BlogHer - Harry Reid - Comments

Whew

LarryWilcoxx — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 00:51:52 -0500

Talk about projection...buncha little men with little their little penises and big bad guns.

So why would we be concerned

aftercancer — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:23:16 -0500

he sounds like a well balanced person - NOT!

You know, during the presidential conventions and WTO meetings and things like that protestors have been put in "free speech zones", generally away from the event itself. I'm surprised nothing like this has been set up for the gun toters.

Of course, I also want the tax exempt status withdrawn from the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe. I suspect that could get a shot fired in my direction.

Kate

I blog at http://www.aftercancernowwhat.com

Update

Maria Niles — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 23:26:33 -0500

Gun-Toter From Obama Event: I, Like My Pastor, Want The President To Die

The violent anti-Obama sentiment coming out of central Arizona managed to get still more toxic over the weekend.

Chris Broughton, the man who brought an AR-15 rifle and a handgun to an Arizona Obama rally earlier this month, says he "concurs" with his fundamentalist pastor's prayer for President Obama "to die and go to hell."

And in an interview with a local TV station, pastor Steven Anderson himself elaborated on his statement to TPMmuckraker that he would prefer Obama to die of natural causes so "he's not some martyr."

"I don't want him to be a martyr, we don't need another holiday. I'd like to see him die, like Ted Kennedy, of brain cancer," Anderson now says.

In an interview with ABC 15 outside the storefront Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Broughton said of Anderson's controversial August 16 "Why I Hate Barack Obama" sermon: "I concur, I think we'd be better off if God would send [Obama] where he's going now instead of later. [Obama] is destroying our country."

And when a reporter followed up with, "you're not advocating violence against the president?" Broughton, who has previously said his weapons are for defense, says "I'm not going to answer that question directly."

Special interests

BarbD — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 06:35:24 -0500

I am actually not ideologically committed to a public option. I'm open to solutions that will bring more sanity to health care. Insurance reform is certainly way up there in terms of fixing some of the most egregious problems.

And I do share Christine's concern about the special interests influencing the health care debate. I've been tracking the money involved in lobbying Congress (and those members most involved in the evolving legislation) and right up there at the top are insurance companies and Pharma.

That concern holds true for me about almost everything Congress debates.

A voice of reason

aftercancer — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:39:36 -0500

Thank you for being level headed. I know not everyone with a gun is going to stage a shoot out and I sometimes don't communicate that well. Thanks for the reminder.

Kate

I blog at http://www.aftercancernowwhat.com

I have my concealed carry

Leighbra — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:06:24 -0500

I have my concealed carry permit, and it's laughable to say that
everyone with a CWP has undergone ANY training, let alone "pretty
extensive" training.

Not all states are alike in their
requirements. In shall-issue states, if the FBI doesn't get back to the
permit office within 90 days, you get your permit regardless of your
background.

The best thing we can do is act like civilized,
thoughtful, responsible gun owners AT ALL TIMES, even (and especially)
on a message board predominantly for liberal women or at town hall
debates.

If you can't change someone's mind, the next best thing is to not reinforce whatever idea they have about gun-owners.

I'm
a 20-something mom, a nurse, a liberal Democrat who wants to see health care reform
so badly it makes me stomach sick. I'm not sure this is the best way to
go about it, I would rather see the health care industry police itself
and stop making insurance/pharm and med companies rich while people
choose between filling their perscriptions and having running water.
(You know, putting the patient first) I voted for Obama, I am
prochoice, I volunteer in my community to back up abstinence based
education with an education that works. I started the recycling program in my town, and feel strongly about global warming/green issues.

I am not that man screaming on TV.

That
man brought his AR15 to that meeting for INTIMIDATION. That's the only
reason. An AR15 is not for your personal protection in a crowded public
place.

Act responsibly, gun owners. These antics may be within
our rights, but you are shooting yourself in the foot. And the really
crappy part is that you're shooting me in the foot while you're at it.

Another
laughable idea is the one that anyone with a gun is going to shoot
someone. There are so many people around us quietly carrying concealed
weapons at all times, nearly everywhere we go. I promise that someone
in Whole Foods has a gun in their purse, and I'm pretty sure that
they're not going to shoot up the place if someone cuts in front of
them in line, or takes the last box of Chex.

Kate, how you chose to

Leighbra — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 17:27:25 -0500

Kate, how you chose to respond to his response is extremely adult, and well put. You are an example I will hold in my head about not taking the bait online, or taking things personally.

Oh to be so succinct!

Federal gov't, lobbyists, and special interests are the problem

Christine Watch Me — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:35:33 -0500

Most of the problems with insurance companies is CAUSED by the federal gov't and their lack of regulation in some areas, and over regulation in others. And the solution of the federal gov't isn't to correct these issues, but instead to take over the industry? Curious.

For example, it's the federal gov't that won't allow citizens to buy insurance across state lines; insurance rates from state to state vary greatly. The public option is touted as necessary to "increase competition to reduce prices." Allowing individuals access to ALL 1,300 or so health care plans in the US would be more effective at that than adding ONE more option.

The federal gov't's anti-trust laws prohibit private parties from starting insurance co-opts; eliminate that restriction and let's see what the purchasing power of US citizens can be!

Insurance companies should not be allowed to deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions. Period. There should also not be rescission departments that revoke coverage once a claim is made. And I do believe every citizen should be required to have at least catastrophic care...the CBO estimated that 15 million of those 47 or so uninsured were offered employer health care insurance but declined to sign up. Let them pay out of pocket for routine healthcare, but if they have a car accident or a major illness, they should have insurance to cover those costs.

It's often bandied about, "The US is the only industrialized nation that doesn't provide health care for it's people." This is categorically incorrect. Not only do we have Medicaid and Medicare, there are plenty of countries who have universal healthcare but NO public option. The Netherlands, for example, eliminated THEIR unsustainable public option in 2006 and still have 100% insurance. Here is a great article about International Healthcare myths:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR200908...

If you would like to know why I personally am against government-run healthcare, check out this clip (ignore inflammatory title and just watch CNN video): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCbwde1iRLQ

Our federal gov't is far too beholden to special interests and lobbyists. Until that situation is drastically altered, a gov't run health care system would really be a special interest/lobbyist health care system. Essentially, a different for-profit entity in control of your health.

"get a job?"

Mata H — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 09:47:30 -0500

tell me you don't seriously think it is that easy.

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs right along at Time's Fool

Okay, first of all don't

aftercancer — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:29:49 -0500

Okay, first of all don't ever refer to my cancer battle as a sob story, it is beneath you.

Second I do not want to suppress your opinions, I weant you to think outside yourself. Unless you're working in oncology you have absolutely no idea of the costs of treatment, costs that charities are by no means able to absorb.

I hope that your father is well.

Kate

I blog at http://www.aftercancernowwhat.com

Fun Love

dlredden — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:23:49 -0500

It's apperant to me that we don't really see eye to eye on much. However, I never said that he should've taken a gun to that rally just that he had the right to do so. Even if it was stupid.

The concept that if we were all armed we'd have fewer crimes against innocent civilians is hysterical.

I don't really see why that's so hysterical. It make complete sense to me. The thing with a CCW is that you go through some pretty extensive training before you get it. I'd rather your McD's customer have gone through the CCW training and be packing. Why? I'm glad you asked. Because that person would know that s/he needed to exercise more self control so that a fight didn't break out. CCW folks don't want a gun fight but want to be able to participate if required.

The crazies will have guns leagally or illegally. Since it's un-american to take away peoples guns lets make sure that all of the sane people are packing so as to keep the crazies in check.

BTW, if your uncomfortable with guns then by all means don't use/carry/own one, just don't tell me that I can't.

Tough Love

dlredden — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:14:14 -0500

You have my sympathy. You have my charity if needed. You may not have my support for a big government run system that it cannot afford.

Don't presume that my life is, has or will be a walk in the park. I have not had to battle with cancer but my father did. You know what? He won. He also took care of his own insurance/medical bills. We were not wealthy or even well to do. We were actually very near the poverty level but he took care of himself with the help of some good friends. That's how it's supposed to work when people need help. The government will only abuse and misuse it's power and resources. That's not a guess that's an observation of history.

How dare you try to guilt me into supressing my opinions with your sob story about cancer. Poor thing. Is life hard? Yes it is and it sucks sometimes. That's no reason to run off and make stupid choices as a nation. We need to suck it up and deal with the mess we've made instead of looking to some large unorganized goverment to solve all of our issues.

I'd like to point out the failure that was the Katrina aftermath. I bet you think that was the governments fault. I don't. I blame the idiots who stayed and relied on someone else to take care of them.

Congratulations on your victory over cancer. I pray that you never have to battle it again. If you do send me an email and I promise you that I'll contribute to your cancer fund as much as I can, but I'll be damned if I'm going to passively allow my government to bail you or anyone else out. That's not the federal goverments role.

Sounds Good (Sortof)

dlredden — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:01:26 -0500

Education is not something that the federal government should be doing anything about. They've all but destroyed our education system as it is. Police protection is something that a local community should pay taxes to support, local being at a city, county and possibly state level. Roads are for the most part a state taxable issue as well with the small possibilty of federal assistance for interstate maintenance.

If your paying attention you'll see that I'm not apposed to all things government just almost all things federal government. Health care is not any of the federal governments business, they should stay out of it all together.

I'm not heartless, nobody should have to go without medical attention when they need it, but people need to take resposibility for themselves and when they're in real need charitable organizations should be there to pick up the slack. If we didn't have to pay so much in taxes charitable giving might be much higher.

I'm sure you'll think that's rediculous as well. Rely on charity for health care? Obsurd! Why would we ever think that anyone would come to the aid of others on their own free will? I don't know but the alternative of the Fed taking money from me to do just that is unacceptable.

Citation please, Dana when making this kind of assertion

Jill Miller Zimon — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 16:41:20 -0500

You wrote, "nearly every crime committed with a firearm is done so by a person who illegally owns and operates a firearm."

Here's a list of places to find such a statistic from the USDOJ but I don't see anything that supports what you've asserted. This info is more than 12 years out of date:

Offenders

According to
the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a
gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market
or gun show for fewer than 2%

a retail store
or pawnshop for about 12%

family, friends,
a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

Is there somewhere else you're looking? (Editing in - I found this from an NRA resource but I don't really see anything like what you assert and they also assert without attribution.)

Jill Writes Like She Talks

Confrontational

BarbD — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 07:48:16 -0500

Dana,

I watched your video clips. While I don't condone pushing, shoving, yelling or any other form of violence, I found the way you approached some people confrontational: loud and pushy. Under those circumstances, I would not have wanted to engage in conversation with you, either.

I would also hope that when the word "socialism" is thrown around, we use it with some consistency. In your mind when is it not socialism? Are public schools socialistic? Public hospitals? Where do you draw the line in defining what's acceptable for a society to fund for the public good and what is not?

I also have trouble understanding why allowing insurance companies the right to dictate our coverage (or lack thereof) -- at huge profits -- is considered preferable to allowing a public option. What is more acceptable about choosing profits over lives? Why is rationing care by insurance companies preferable to rationing that might occur under a government plan?

Last, you say you're for reform -- just not as currently structured. What could you support? It seems to me that this would make for a much more productive discussion than what you've provided so far.

BarbD
The Middle Way