amnesty, they got their Amnesty and the American Worker got the shaft.

That all occurred around 1986, it is now 2019….. 33 years the Democrats and Republicans in Congress have each and every election promised to fix it. The blame goes to both sides because this is not an issue of Left or Right, this is an issue of Worker versus Owner. On this issue the Union Leaders sided with the Owners and the Chamber of Commerce. As the Chamber and Business owners saw cheap labor the Union Bosses saw more dues and the American Worker got screwed.

You can try to credit many things to why Donald Trump is President. No matter what you think that reason is if you’re not crediting The Wall you are wrong……. and whine all you want no one cares who pays for it as long as it gets built.

For the last two years Congress, every wacko Judge, every “civil liberties” group, and every eco wackjob has thrown obstacle after obstacle in front of the Walls construction. Fighting it all the way to the Supreme Court. Well in a 5-4 victory the SC ruled that the President of the United States can use Military Funds basically anyway he chooses. He is the Commander in Chief of the Military once funds are allocated to the Military it is the President who has the Final word on how that money is spent.

What has the reaction been to the ruling?

US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: “This evening’s Supreme Court ruling allowing Donald Trump to steal military funds to spend on a wasteful, ineffective border wall rejected by Congress is deeply flawed. Our Founders designed a democracy governed by the people – not a monarchy.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has vowed to seek an expedited decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals “to halt the irreversible and imminent damage from Trump’s border wall”.

Gloria Smith, an attorney with environmental group the Sierra Club, which sued to block the funds said: “Today’s decision to permit the diversion of military funds for border wall construction will wall off and destroy communities, public lands, and waters in California, New Mexico, and Arizona.”

Except the reaction from all those blue collar and even union workers was a massive silent cheer. The cheer is silent because if you object to ILLEGAL immigration you’re a racist.

One more Promise Delivered on by President Donald Trump……

 

172 Responses to “The Wall…….”

  1. “One more Promise Delivered on by President Donald Trump……”

    So Mexico, and not the Pentagon, will be paying for this?

  2. and whine all you want no one cares who pays for it as long as it gets built.

  3. “and whine all you want no one cares who pays for it as long as it gets built.”

    And it goes to show that for all your whined about the constitution you don’t actually give a damn when your own side does it. You support the rule of law when convenient.

  4. Seamus where is this not following the rule of Law?

  5. Congress did not appropriate money for a wall. Trump is spending money appropriated for military expenditure on non-military activity. And he is doing so because he cannot agree a deal with Congress. As you have pointed out yourself the House has the power of initiation on spending. Any spending that doesn’t originate in the House is illegal.

  6. //When I was just a small boy I asked my mother, “Mother Should I build a Wall”//

    If she thought you were going to build it around yourself, she’d probably have given you money for it. 🙂

    Patrick, is is really true that building of “the Wall” has been a contentious issue in the US for the past 30 years?

  7. Congress did not appropriate money for a wall. Trump is spending money appropriated for military expenditure on non-military activity.

    National Security is a Military activity…. it’s the militaries whole purpose.

    20 Million People sneaking across our border and we have no clue who they are…. no that’s national security and the Supreme court agreed.

  8. Patrick, is is really true that building of “the Wall” has been a contentious issue in the US for the past 30 years?

    yes Noel since the mid 80s

  9. “National Security is a Military activity…. it’s the militaries whole purpose.”

    This isn’t a national security matter. It is a civilian law enforcement matter. And given that the President can now declare anything a military matter, and have free reign over it as he is the Commander-in-Chief, I look forward to the next Democratic President confiscating all guns as a military necessity. Look forward to the next Democratic President providing universal health care out of the defence budget as a military necessity.

    “20 Million People sneaking across our border and we have no clue who they are”

    There is no evidence of it being any where near 20 million.

    “no that’s national security and the Supreme court agreed.”

    Supreme Court agreed that a woman killing her baby is a privacy matter. Originally the Supreme Court ruled that black people couldn’t be considered citizens. The Supreme Court found it was legal to steralise people with disabilities. The Supreme Court found that making child labour illegal was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court get things wrong all the time.

  10. The evidence says 20-40 million. Even if it was only 1 it’s a military matter.

    It’s written in the Constitution that President is in charge of the Military it is a tool of the nation controlled exclusively under the commands of the President.

    Using the military to secure it’s borders like EVERY NATION does is in his purview. Nothing Trump has done or is doing violates any standing laws, and is Constitutionally authorized.

    It is a civilian law enforcement matter

    Really….. when was the last time a nation was invaded did they just send cops?

    I look forward to the next Democratic President confiscating all guns as a military necessity.

    Our right to self defense is a right granted by God NOT government. Government can not take it away. It is not a GOD GIVEN RIGHT that foreigners can invade our country.

  11. “The evidence says 20-40 million. Even if it was only 1 it’s a military matter.”

    What evidence?

    And if it is a military matter why is the principle organisation involved in it the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, a federal law enforcement organisation, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a federal law enforcement organisation.

    “It’s written in the Constitution that President is in charge of the Military it is a tool of the nation controlled exclusively under the commands of the President.”

    So you will have no problem with the next Democratic President to ban guns using the military.

    “Government can not take it away.”

    The President can do what ever he wants with the military. Including take your guns.

    “Really….. when was the last time a nation was invaded did they just send cops?”

    This isn’t an invasion. It is illegal immigration.

  12. Seamus, on July 27th, 2019 at 9:04 PM Said: Edit Comment
    “The evidence says 20-40 million. Even if it was only 1 it’s a military matter.”

    What evidence?

    None that you will accept, but there were over 6 million illegals in the US 30 years ago and even if you fantasize that we’ve only gained a million a year since then it puts us way over the 20 million mark.

    “It’s written in the Constitution that President is in charge of the Military it is a tool of the nation controlled exclusively under the commands of the President.”

    So you will have no problem with the next Democratic President to ban guns using the military.

    Once again our right to self defense comes from god not government and it’s enshrined in the Constitution. If a Democrat President thinks he/she can say it’s a military matter in a way they would be right…. it is a military matter it ensures that the largest army in the country is the civilian army that when necessary shall be formed to dismantle an oppressive government which is why the only Amendment before the Right to Bear Arms is the right of free speech and free practice of religion.

    This isn’t an invasion. It is illegal immigration.

    When thousands of people a day illegally cross your border…. that’s an invasion.

  13. “None that you will accept, but there were over 6 million illegals in the US 30 years ago and even if you fantasize that we’ve only gained a million a year since then it puts us way over the 20 million mark.”

    20-40 million present in the US is different from “20 Million People sneaking across our border”. The number present is irrelevant to the wall. The number crossing is relevant.

    “Once again our right to self defense comes from god not government and it’s enshrined in the Constitution”

    So is Congress’s power of the purse. But you seem happy to ignore that when it suits you. And those same God given rights include the right to life but pro-death penalty people like yourself seem happy to ignore that. So you only support God-given rights when God agrees with you.

    “Constitution. If a Democrat President thinks he/she can say it’s a military matter in a way they would be right…. it is a military matter it ensures that the largest army in the country is the civilian army that when necessary shall be formed to dismantle an oppressive government which is why the only Amendment before the Right to Bear Arms is the right of free speech and free practice of religion.”

    a) the Second Amendment was actually the Fourth Amendment approved by Congress. The First was never passed (it was about Congressional Apportionment). The Second was aimed at preventing current Senators and Congressmen from changing their own salaries. It took effect as the 27th Amendment in 1992. The Third became what is today the First Amendment. The Fourth became what is today the Second Amendment.

    b) What you are proposing is terrorism. And you would lose.

  14. “When thousands of people a day illegally cross your border…. that’s an invasion.”

    What battalion are they in?

  15. What battalion are they in?

    The welfare battalion…… How did Rome fall Seamus ?

  16. //20 Million People sneaking across our border//

    //when was the last time a nation was invaded did they just send cops? //

    Probably the last time an invading army tried to “sneak across” a border.

  17. “The welfare battalion”

    That isn’t a real battalion. If this was an invasion then can you say what battalion these soldiers are in? Shouldn’t be too difficult. In pretty much every invasion in modern history it can be pinpointed what divisions etc… were involved. We know, for example, what German units were involved in the invasion of Poland. So if this is an invasion it should be pretty easy to determine which battalion or division.

    “How did Rome fall Seamus ?”

    Because it ended its wars of conquest. Rome was primarily a slave based economy, and a plunder based economy. The end of its wars of conquest dried up the supply of slaves and plunder causing it substantial economic problems.

  18. It’s funny how the left squeals like a stuck pig when they don’t like a Supreme Court decision.

  19. “It’s funny how the left squeals like a stuck pig when they don’t like a Supreme Court decision.”

    So I guess the right have never complained about a judicial decision?

  20. No Seamus, I’m still opposing Roe v Wade for all the good it does me. The left have used the Court to change the social fabric of this country. Sauce for the goose and all that!

  21. in a 5-4 victory the SC ruled that the President of the United States can use Military Funds basically anyway he chooses. He is the Commander in Chief of the Military once funds are allocated to the Military it is the President who has the Final word on how that money is spent.

    I think this is good news for world peace. If billions of the military budget are spent on the wall there will be billions less to spend on wars. The Iranians should be feeling just a little bit safer from an attack from Uncle Sam.

  22. So is Congress’s power of the purse. But you seem happy to ignore that when it suits you.

    Power of the Purse is not granted by God, nor am I ignoring it.

    And those same God given rights include the right to life but pro-death penalty people like yourself seem happy to ignore that.

    That argument loses any weight when we abort 1 million children a year and we executed only 25 people last year.

    a) the Second Amendment was actually the Fourth Amendment approved by Congress. The First was never passed (it was about Congressional Apportionment). The Second was aimed at preventing current Senators and Congressmen from changing their own salaries. It took effect as the 27th Amendment in 1992. The Third became what is today the First Amendment. The Fourth became what is today the Second Amendment.

    b) What you are proposing is terrorism. And you would lose.

    Oh so you want to go into when and why things were settled on in the Constitution ? In that case go look up the Right to Bear arms in the Federalist….. The purpose of the Amendment is to guarantee that the population can overthrow its own government if it became oppressive.

    No it would be terrorism if we hide who we are…. we won’t it would be done openly no masks and it would be a declared war that the population that is armed with 300 million legal guns and 200 million illegal guns would handily win.

    Also our military is voluntary and the majority of the 1% of our population that makes up our military come from homes that have guns….. good luck trying to get them to fire on mom and dad.

  23. “How did Rome fall Seamus ?”

    Because it ended its wars of conquest. Rome was primarily a slave based economy, and a plunder based economy. The end of its wars of conquest dried up the supply of slaves and plunder causing it substantial economic problems.

    no it lost control of it’s borders and collapsed because it could not absorb the mass influx of illegal immigrants.

  24. “That argument loses any weight when we abort 1 million children a year and we executed only 25 people last year.”

    I’m all in favour of banning both the death penalty and abortion (and guns). But if it is acceptable for the state to take away the God given rights of 25 people then why is it wrong for them to take away the God given rights of 100 million? Rights are rights. Either they are universal or they don’t exist.

    “In that case go look up the Right to Bear arms in the Federalist….. The purpose of the Amendment is to guarantee that the population can overthrow its own government if it became oppressive.”

    That is true. It is about state militias. So the national guard, not personal gun ownership.

    “No it would be terrorism if we hide who we are”

    Nope. Terrorism is terrorism, whether you hide or don’t.

    “it would be a declared war that the population that is armed with 300 million legal guns and 200 million illegal guns would handily win.”

    How many tanks do you have?

    “Also our military is voluntary and the majority of the 1% of our population that makes up our military come from homes that have guns….. good luck trying to get them to fire on mom and dad.”

    So in addition to terrorism you are relying on treason and mutiny. Some patriot you are.

  25. Peter, that’s an interesting perspective!

  26. I think this is good news for world peace. If billions of the military budget are spent on the wall there will be billions less to spend on wars. The Iranians should be feeling just a little bit safer from an attack from Uncle Sam.

    200 million is a cost overrun for the US Military….. The Estimated U.S. military spending is $989 billion. It covers the period October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020 200 million won’t effect anything Noel… 😉

  27. Seamus, I would gladly trade you the death penalty for abolition of abortion.

  28. “no it lost control of it’s borders and collapsed because it could not absorb the mass influx of illegal immigrants.”

    Not actually true. Migration played some role in the collapse of the Roman Empire in that when Hunnic tribes migrated from Central Asia they displaced several Germanic tribes – who then invaded the Roman Empire. So it is not that they lost control of their borders and collapsed because of illegal immigrants. It is that their neighbours couldn’t control their borders and when they were displaced by immigrants they invaded and conquered the Roman Empire (because it had economically collapsed due to the end of their slavery and plunder based system).

  29. “Seamus, I would gladly trade you the death penalty for abolition of abortion.”

    I would be delighted with that option. Anyone who is pro-death penalty is not pro-life. Anyone who is pro-gun is not pro-life. Anyone who is pro-war is not pro-life.

  30. “When I was just a small boy I asked my mother, “Mother Should I build a Wall”. Your mother should have traded you in for a normal child.

    Terrible Supreme Court ruling. So much for an independent judicial branch.

  31. I’m all in favour of banning both the death penalty and abortion (and guns). But if it is acceptable for the state to take away the God given rights of 25 people then why is it wrong for them to take away the God given rights of 100 million? Rights are rights. Either they are universal or they don’t exist.

    No through a persons actions they can lose their rights, even the right to live. Those 25 did.

    That is true. It is about state militias. So the national guard, not personal gun ownership.

    Wrong….. State Militia was only put in the wording because Virginia had a Standing Army. and provisions had to be made to cover it…. it has no bearing on the individuals rights.

    So in addition to terrorism you are relying on treason and mutiny. Some patriot you are.

    Wrong….. when you take the military oath you swear to uphold and protect the Constitution…. an order to violate the constitution would be an unlawful order under the code of military justice.

    I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

    Now a Democrat or any politician can try to end the second amendment. The need to go through the process. Write a Bill, get it pass the house, senate, and president and THEN it has to be approved by 2/3rds of the states….. When they do that get back to me.

  32. New Yorker, on July 27th, 2019 at 10:09 PM Said: Edit Comment
    “When I was just a small boy I asked my mother, “Mother Should I build a Wall”. Your mother should have traded you in for a normal child.

    that wasn’t nice…..

  33. “No through a persons actions they can lose their rights, even the right to live. Those 25 did.”

    That is impossible. They are inalienable rights. Thus can’t be alienated or lost.

    “Wrong….. State Militia was only put in the wording because Virginia had a Standing Army. and provisions had to be made to cover it…. it has no bearing on the individuals rights.”

    You are the one who brought up the federalist papers. And the federalist papers are clear that the second amendment was not about personal gun ownership but about the right of the People to collectively defend themselves. Thus it protects a well regulated militia, not personal ownership.

    “Wrong….. when you take the military oath you swear to uphold and protect the Constitution…. an order to violate the constitution would be an unlawful order under the code of military justice.”

    It wouldn’t be violating the constitution. Any order given to them by the President is legal (that is pretty much what you are saying about – that the President can militarily do what ever he wants).

    “Now a Democrat or any politician can try to end the second amendment. The need to go through the process. Write a Bill, get it pass the house, senate, and president and THEN it has to be approved by 2/3rds of the states….. When they do that get back to me.”

    The state militia is protected by the second amendment. Not your personal gun ownership.

  34. Seamus,

    “The Supreme Court get things wrong all the time.”

    The purpose of the US Supreme Court is to interpret the US constitution, not to decide what’s right or wrong.

    If you need someone else to tell you what’s right or wrong, you could try asking a church. Good luck with that.

    As for these ‘god given rights’, they sound suspiciously like Seamus-given rights to me. No thanks.

  35. “The purpose of the US Supreme Court is to interpret the US constitution, not to decide what’s right or wrong.”

    Someone should tell them that.

    “As for these ‘god given rights’, they sound suspiciously like Seamus-given rights to me. No thanks.”

    I think you’ll find it was Patrick who brought up the topic, not me.

  36. Seamus,

    “I think you’ll find it was Patrick who brought up the topic, not me.”

    Whatever you call it, you talk as though you have personal access to some rule book that tells you whether the Supreme Court is right or wrong on any given decision. if that were so the court could be disbanded and we could just ask you.

  37. “Whatever you call it, you talk as though you have personal access to some rule book that tells you whether the Supreme Court is right or wrong on any given decision. if that were so the court could be disbanded and we could just ask you.”

    Its called an opinion. I’m allowed to have one of those without checking with anyone.

  38. Seamus,

    “Its called an opinion. I’m allowed to have one of those without checking with anyone.”

    Sure, but your opinion regarding whether something is constitutional in the US or not is just objectively wrong if there is a current US supreme court decision saying the opposite. It’s pointless to argue otherwise, as that is how such things are decided.

  39. “Sure, but your opinion regarding whether something is constitutional in the US or not is just objectively wrong if there is a current US supreme court decision saying the opposite. It’s pointless to argue otherwise, as that is how such things are decided.”

    Nonsense. Something can be the law and still be wrong. Where the Supreme Court wrong when they decided that a black man couldn’t be citizen? Yes. Was that still the law at the time? Also yes.

  40. “Where the Supreme Court wrong when they decided that a black man couldn’t be citizen? ”

    Again, the Supremes decide what the law says not what it ought to say. If it was a fact that the law in the US at the time was that a black man couldn’t be a citizen, then the court was indeed legally correct to say so at the time.

  41. ” If it was a fact that the law in the US at the time was that a black man couldn’t be a citizen, then the court was indeed legally correct to say so at the time.”

    Except it wasn’t the law. It was their interpretation of it. Their interpretation of the law was that a black person was so inferior that they couldn’t hold citizenship. There was nothing in the constitution that suggested so. But that was the Supreme Court’s opinion. Where they right? Are black people so inferior that they can’t hold citizenship?

  42. Hello from the Met game

    They gave away a Bobble head of Mr Met landing on the moon

    Perhaps we need to have a discussion about that

  43. Seamus,

    “Except it wasn’t the law. It was their interpretation of it.”

    The point is only that since they weren’t just some dudes on a blog arguing about it, rather the members of the Supreme court, their interpretation of the law *was* the law. That’s how that country decided those questions were to be decided in that country.

    And that’s all it is.

  44. Careful Seamus. Frank was educated by the Jesuits if memory serves. He’s slippery! 🙂

  45. “The point is only that since they weren’t just some dudes on a blog arguing about it, rather the members of the Supreme court, their interpretation of the law *was* the law. That’s how that country decided those questions were to be decided in that country.”

    Yes. And other people are still entitled to decide for themselves whether those decisions were right or wrong.

    So again – are black people so inferior that they can’t hold citizenship? Yes or no.

  46. “Careful Seamus. Frank was educated by the Jesuits if memory serves. He’s slippery! 🙂”

    I was educated by the De La Salle Brothers and the Christian Brothers. So I’ll pick that fight.

  47. Seamus

    If you were a real baseball fan you’d be a Met fan

  48. “If you were a real baseball fan you’d be a Met fan”

    As I say to most people who try to convert me on anything – I’m happy with the team.

  49. !!

    You need to come over to the states sometimre

    Fenway is a gem of human civilization

    The new mets ball park – I never use the corporate name – is one of the very best new ball parks

  50. “Yes. And other people are still entitled to decide for themselves whether those decisions were right or wrong.”

    And how does that help us? If someone thinks a decision is wrong the only options are to overturn the decision (in which case other people can still ‘decide for themselves’ if *that* decision was the wrong one), or to change the law (ditto).

    Ultimately some method is needed to decide what the law is, which laws are legal, etc, and nobody has yet offered a better method than some system of courts to decide such things, together with some kind of democratic process to change the law, plus international law that (in theory at least) puts limits on even that.

    “So again – are black people so inferior that they can’t hold citizenship? Yes or no.”

    Since they do hold citizenship, obviously no … and obviously irrelevant since we are talking about a time when they did not. Citizenship is a legal construct, the point of it is to get you legal standing in a court, etc. it’s a fact that blacks didn’t have it (and many other rights) in the US at one point, and it’s a fact that they do now. It would be silly to argue that blacks ‘really’ had citizenship all the time even though they manifestly didn’t.

    That would be like arguing that civil rights movement was all along based on some kind of figment of people’s imagination, that the law didn’t really need to change, the 14th amendment wasn’t needed, because *really* blacks already had equal rights and citizenship, even while they were slaves. And that all the laws at the time were not real – even those legalising slavery – and that the only problem was that the supremes had made a mistake.

  51. “I was educated by the De La Salle Brothers and the Christian Brothers. So I’ll pick that fight.”

    With the Christian Brothers it’s usually them that picks the fight

  52. Patrick

    //When I was just a small boy I asked my mother, “Mother Should I build a Wall”//

    Mamma’s gonna make all of your nightmares come true.
    Mamma’s gonna put all of her fears into you.

  53. “And how does that help us? If someone thinks a decision is wrong the only options are to overturn the decision (in which case other people can still ‘decide for themselves’ if *that* decision was the wrong one), or to change the law (ditto).”

    It doesn’t. But this site is about talking through issues and arguing between ourselves over those issues.

    “Since they do hold citizenship, obviously no … and obviously irrelevant since we are talking about a time when they did not.”

    The Supreme Court declared at the time that black people were inferior and couldn’t hold citizenship. Black people are either inferior or they are not (unless you are suggesting that they were inferior then but aren’t now).

    It wasn’t that the law said they didn’t have citizenship. The Supreme Court decreed that they couldn’t possess it (even if they were granted it by law) because they were inferior. So either the Supreme Court was wrong then or black people were inferior.

    “That would be like arguing that civil rights movement was all along based on some kind of figment of people’s imagination, that the law didn’t really need to change, the 14th amendment wasn’t needed, because *really* blacks already had equal rights and citizenship, even while they were slaves.”

    No. Those movements and changes were needed because, amongst other things, the Supreme Court was wrong.

  54. “You need to come over to the states sometimre

    Fenway is a gem of human civilization

    The new mets ball park – I never use the corporate name – is one of the very best new ball parks”

    Definitely on the list. I want to go to the US in general but when I go there I want to see a Red Sox game in Fenway Park, a Celtics game in the Garden, a Colts game in the Luke. Probably couldn’t do all of that in one trip so I’ll probably end up taking several over the years.

  55. Be the man

    Keep a close eye on the sales on Norwegian Airlines into Stewart Airport or Boston

    You can get into New York City pretty easy from Stewart

  56. Seamus,

    “It wasn’t that the law said they didn’t have citizenship. The Supreme Court decreed that they couldn’t possess it (even if they were granted it by law) because they were inferior.”

    I think that is not what the decision said…the word ‘citizen’ is in the constitution and the decision was that it didn’t include, nor was intended to include, black people. I don’t know what you are referring to with ‘even if they were granted it by law’.

    At least the first point was true just by virtue of the Supremes saying so. As far as the second, who knows what the founders “really” intended, or why that should matter. But it seems hard to argue that the founding document of a country that legalised slavery and set them out as ‘3/5 of a person’ really meant to say that they were to be treated as equals. So they may well have been correct about the founders ‘real intentions’, and so what? Would that then make the decision “right”?

    I think that there is not really any point in arguing about the reasoning of the Supremes on any given decision anyway, because there is no mechanism to do that in any way that is useful. You just ask them a question and you get an answer. You may not like the answer but that’s the only answer that counts.

    In any case I would say that the best way to take the Supremes out of the process is to change the constitution and to explicitly enshrine some right in the constitution, as happened with the 14th amendment.

  57. Phantom, on July 27th, 2019 at 11:39 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Hello from the Met game

    They gave away a Bobble head of Mr Met landing on the moon

    Perhaps we need to have a discussion about that

    Perfect night for a ball game weather’s perfect and the bobble head sounds cool.

  58. Definitely on the list. I want to go to the US in general but when I go there I want to see a Red Sox game in Fenway Park, a Celtics game in the Garden, a Colts game in the Luke. Probably couldn’t do all of that in one trip so I’ll probably end up taking several over the years.

    I’m going to get into more of your political stuff in a minute Seamus…. but what you really have to do is enjoy a Philadelphia Flyers Home Game it’s a one of a kind experience.

  59. You are the one who brought up the federalist papers. And the federalist papers are clear that the second amendment was not about personal gun ownership but about the right of the People to collectively defend themselves. Thus it protects a well regulated militia, not personal ownership.

    Man I don’t know where you got that interpretation in the Federalist….. Do you know what a militia is? It’s the formation of civilians that bring their own guns to fight off a threat. The Founders had just fought a war to overthrow ab oppressive government. The whole system was designed for the POWER to be and to remain in the hands of the individual. To ensure that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” There was no “National Guard” The militia system varied sharply across the colonies from an efficient program in New England, to a Professional one in Virginia, a sloppy one in the South, to none at all in New York and Pennsylvania.

    “No through a persons actions they can lose their rights, even the right to live. Those 25 did.”

    That is impossible. They are inalienable rights. Thus can’t be alienated or lost.

    It is not only possible it’s reality. God gave man freedom over his own actions individually and as a group. How man uses that freedom is their choice. If society deems an individual’s actions forfeit their life it is society’s choice. We choose to murder a million babies a year whose only sin is being created. Do you think societies that kill the innocent before they take a breath will be judged for executing a murderer?

    “Wrong….. when you take the military oath you swear to uphold and protect the Constitution…. an order to violate the constitution would be an unlawful order under the code of military justice.”

    It wouldn’t be violating the constitution. Any order given to them by the President is legal (that is pretty much what you are saying about – that the President can militarily do what ever he wants).

    As a Soldier it is your job to follow orders, if you follow an order you know to be an illegal order you can be sentenced to death. The President of the United states can do what he wants with the military as long as it is within the Law. Even though he/she is Commander in Chief he/she is not a dictator. He/she is constrained by the Law.

    “Now a Democrat or any politician can try to end the second amendment. The need to go through the process. Write a Bill, get it pass the house, senate, and president and THEN it has to be approved by 2/3rds of the states….. When they do that get back to me.”

    The state militia is protected by the second amendment. Not your personal gun ownership.

    Idiocy…. see above

  60. Seamus, on July 27th, 2019 at 10:38 PM Said: Edit Comment
    “The purpose of the US Supreme Court is to interpret the US constitution, not to decide what’s right or wrong.”

    Someone should tell them that.

    Why do you think my nation goes into fits when it’s time to pick a Supreme Court Judge????

  61. “As for these ‘god given rights’, they sound suspiciously like Seamus-given rights to me. No thanks.”

    I think you’ll find it was Patrick who brought up the topic, not me.

    Frank god gave you those rights also, even if you or your country doesn’t recognize them. Someday you too might know freedom.

  62. Except it wasn’t the law. It was their interpretation of it. Their interpretation of the law was that a black person was so inferior that they couldn’t hold citizenship. There was nothing in the constitution that suggested so. But that was the Supreme Court’s opinion. Where they right? Are black people so inferior that they can’t hold citizenship?

    I have to add my two cents on this also…. Seamus and Frank are having a great debate all I want to do is add some gas to the fire….

    There was an underlying internal argument that took place from before the beginning of the formation of the US while it was still colonies, and that was the argument over slavery.

    Jefferson a slave owner wrote “all men are created equal” and insisted that the wording stay that way. He wanted Slavery ended no matter what phoney baloney tales you’ve been told.

    Another bit of original wording was changed. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness was originally Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Property…. the word “property” was changed to weaken the legal standing of the slaves.

    Slaves were property like cattle or horses. In the eyes of the slave holders they were no more than property a beast of burden. The word “property” was changed to take away the weight of the word in a legal sense. Jefferson and Franklin didn’t want that wording to be the obstacle in a future legal battle they knew would come.

    Yet when it came to calculate representatives the slave states wanted to count Male slaves as People…. the argument ensued that can’t be both beast and man. The compromise was the 3/5ths.

    Mar 1857: After a slave named Dred Scott sued for his freedom, the United States Supreme Court ruled that neither Scott nor any other African American was legally a U.S. citizen. Scott lost the case because as a non-citizen, he did not have a legal right to sue.
    Dec 1865: With the Civil War over and the nation faced with integrating former slaves into society, the Joint Committee on Reconstruction is formed. The 15-man committee would write the 14th Amendment.
    Dec 1865: After a bitter fight, the 13th Amendment is formally adopted. The first of the Reconstruction Amendments made slavery illegal in the United States.

    Amendment XIII
    Section 1.
    Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

    Section 2.
    Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    The Legal argument was that since before the civil war Slaves were considered beasts and men depending on the State you were in. The 13th amendment confirmed Slaves as men and gave them their citizenship. None of the Confederate States were allowed to rejoin the Union until they adopted the 13th. The 14th amendment constitutionalized that a citizens rights could not be infringed by a local or state government.

  63. //Slaves were property like cattle or horses. In the eyes of the slave holders they were no more than property a beast of burden.//

    It’s a curious fact, and a sign of the hypocrisy of the times, that slaves were considered property, like beasts as you say, except if they did something wrong.
    Then they suddenly became human and could be, and were, charged with a crime, convicted and very often legally executed.

  64. sad ain’t it.

  65. No it would be terrorism if we hide who we are…. we won’t it would be done openly no masks and it would be a declared war that the population that is armed with 300 million legal guns and 200 million illegal guns would handily win

    Terrorism is defined by a ski mask? Tim McVeigh wasn’t a terrorist? The Boston marathon bombing wasn’t terrorism?. 200 million guns would be absolutely no match whatsoever for two dozen fighter jets armed with Hellfire ASMs.

    This mass terrorism wet dream would be liquidated in a matter of days.

    When was the last time a nation was invaded did they just send cops?

    Are Mexican military tanks trundeling over the US border? Sophistic far – right sound bite rubbish.

    I do however welcome this diverson of the US defence budget for the reasons Peter outlines above. Maybe now that the precedent has been set maybe we’ll see a future Dem POTUS do the same thing and channel military funds into a universal public health system that most civilised countries have.

  66. Terrorism is defined by trying to change politics by violence by a hidden group of people. The ski mask is just a symbol of it.

    I assure you Paul if a President any President tried to seize the civilian guns in the United States there would be OPEN WAR.

    Declared and Open, and backed by the People. The rest of you do not understand the US if you think we will ever give up our guns voluntarily or by force. The real motto of the US.

    GOD, GUNS, and GUTS

    Several of you seem to think an invasion can only take place with a military army. You only show your ignorance of History both long past and recent. Look at France and all it’s no go zones… the real reason the UK is leaving the EU it’s over the invasion from uncontrolled immigration that was the last straw.

  67. I do however welcome this diverson of the US defence budget for the reasons Peter outlines above. Maybe now that the precedent has been set maybe we’ll see a future Dem POTUS do the same thing and channel military funds into a universal public health system that most civilised countries have.

    This is also a running statement and feeling from many of you…..

    Get this straight

    The United States Military has protected and saved the Western countries of the world for over 100 years.

    We do not occupy any nation by force… 99% of the American blood that has been laid down in service has been laid down in the liberation and protection of YOU. You lazy ass Euroweenies. I won’t even get into the humanitarian aid our military has done.

    You can’t fight, you can’t feed yourselves and you can’t fuel yourselves…. If you don’t like the US and our Army send it home defend yourselves. No US military or weapons in NATO and Germany send them home we’ll gladly take our troops, Tanks, and more importantly our missile defense systems and leave.

    I would love to see the military you field….. better put the french in the rear so when they retreat they don’t trample the rest of ya….. pack of wimps.

    just my view mind you.

  68. Terrorism is defined by trying to change politics by violence by a hidden group of people. The ski mask is just a symbol of it

    No it’s not Pat, that’s your personal definition. There are various definitions of terrorism this is your own country’s as per the 22 U.S. Code § 2656f. Annual country reports on terrorism:

    (2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2656f

    Your terrorism wet dream falls into the catageory of ‘subnational groups’

    I assure you Paul if a President any President tried to seize the civilian guns in the United States there would be OPEN WAR

    I didn’t say that. I said that the threat of two million guns would be nullified by two dozen fighter jets armed with Hellfire ASMs in a matter of days.

    Psuedo revolutionary, romantic, unrealistic rubbish.

    Several of you seem to think an invasion can only take place with a military army

    So it’s not a military invasion? Using the military against a civilian population is a war crime not to mention your domestic Posse Comitatus Act.

    Look at France and all it’s no go zones…

    The ones alleged by Fox News which they then aplogised on air four times for misleading information?

    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/paris-mayor-to-sue-fox-over-no-go-zone-comments/384656/

    The real reason the UK is leaving the EU it’s over the invasion from uncontrolled immigration that was the last straw.

    Really? Immigration from to the UK from where? There are 3.7 million EU citizens in the UK.

    Are you now telling us that the Brexit vote was based on racism & xenophobia?

  69. The United States Military has protected and saved the Western countries of the world for over 100 years.

    We do not occupy any nation by force… 99% of the American blood that has been laid down in service has been laid down in the liberation and protection of YOU. You lazy ass Euroweenies. I won’t even get into the humanitarian aid our military has done

    Apart from being wildly innaccurate what relation does that have with a POTUS setting this precedent and a future Dem POTUS doing the same thing and channel military funds into a universal public health system?

  70. (2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents

    no kidding really….. I didn’t know that but the precursor Paul is those acts done in that manner are perpetrated by people who HIDE THEIR IDENTITY…..

    If you don’t HIDE your identity if you state your name and reasons first you are a revolutionary, not a Terrorist.

    It always comes down to those that have the balls to do it in the light and those that don’t.

    It’s Black and White, Right or Wrong.

    Change real change is not achieved in the dark.

  71. I didn’t say that. I said that the threat of two million guns would be nullified by two dozen fighter jets armed with Hellfire ASMs in a matter of days.

    Psuedo revolutionary, romantic, unrealistic rubbish.

    talk about a fantasy…. an American President ordering hellfire missiles to be shot into any American city….. roflmao

    First shot by the military on civilians ordered by a president would mean civil war. The US had it’s civil war it is still our bloodiest war. It will never happen again. The fantasy you paint could and will never take place.

    Like disarming america, your scenario can never happen. It’s not who we are.

  72. So it’s not a military invasion? Using the military against a civilian population is a war crime not to mention your domestic Posse Comitatus Act.

    That’s not even thought out Paul……

    Dozens of Nations use the military to control their borders it is not a war crime and it’s to keep foreigners out not americans in so Posse Comitatus doesn’t apply….

    you can do better

  73. The ones alleged by Fox News which they then aplogised on air four times for misleading information?

    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/paris-mayor-to-sue-fox-over-no-go-zone-comments/384656/

    My only comment here is What other news station would on air 4 times apologize for getting it wrong?

    Really? Immigration from to the UK from where? There are 3.7 million EU citizens in the UK.

    Are you now telling us that the Brexit vote was based on racism & xenophobia?

    YES…. we are all xenophobic, and london is on the way to turning into the Middle East.

    That’s the force behind brexit…. immigration.

  74. The United States Military has protected and saved the Western countries of the world for over 100 years.

    We do not occupy any nation by force… 99% of the American blood that has been laid down in service has been laid down in the liberation and protection of YOU. You lazy ass Euroweenies. I won’t even get into the humanitarian aid our military has done

    Apart from being wildly innaccurate what relation does that have with a POTUS setting this precedent and a future Dem POTUS doing the same thing and channel military funds into a universal public health system?

    There is nothing inaccurate in what I said.

    The US will never have euro healthcare we don’t need it or want it. And Presidents can’t just do what they want. That’s not how our system works.

  75. “The US will never have euro healthcare we don’t need it or want it.”

    If healthcare is not a matter of national security I don’t know what is.

    If some moustache twirling villain had a biological weapon that was able to kill 2,000,000 people a year, you’d pay the military pretty much any amount of money to stop it and planes would be in the air within 6 seconds.

    Yet that’s about the combined annual death toll from heart disease, cancer, respiratory diseases, diabetes, Alzheimers, flu, etc in the US. That’s at least twice the combat deaths from the American civil war and WW2 combined. Every year.

    I fail to see how the removal of the moustache twirling villain from the scenario makes the threat any less serious.

    (And note that’s just the death toll, and only from the 10 leading causes of death.)

  76. Average life expectancy, both sexes in years

    US 79.3
    Germany 81
    UK 81.2
    Ireland 81.4
    Spain 82.8

    The average resident of Spain lives an eye-popping 3.5 years longer than the average US resident.

    The difference is astonishing, considering that the US spends so much more on health care per person than those of other countries, for such a poor result.

    Very many working class people here never see a doctor. So conditions aren’t detected early, etc.

    There are no safety nets in most states for working people who earn more than a set amount. The health care safety nets can kick in after they’ve been ruined by health care costs. As far as I’m concerned, those aren’t safety nets at all.

  77. Okay Pat,

    No kidding really….. I didn’t know that but the precursor Paul is those acts done in that manner are perpetrated by people who HIDE THEIR IDENTITY…..

    No Pat, no kidding. What I give above is your country’s definition of terrorism which has two elements:

    politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups OR clandestine agents

    Can you see the contrasting preposition? The former subnational group are your group of heavily armed American ‘patriots’ trying to overthrow the lawfully and democratically, (sort of), constituted government regardless of hidden identity or not. We’ve been through this before, are you seriously suggesting that every armed militia group in the US has a register of it’s membership ready to present to the Governement when you overthrow the Government?

    The definition you give above is your personal definition to fit your personal narrative.

    Talk about a fantasy…. an American President ordering hellfire missiles to be shot into any American city….. roflmao

    Yes Pat, of course it’s hypothetical. It’s as hypothetical as your two million guns overthrowing the government wet dream. Are you seriously trying to suggest that were two million guns were to organise to overthrow the legally mandated Government that Martial Law wouldn’t be declared and that the US military and it’s vast, vast resources wouldn’t have those two million guns nullified in a matter of days?

    That’s not even thought out Paul……

    Dozens of Nations use the military to control their borders it is not a war crime and it’s to keep foreigners out not Americans in so Posse Comitatus doesn’t apply….

    It’s slightly hyperbolic so as to draw attention to the ridiculousness of your claims. When was the last time the US military were deployed to police its borders? Do the US military police entry ports at US international airports and docks? Perhaps in contested zones like the North / Soth Korea DMZ soldiers are used for border control however can’t think of any western country which uses its military as opposed to police / border control/ Gendarmerie to police its borders in non contested areas.

    As for Posse Comitatus, its purposes was to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States. The last time I looked border US immigration policy was a domestic US issue and the US side of the southern border was within the US.

    My only comment here is What other news station would on air 4 times apologize for getting it wrong?

    Irrelevant. What is the crux of the matter is that they apologised for incorrect and misleading information and that your claim of no go zones is therefore incorrect.

    YES…. we are all xenophobic, and london is on the way to turning into the Middle East.

    That’s the force behind brexit…. immigration.

    We’ve been told many, many times here by those who actually voted for Brexit that it wasn’t based soley on immigration I’m sure they’ll be happy that you’ve put them straight however the above comment displays an incredible, astonishing ignorance regarding Britain’s relationship with the EU. Britain’s immigration policy from the ME is purely a domestic British matter and had absolutely no bearing on the EU whatsoever.

    There is nothing inaccurate in what I said.

    Oh don’t talk absolute rubbish. The US joined the two world wars purely to protect its own interests. It joined WWI almost three years late in the wake of the ‘Zimmerman Telegram’ being intercepted and joined WWII two years later when Pearl Harbour was attacked.

    Barring the two WWs I’d wager that there were more European lives lost in American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq than American lives lost in Europe as America exerted and extended its influence in Europe in the wake of WWII.

  78. Frank and Phantom. Well said on all points.

  79. On a related issue,

    It was the 246th mass shooting in the US this year, according to US tracking website Gun Violence Archive

    .

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49147369

    Cue the excuses.

  80. * two hundred million guns overthrowing the government wet dream.

  81. Yes

    The US entered WW2 because Japan had attacked us, and because the idiot Hitler then declared war on the US

    FDR was entirely in sympathy with England ( as they called it then ) but without Pearl Harbor there’s no reason to believe that the US would have entered that war, for some time, or ever

  82. //Yet that’s about the combined annual death toll from heart disease, cancer, respiratory diseases, diabetes, Alzheimers, flu, etc in the US. //

    Good point. But it would be better if those evils could be stopped by a government budget or scrambling planes.

  83. the #3 cause of death is Medical Mistakes

    What is the third leading cause of death in the US?
    Medical error is the third leading cause of death in the United States, after heart disease and cancer, according to findings published today in BMJ.

  84. The government does not do anything well. The third leading cause of death in US is medical mistakes… do you believe those mistakes will increase or decrease under government control….?

    Ask the guys who died waiting to see a VA Doctor….

  85. That would only begin to be possibly relevant if you compared the rate of medical error in the US with the rate of medical error in other advanced countries.

    Doctors/surgeons/nurses are human being and they will make errors as will pharmacists/architects/bus drivers / construction workers.

    You strive for zero errors but you never get there.

    That comment in isolation doesn’t mean anything.

  86. No….. it doesn’t matter what it is anywhere else. What matters is what it is here.

    It’s the third cause of death and disability, the medical system being run by bureaucrats will cause that number to rise not decline. We have the proof that the government can’t run a medical system as I said ask those who died waiting on the VA.

  87. We have the proof that the government can’t run a medical system

    You don’t. As a matter of fact when you look at most countries in Europe the proof is that exactly the opposite is true.

    The government does not do anything well.

    Hundreds of millions of people would disagree. Maybe it’s just your government?

  88. //That would only begin to be possibly relevant if you compared the rate of medical error in the US with the rate of medical error in other advanced countries.//

    Exactly – comparing a relatively unregulated healthcare system with regulated ones.

    But you could have guessed the result:

    Recent studies of medical errors have estimated errors may account for as many as 251,000 deaths annually in the United States (U.S)., making medical errors the third leading cause of death. Error rates are significantly higher in the U.S. than in other developed countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany and the United Kingdom (U.K). At the same time less than 10 percent of medical errors are reported.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28186008

  89. The usual suspects claim that the NHS kills all its patients

    Yet the average Britisher lives way more than two years longer than the average US person

    Those Brits must be very strong to survive all the NHS attempts to kill them every day

    I don’t agree that the US system is unregulated. But it’s a messy wildly complicated hell of private and state and federal government rules and regulations.

  90. Noel,

    “it would be better if those evils could be stopped by a government budget or scrambling planes.”

    Fair point, but do you doubt that a sizeable number of those deaths could be prevented by early detection and treatment? Or the development of new treatments and/or vaccines?

    There are plenty of other examples of such threats anyway which have no human agent behind them, e.g. the apparently imminent loss of antibiotic effectiveness seems to be a market failure of the sort that would require government intervention.

    And similarly if a person was able to bring about the same consequences it would be regarded as the biggest terrorist threat of all time.

  91. the apparently imminent loss of antibiotic effectiveness

    Would that really be a market failure?

    It seems to me to be a problem with a number of causes including over prescribing of these things in all countries….

  92. //but do you doubt that a sizeable number of those deaths could be prevented by early detection and treatment? //

    You’re right. But people seem to be a bit irrational in judging risks and responses. A terrorist attack rightly rings all the alarm bells, as do gun deaths, but the even bigger loss of life through, say, road accidents is practically ignored by the public, and the different responses and effectiness of measures taken by public authorities, or the lack thereof, doesn’t seem to generate the same level of public debate.

    I think health and disease and death through illness seem to fall into the same fatalistic trap. There is a sense that some things can be completely eliminated whereas others can’t, so we have to put up with them.

    But of course, different countries invest more than others, even in western Europe, in systems for detecting and treating breast cancer and the results are evident.
    Every Cent invested by govt in in prevention and cure of diseases is money well spent, and I have the feeling that this is getting to be a bigger issue and will soon become a top priority.
    Hasten the day!

  93. You don’t. As a matter of fact when you look at most countries in Europe the proof is that exactly the opposite is true.

    The government does not do anything well.

    Hundreds of millions of people would disagree. Maybe it’s just your government?

    roflmao….. none of your governments do it well I read your Press… but I’m talking about MY government and they have PROVEN they can’t do healthcare TWICE.

    The VA is a nightmare it’s killed 100s of patients and covered it up, and Obamacare caused more people to no longer be able to go to the doctor than people it helped.

    We don’t want your soviet system.

  94. ask those who died waiting on the VA.

    And is that more than in the private healthcare system? Because although it is specific to the locality, wait times are generally worse in the private system than they are in the VA.

  95. roflmao….. none of your governments do it well I read your Press…

    At your age you’d need to be careful with that athletic hilarity lest you do yourself an injury and get bankrupted with medical costs a second time.

    Phantom, on July 29th, 2019 at 12:19 PM Said:

    Average life expectancy, both sexes in years

    US 79.3
    Germany 81
    UK 81.2
    Ireland 81.4
    Spain 82.8

    Please provide links to the press reoprts which disprove this.

    I’m talking about MY government and they have PROVEN they can’t do healthcare TWICE.

    Hence my comment on another thread:

    Maybe the problem is your government

    As opposed to government in general?

  96. all governments are crap and if you’re making you healthcare case on avg life expectancy it doesn’t work. Healthcare is only one of a dozen factors.

  97. Article Here

  98. no neal…. article here….

    IG Report: 300,000 Veterans Died While Waiting for Health Care at VA

    https://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/09/04/ig-report-300000-veterans-died-while-waiting-health-care-va.html

  99. Healthcare is only one of a dozen factors.

    Fair enough, this is healthcare specific:

    https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/

    As is this:

    https://interactives.commonwealthfund.org/2017/july/mirror-mirror/#

    You can mull over the stats while you decide on which way you’re going to spin the outcome.

    None of your governments do it well I read your Press…

    Let’s have the sources that your conclusions are based on.

  100. He doesn’t know anything

    His opinions come from prejudices and believing yarns about how the NHS Kills everyone that enters one of its hospitals as reinforced by ignoramuses like Rush and Publications like the daily mail

  101. btw

    The average life expectancy in Canada is 82.2 years.

    If everyone has access to decent health care, you catch illnesses early.

    Etc.

  102. life expectancy is not based on healthcare and a 2 or 3 year difference which all you’re able to point at means nothing.

    So Phantom have you given up your corporate healthcare? We have a socialist system here why haven’t you joined it…. ?

    All talk

  103. PS how’s Mahons doing. I saw he told you he had a new job tell him we wish him well, but his presence is missed.

  104. How do you explain the links above which are based on healthcare Pat?

  105. a 2 or 3 year difference which all you’re able to point at means nothing.

    Print that comment and place it in the Hall of Fame

  106. yes please do…. because you’re all insane……

    Where do people live the longest?
    Top 5 Places Where People Live the Longest Around the World 1. Okinawa, Japan 2. Sardinia, Italy 3. Loma Linda, California 4. Nicoya, Costa Rica 5. Ikaria, Greece

    What country do people live longest?

    This map shows the countries where people live the longest. Japan was the country with the longest life expectancy at 83.1 years.

    Japanese Pay Less for More Health Care. It’s a model of social insurance that is used in many wealthy countries. But it’s definitely not “socialized medicine.”. Eighty percent of Japan’s hospitals are privately owned — more than in the United States — and almost every doctor’s office is a private business.

  107. I was at the DMV, the Dept. of Motor Vehicles, getting my driver’s license renewed. There must have been 200 people in the room and more outside. I couldn’t help but think, “and you want to run healthcare??”

  108. The DMV in NY state is great now.

    They run it like a business, and waits are manageable

    And the DMV doesn’t want to run healthcare 🙂

  109. //Japanese Pay Less for More Health Care. It’s a model of social insurance that is used in many wealthy countries. But it’s definitely not “socialized medicine.”. Eighty percent of Japan’s hospitals are privately owned — more than in the United States — and almost every doctor’s office is a private business.//

    Yes, exactly like the systems we have in Europe.

    You guys are beyond a laughing matter.

    You refer to European healthcare systems etc. as “socialized”, “socialist”, “commie” etc etc., but then when one of these so-called “socialist” or “commie” systems is shown to be successful, you then claim that that’s because it isn’t “socialist” after all.

  110. Nothing wrong with the Japanese health system.

    Insurance is compulsory, everyone pays into it, very healthy ( and slender ) people.

    Any combination of private or public is conceptually fine by me.

  111. Noel

    Apart from Charles, none of the usual suspects have any idea how anything works in Europe, what the pros and cons are

    This is a dialogue of the deaf. They’d rather die and go broke in our system than study anyone else’s system and adopt best practices.

    I think that we should steal ( adopt ) every good idea that anyone else has.

  112. so 80% of the Hospitals are privately owned in GB as well as 80% of the Dr’s Offices being Private….. ?

    Sorry…. this is a no lie zone and you’re telling a big one.

  113. Phantom you’re so full of crap…. you have a corporate healthcare plan and you have no inclination to drop it and go on the Obamacare plan offered in your state.

    Actions are what count….. you KNOW socialized medicine is shit, that’s why you don’t have it.

    you’re a hypocrite and a joke

  114. I think that we should steal ( adopt ) every good idea that anyone else has.

    Amen. One of the problems with the concept of American Exceptionalism is it leads to skewed thinking that we have the best in every aspect of life. We don’t, thanks to a trillion dollar defense budget. We need to look to other countries for “best practices.”

    I’m currently reading a book recommended by Seamus on how Germany operates. Now that’s a complicated federal system!

  115. Charles n the past 20yrs in your view how has the VA done for healthcare?

  116. The best companies including pro sports teams are constantly studying their competition, seeing what they do right so as to learn from it and adopt good ideas as quickly as possible.

    There isn’t one month when Amazon doesn’t learn something from Ebay or Macy’s, there isn’t one week when Mike Trout doesn’t learn something against his competitors in baseball.

    But we approach big national issues from a perspective of ideology first last and always and never learn from the experience of others. The concept is heretical.

  117. Charles n the past 20yrs in your view how has the VA done for healthcare?

    Terrible. Those stories you hear about old men dying from maggot infested wounds are true, they’re no joke. They Dr’s in my view are sub-standard. No Doctor worth his salt would work at the V.A. The pay is low.

  118. //so 80% of the Hospitals are privately owned in GB as well as 80% of the Dr’s Offices being Private….. ? //

    Less than 30 percent of the hospitals in “sozialised” healthcare Germany are in public ownership. All the doctors I ever went to have their own private business.

    You see, your head is so full of the shit you devour from people who are either as dumb as you are or who deliberately mislead the dumb, that you think compulsory healthcare means the entire medical system is “commie” or “socialized”.

    You have no excuse for your ignorance because Phantom was for several years hoarse telling you that you are wrong and explaining how things really are, and that the only real difference is that, yes, health insurance is compulsory for all.

    (Can you understand those last six words? I realise that that’s twice as long as Trump’s 3-word chants so it might pose some difficulty.)

    So once more: this does NOT mean that people have to buy state health insurance. Some insurance funds are public owned, most are not. People can choose which one they want, as long as they have some health insurance and do not then become a burden on others in the case of illness, as happened you.

    Similarly, some hospitals are private-owned, some public owned. The insured can go to ALL of them. Most, probably almost all, in-patients aren’t even aware if they are receiving treatment in a private or a public owned hospital. The question is irrelevant to them – they have insurance and their insurance pays for the treatment offered by both, and the standard in both is very high.

    The same with doctors, dentists, opticians, even therapists and shrinks, etc. – the vast majority have their own private business and everyone with health insurance, i.e. everyone in the country, can go to whichever one they choose and their insurance pays for it.
    You have your insurance card and just show it to the receptionist. You never see or have to think of money, and nobody does.

  119. The crux of Obamacare was that young, healthy people where required, or forced as the argument went, to buy insurance that they didn’t want.

  120. Everyone has to pay into a health insurance system, or it can never work.

    Young people do get sick, and/or get into accidents.

    The above was a preposterous argument. It doesn’t matter if they want it or not.

    The young person without insurance who got into a motorcycle accident is paid for by everyone else then and now, driving costs up.

  121. Hospitals can’t turn sick people away.

    They treat the uninsured person, who probably has little money in the bank.

    Then they shift the costs for the uninsured person’s care onto the rest of their patients, who pay for it.

    It is called ” cost shifting ” and it is a massive reason why costs are so high here and why the bureaucracy is so vast.

  122. Compulsory car insurance has been required in the UK since 1930. The general rule is that a person must have insurance or pay a surety deposit of £500,000 to the Accountant General of the Supreme Court (the Court Funds Office). Now given that insurance, while expensive, is not as expensive as having to pay £500,000 it has the general effect of making it universal. You cannot drive a car in the UK without insurance. And it broadly works.

    Such a similar scheme has been considered in the United States, and has been implemented in certain states. Including the Soviet Commune of Texas. A person must have insurance or must pay a surety bond of $55,000 with the comptroller or the county judge.

    So the concept of compulsory insurance is one that works, broadly speaking, in other aspects. Is healthcare so different that it wouldn’t work with healthcare?

  123. The types of insurance and the needs for them are really different but one thing is the same – you can’t have any fair system unless everyone pays into it, unless there is a floor of coverage.

    A person who drives without auto insurance or a person who chooses not to have health insurance when they could have it are taking advantage of their neighbors, who will bear the burden if there is a car crash or if someone gets sick

  124. But we approach big national issues from a perspective of ideology first last and always and never learn from the experience of others. The concept is heretical.

    If the species could do that they/us would never try socialism/communism ever it has killed over 150 million people….. yet every nation still plays with it to one extent or another.

  125. No every nation doesn’t do anything of the sort.

  126. bullshit…. name the country in the western world and I’ll show where the socialism/communism is.

    Every western country has a socialist/communist safetynet to one extreme or another.

  127. Texas does have compulsory car insurance. When stopped by the police you must present your driver’s license and proof of insurance. Still, people break the law and drive uninsured.

  128. damn outlaws……

  129. Charles you understand the need for mandatory auto liability insurance?

    Do you support that?

  130. Phantom I never said that some socialism/communism couldn’t be good. You know I support unemployment and workers comp soc sec…. etc but there is an element that would institute a soviet style on us in a second, and they would do it for one simple reason….

    They believe the only reason the soviet union failed is because they weren’t the ones running it.

  131. “but there is an element that would institute a soviet style on us in a second, and they would do it for one simple reason….”

    Such as?

  132. “Texas does have compulsory car insurance. When stopped by the police you must present your driver’s license and proof of insurance. Still, people break the law and drive uninsured.”

    In any system people are going to break the law. If you only had laws that people would follow 100% of the time then you wouldn’t have any laws.

  133. “but there is an element that would institute a soviet style on us in a second, and they would do it for one simple reason….”

    Such as?

    They believe the only reason the soviet union failed is because they weren’t the ones running it.

    That’s the reason…… put your glasses on son.

  134. I was asking about the element. What element in the US want a soviet style system?

  135. The extreme Leftist Seamus…. sorry

  136. “sorry”

    No problem.

    “The extreme Leftist Seamus”

    Can you be a little less generic? What person, or group, or organisation, etc… want a soviet style system?

  137. The word socialist has been demonized in the US, and it should never have been.

    Communism is evil, socialism is not. Socialism in the right places and right doses actually strengthens capitalism truth be told. A lot.

  138. Broadly social liberalism seems to be the ideal system, the economic strength of capitalism with the social safety nets of socialism. It is worth pointing out that, for example in the UK, that many of the tenets of socialism were actually designed or introduced by the Liberal Party, or by liberals. The welfare state was originally designed by the governments of Campbell-Bannerman and Asquith, primarily by future Prime Minister David Lloyd George. Many of the key reforms brought in by the Attlee government were actually designed by liberals John Maynard Keynes and William Beveridge.

  139. it is and has been for the past 100 years since Woodrow Wilson a faction of the Democrat Party.

  140. Hayek, who some claim to know, said that there was a proper role for government in health care.

  141. socialism/communism…. they are the same exact thing only one has better PR.

  142. “it is and has been for the past 100 years since Woodrow Wilson a faction of the Democrat Party.”

    So give me some names. Who supports a soviet system?

  143. I’m not going to play this game…. but a quick example would be the I ain’t done squat squad. They want to institute a soviet system, and are too stupid to even know that that’s what they are pushing.

    Communism has always been viable to a decent percentage of americans, but they don’t call themselves communists they call themselves “progressives” and have been doing so for a hundred years. They’ve been doing so long that the generation now and the last one before it don’t even know that their “progressivism” is communism packaged all pretty for them by academics.

  144. “I’m not going to play this game”

    Because your suggestion is nonsense. It is based on either a lack of understanding of the political positions of your opponents, or a lack of understanding of the soviet system. Or both.

    “but a quick example would be the I ain’t done squat squad. They want to institute a soviet system, and are too stupid to even know that that’s what they are pushing.”

    You any evidence of that?

    “Communism has always been viable to a decent percentage of americans, but they don’t call themselves communists they call themselves “progressives” and have been doing so for a hundred years.”

    There is no link between progressives and communists. Not least that when progressivism first emerged in the US there was already a viable socialist/communist party. Eugene Debs ran for President five times all in the era when the progressive movement first came to the fore. In fact in 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt ran for President as a Progressive, Debs ran for President as a Socialist (and received 6% of the vote).

  145. Very few progressives would be communists.

    As in, nearly none

  146. roflmao…..

    wrong you don’t know what you are talking about Seamus. Progressive Democrats are communists and if you researched the American Progressives you’d know that. Wilsonian Progressive’s…. are communists.

    Progressives are Communists, but because the primary founding father of the Progressive movement in America, Woodrow Wilson, said so. To deny Wilson’s definition and goals of Progressivism is to deny Jefferson’s assertions as to what he meant by the words he wrote in the Declaration of Independence. The truth is found in Woodrow Wilson’s essay, “The Study of Administration.” It is in this essay that we find the clearest picture of what the Progressives seek to accomplish, as well as why they call themselves Progressives,

    https://www.reference.com/history/woodrow-wilson-s-study-administration-c6e4b3301fb6fcd0

  147. here’s good breakdown of it.

    https://therionorteline.com/2012/04/20/yes-progressive-does-communist-and-wilson-said-so/

  148. Have you ever actually read the Study of Administration? And not just copied and paste bullshit from the (noted peer reviewed journal) “Rio Norte Line” blog. It primarily focuses on the need for a civil service like structure in America. It was about the need for a bureaucracy, not dictatorship.

  149. “Shortly after this, Wilson starts to expose one of the primary influences on his philosophical thinking by citing the father of modern socialist ideology and mentor of those who ascribed to it, Hegel. Marx was a student of Hegel. Wilson says:”

    Of all of the stupid things said in that post that one is amongst the dumbest. Marx was a student of Hegel. That being said almost all German philosophy has its routes in Hegel.

    But lets take the assertion to its logical extreme. Marx was a student of Hegel – so Hegel was a Communist. That is effectively what it is saying. But then Hegel was a student of Rousseau. So Rousseau must have been a Communist as well. And if Roussea was a Communist then so were all the people influenced by him. So pretty much all the American Founding Fathers were Communists.

  150. ” Wilson was a Commie ”

    That’s from the alt-right wing hogwash machine.

    Wilson dubbed the Bolsheviks “barbarians,” “terrorists” and “tyrants.” He said they were engaged in a “brutal” campaign of “mass terrorism,” of “blood and terror,” of “indiscriminate slaughter” through “cunning” and “savage oppression.” The “violent and tyrannical” Bolsheviks were “the most consummate sneaks in the world,” and Bolshevism was an “ugly, poisonous thing.” Wilson warned that the Bolsheviks were pushing an “expansionist” ideology that they wanted to export “throughout the world,” including into the United States.

    Most significant, Wilson and his State Department insisted that America should not have diplomatic relations or try to find common ground with the Bolsheviks …

    President Wilson was so concerned about international communism that he actually aided the forces fighting the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War. He supported a naval blockade of a Red-controlled area inside the USSR, and even joined a multinational Western coalition in sending troops — a huge contingent of over 10,000 American boys — to battle the Bolsheviks.

    Paul Kengor, conservative professor
    http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2012/04/allen-west-calls-woodrow-wilson-was-a-communist.html

  151. Pete Moore jokingly calls everyone a “commie” . Patrick really believes everyone is. 😉

  152. You are a commie for saying that.

    It’s not true, but its fun to say that.

  153. “Pete Moore jokingly calls everyone a “commie” . Patrick really believes everyone is. 😉”

    It’s like the line in Yes, Prime Minister.

    The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

  154. I’m Spartacus (the commie)…. No I’m Spartacus (the commie) , No I’m Spartacus( the commie) 😉

  155. Some of your talk radio bullshit artists including Mark Levin call everyone a communist.

    As previously mentioned, this is the bright light who questioned whether America’s health care problem should be fixed. ” Who said that every problem needs to be fixed ” he screamed, I swear.

    And some actually think that Levin is a smart guy.

  156. No you can’t be Spartacus if Corey Booker is Spartacus

  157. “I’m Spartacus (the commie)…. No I’m Spartacus (the commie) , No I’m Spartacus( the commie) 😉”

    I’m Brian, and so’s my wife.

    The irony being the precursor movement of the German Communist Party was in fact the Spartacus League.

  158. Donald Trump is a Commie. Oh no ! Who’s Patrick gonna support now ? 😉

  159. Seamus

    Thanks for the info. Even as I was typing that I knew there was some connection being the word Spartacus and communism. I remember seeing a newspaper called Spartacus something being handed out at left wing demos years ago along with Socialist Worker.

  160. Spartacus was listed as one of the personal heroes of Karl Marx. So most Marxists that followed decided to be completely original and hero worship him as well. Marx apparently described Spartacus as “the most splendid fellow in the whole of ancient history” and a “great general, noble character, and real representative of the ancient proletariat”.

  161. Yes but which Spartacus was Marx on about ? 😉

  162. I’m Larry and this my brother Darrel and my other brother Darrel. We run a restaurant…..

    or my favorite….. “Where you from?…. Lake Winnipesaukee One of a litter of 3…. don’t tell me you’re the one they kept ?…. Nah I’m the one they threw away….

  163. but you’re all a bunch of commie pinko faggots…… with a nefarious plan to J*** **f the world tonight….

    The dirty little secret of american society but there have always been a strong communist element in america. Everyone McCarthy accused he was proven right about via the VERONA papers.

    There is nothing wrong with being a commie, on paper it’s the best system. It just don’t work when you add the human factor. That has been proven every place it has been tried but there is always a group that believe they can do it.

    If you ascribe to man made global warming and the fixes that have been proposed you’ve been sold communism. Marketing works… give control of the worlds energy so they can manage it properly…. they know what’s good for the planet trust them…. lmao….

    god I’m running out of asses to laugh off

  164. As previously mentioned, this is the bright light who questioned whether America’s health care problem should be fixed. ” Who said that every problem needs to be fixed ” he screamed, I swear.

    And some actually think that Levin is a smart guy.

    How many Briefs of yours have been tried before the supreme court phantom? Levin has 5. and yes he did say what you have written, but like a good little lefty head full of mush drone you have it out of context and only half the statement.

    Whether you’re actually aware of that I doubt it, because you got it second hand…

  165. I don’t care if the poodle dog Levin yaps before the supreme court every day of his life

    Who cares

    There are highly intelligent lawyers but he’s not one of them

  166. oh ok skippy…… you say it’s so….. so it must be so……

  167. Patrick

    You do know the Verona papers were Just a paranoid hit list of random names ?

  168. “Everyone McCarthy accused he was proven right about via the VERONA papers.”

    Utter nonsense. Of the 159 targeted by Joe McCarthy the Venona project papers found that 9 of them had aided Soviet espionage efforts.

  169. and those 9 were some of the ones the used to drive the man to his death…..

  170. that’s what I enjoy about arguing with you seamus…..

    You took the time to look at the venona issue to say how many it did prove.

    Who ever taught you that habit did you the best favor of your life. No matter the arena you’re always better off checking the facts for yourself.

  171. “and those 9 were some of the ones the used to drive the man to his death…..”

    To be honest I feel he deserves criticism for the 9 as well. Because he made no real effort to determine who was or wasn’t a Soviet agent and instead engaged in a scattershot approach that infringed on the First Amendment rights of all of the people he accused (and had a chilling effect on even those he didn’t accuse). His initial premise, that the Soviet Union was engaging in substantial espionage activity in the United States, was proved true. His accusations against named individuals largely wasn’t.

    “Who ever taught you that habit did you the best favor of your life.”

    Cheers Patrick. When my father was a child he was limited to 20 questions a day (probably as he was constantly annoying my grandparents). My parents took the opposite approach. We were encouraged to ask questions. I’ve always had a philosophy that I’m not content not knowing something. If I don’t know something I want to find out. I was also one of those kids who wasn’t content to have a toy that was fun to play with. I had a tendency to take it apart and see how it worked.

  172. There is a ton to criticize about the mccarthy hearings and that whole period. Another thing about that period was Richard Nixon’s involvement. For as much as he is maligned by history this time period is always left out.

    He was heavily involved with McCarthy and the early hunt for commies, but he bailed just as it started getting ugly.