protesters bring firearms to town hall meetings

[Minicreatures]

Originally posted by slah

Originally posted by airhead

Originally posted by Niall
...I am sure that I heard that \'right to bear arms\' was only created when the American settlers wanted to create their own nation, so they needed a fast militia to hold off the British troops. It was never intended to last forever

Then you heard wrong.

That amendment was #2, only behind #1 Freedom of Speech. It was placed there for a reason; so that the government knew it\'s place.

the reason it placed in the constitution all those years ago is for all intents and purposes completely irrelevant. Every law should be viewed on it´s merits based on the society as it is right now. No people could have predicted todays society back when the constitution was written, so reasons stated at that time are void and without meaning (at least in my opinion). Following this, and the fact that armed uprising against the state is not a realistic option in todays America (again - in my opinion) there really is no valid reason for such easy access to guns.

****

Originally posted by Farin
...still i believe in restricting gun ownership. Of cause , If someone has the necessary licence / permit and therefor proven that he is a responsible citizen AND has a reason for owning firearms other than some strange conspiracy theory, like say hunting , than he has any right to have one - i just don´t think it should be possibly to have such an easy access to automatic fire arms and assault weapons as in some States of the US.

We don\'t have to have a reason to own guns. Hunting is not mentioned in the second amendment.

As to automatic weapons (an assault weapon is full auto by definition, contrary to what the press and Brady crowd would have you believe), they are not easy to come by, you have to go through a very thorough screening by the BATFE and pay a hefty premium (yearly) to own one.

****

The funniest part of this whole thread is the number of people from other countries that feel the need to tell citizens of the U.S. how our health care should be formed and how our gun laws ought to be changed. Don\'t get me wrong, I don\'t mind looking at alternatives, but our system has worked for 100 years and all of a sudden this power monger says we have to change it \"right now\" or it will fall apart. Hell, it took him 6 months to pick a \"first dog.\" Shouldn\'t we take more than 2 weeks to look over a massive society changing bill before we vote on it?


I´ll admit that I have no idea of the inner workings of proposed health care changes in America, and as such have no idea whether or not it is a good idea.I do agree with you that if it really is a MASSIVE reconfiguring of the current system there should be time to look it over closely before voting on it.

However just because I´m a foreigner I do have an opinion on whether or not people owning guns are a good idea or not.
***

That´s too easy. Put strung out crackhead armed with a loaded handgun instead of rapist and a sign that says \"how do you like our gun-control laws\", and check how people respond instead

Confucius said \"The first rule of politics is to use the language precisely. Otherwise, nobody understands anybody else, and everything falls into chaos.\"

The Bill of Rights is not irrelevant, and neither is owning a gun. The draftsmen were trying to see and prepare as far into the future as possible when they prepared those documents. They spent a long time making sure that the wording itself could not be misconstrued or bent to weaken the rights of the people, which they fought so hard for. It\'s a control issue. If you are ok with being controlled and at the mercy of whomever is in power of your land at the time, great. But that\'s on you, as well as the consequences of that thinking. It seems a bit flippant and short sighted to not look to the future, or assume that the creators of a governing document would only intend it last for a few years...

As a side note, is it true that \'Big Brother\' is as bad as it seems in England? I truly hope not.

As for the crack dealer situation (who is not in his right mind and has an illegal gun), you better bet your tookus I\'m going to want a gun as well to defend myself. Self reliance should not be looked down on. If the crazies of society are going to have guns anyway, I want to be able to protect myself if that situation should arise, instead of being helpless and waiting for the cops to show up (usually arriving after the fact when I would be corpse looted in a pool of my own blood). I want someone to think twice before thinking its ok to attack me.

Also this discussion is reminding me of something my friends and I were talking about the other night. We were talking about Margaret Mead and Robert Anton Wilson, and how patriarchal societies historically always end up stomping out through brute force the matriarchal societies which tend to be more peaceful. It\'s sad sure but then again being a victim sucks horribly. I\'d rather be a strong arm than a helpless babe. I have a choice still to be armed if I wish and I am going to use it. If I am attacked by some crazy pants who is threatening my life and existence, I will not go down without a fight.

 

[airhead]

Originally posted by Amazon warrior

Originally posted by airhead
...our system has worked for 100 years...

100 years!!?!! Gosh-golly-gee-wow! Oh, wait....

I was referring to the current method of insurance/hospitals/health care.
It has changed a bit in the last 20 with the invention of the HMO, but prior to that it is about the same as it was as far back as my Dad can remember...
You got a date on when the modern health insurance company started?
Blue Cross/Blue Shield (one of our largest) started in the 1920\'s, so maybe not quite 100 years.

 

[Minicreatures]

In addition, this is an extremely important right for me personally as a woman. Do you remember fondly way back when, when I would have been considered not even a person but property!? With no voice, no recourse for actions taken against me? Not allowed to own land, or run a business, let alone be given permission to own and use a gun legally? I\'m certainly not going to let down all of my forebearers who worked hard to see that I would have these rights. So I\'m not going to take them lightly or give them away in the name of some nebulous abstract concept of \'safety\'.

 

[slah]

Originally posted by Minicreatures

Confucius said \"The first rule of politics is to use the language precisely. Otherwise, nobody understands anybody else, and everything falls into chaos.\"

The Bill of Rights is not irrelevant, and neither is owning a gun. The draftsmen were trying to see and prepare as far into the future as possible when they prepared those documents. They spent a long time making sure that the wording itself could not be misconstrued or bent to weaken the rights of the people, which they fought so hard for. It\'s a control issue. If you are ok with being controlled and at the mercy of whomever is in power of your land at the time, great. But that\'s on you, as well as the consequences of that thinking. It seems a bit flippant and short sighted to not look to the future, or assume that the creators of a governing document would only intend it last for a few years...

By that definition no manmade law would ever have to be rewritten because we are infallible beings who never makes any mistakes because we are all.knowing. - I´m gonna have to call that hubris on an enormous level, and that that theory can be disproved by turning on the TV on any given night.

These people had no idea of how society today is. They could not foresee the free flow of information, money and people. They would have as big of a chance of making laws that would fit aliens as they would fit people 300 years into the future.

Also the 2nd amendment seems to presume that people keeping and bearing arms have to be part of a well regulated militia?


As a side note, is it true that \'Big Brother\' is as bad as it seems in England? I truly hope not.

As for the crack dealer situation (who is not in his right mind and has an illegal gun), you better bet your tookus I\'m going to want a gun as well to defend myself. Self reliance should not be looked down on. If the crazies of society are going to have guns anyway, I want to be able to protect myself if that situation should arise, instead of being helpless and waiting for the cops to show up (usually arriving after the fact when I would be corpse looted in a pool of my own blood). I want someone to think twice before thinking its ok to attack me.

I would prefer living in a society where the crack head wouldn´t be able to obtain any gun because the gunlaws prohibits it. I know that they most likely are toting \"illegal\" firearms, but those illegal firearms comes from \"legal\" guns being stolen. They are no \"illegal\" gunfactories where criminals go and buy guns. \"illegal\" guns logically have to originate from the \"legal\" market.

Also this discussion is reminding me of something my friends and I were talking about the other night. We were talking about Margaret Mead and Robert Anton Wilson, and how patriarchal societies historically always end up stomping out through brute force the matriarchal societies which tend to be more peaceful. It\'s sad sure but then again being a victim sucks horribly. I\'d rather be a strong arm than a helpless babe. I have a choice still to be armed if I wish and I am going to use it. If I am attacked by some crazy pants who is threatening my life and existence, I will not go down without a fight.

This might historically be true, but most of the civilized world have moved on from this frame of mind. Noone in their right mind expects USA to start invading and occupy countries in Europe just because we are \"soft\" and \"squemish\". This in fact goes directly to my point that you have to adjust and adapt the legal system to the society as it is today. You don´t try and fit the society into some archaic notions of how best to protect civic liberties. Instead you divide the power making sure that anybody reaching despotic powers only do so with the backing of the people.

 

[skeeve]

Originally posted by Minicreatures
In addition, this is an extremely important right for me personally as a woman. Do you remember fondly way back when, when I would have been considered not even a person but property!? With no voice, no recourse for actions taken against me? Not allowed to own land, or run a business, let alone be given permission to own and use a gun legally? I\'m certainly not going to let down all of my forebearers who worked hard to see that I would have these rights. So I\'m not going to take them lightly or give them away in the name of some nebulous abstract concept of \'safety\'.

Ok, it is a bit off topic, but all right, Let\'s be consistent then. Since you constantly refer to the Constitution as it was envisioned by your forebears how about you give up your voting rights right now. You, as a women didn\'t have them until 1920 (unless you were living in Wyoming). In fact, I am afraid , better half of US posters here wouldn\'t have voting right till probably 1830-40 due to insufficient property ownership. By the best estimates after all restriction were put in place ~ 10-20% of white male population was eligible to vote.

Any broad document is much easier to interpret restrictively then a narrow one. In the case of the Constitution all you need to do is redefine \"people\" - which was done several times during the last two centuries.
\"People\" during founding father\'s time and people now are two rather different demographic groups.

 

[Minicreatures]

Originally posted by slah

Originally posted by Minicreatures

Confucius said \"The first rule of politics is to use the language precisely. Otherwise, nobody understands anybody else, and everything falls into chaos.\"

The Bill of Rights is not irrelevant, and neither is owning a gun. The draftsmen were trying to see and prepare as far into the future as possible when they prepared those documents. They spent a long time making sure that the wording itself could not be misconstrued or bent to weaken the rights of the people, which they fought so hard for. It\'s a control issue. If you are ok with being controlled and at the mercy of whomever is in power of your land at the time, great. But that\'s on you, as well as the consequences of that thinking. It seems a bit flippant and short sighted to not look to the future, or assume that the creators of a governing document would only intend it last for a few years...

By that definition no manmade law would ever have to be rewritten because we are infallible beings who never makes any mistakes because we are all.knowing. - I´m gonna have to call that hubris on an enormous level, and that that theory can be disproved by turning on the TV on any given night.

These people had no idea of how society today is. They could not foresee the free flow of information, money and people. They would have as big of a chance of making laws that would fit aliens as they would fit people 300 years into the future.

Also the 2nd amendment seems to presume that people keeping and bearing arms have to be part of a well regulated militia?


As a side note, is it true that \'Big Brother\' is as bad as it seems in England? I truly hope not.

As for the crack dealer situation (who is not in his right mind and has an illegal gun), you better bet your tookus I\'m going to want a gun as well to defend myself. Self reliance should not be looked down on. If the crazies of society are going to have guns anyway, I want to be able to protect myself if that situation should arise, instead of being helpless and waiting for the cops to show up (usually arriving after the fact when I would be corpse looted in a pool of my own blood). I want someone to think twice before thinking its ok to attack me.

I would prefer living in a society where the crack head wouldn´t be able to obtain any gun because the gunlaws prohibits it. I know that they most likely are toting \"illegal\" firearms, but those illegal firearms comes from \"legal\" guns being stolen. They are no \"illegal\" gunfactories where criminals go and buy guns. \"illegal\" guns logically have to originate from the \"legal\" market.

Also this discussion is reminding me of something my friends and I were talking about the other night. We were talking about Margaret Mead and Robert Anton Wilson, and how patriarchal societies historically always end up stomping out through brute force the matriarchal societies which tend to be more peaceful. It\'s sad sure but then again being a victim sucks horribly. I\'d rather be a strong arm than a helpless babe. I have a choice still to be armed if I wish and I am going to use it. If I am attacked by some crazy pants who is threatening my life and existence, I will not go down without a fight.

This might historically be true, but most of the civilized world have moved on from this frame of mind. Noone in their right mind expects USA to start invading and occupy countries in Europe just because we are \"soft\" and \"squemish\". This in fact goes directly to my point that you have to adjust and adapt the legal system to the society as it is today. You don´t try and fit the society into some archaic notions of how best to protect civic liberties. Instead you divide the power making sure that anybody reaching despotic powers only do so with the backing of the people.

Ok on the relevance of the Bill of Rights and owning a gun, I don\'t think I can convince you to even remotely see my side, so we agree to disagree.

As to the crazy crackhead... I would prefer it if he didn\'t have access to illegal guns also but that\'s simply not the case and won\'t be for a long time. And since I would prefer to not be a sheep just waiting to be sheared but any passing loony, my opinion still stands.

As for the patriarchal/matriarchal societal comments, I was certainly NOT insinuating that the Big Bad Hulk USA is was or should invade Europe.

lol

Far from it. I was just pointing out that when looking at history, an unarmed population is an easy target for exploitation from inside and out. And who knows where a threat may arise from? Surely the entire European population, natives and immigrants are all happy and satisfied with their situations in life?

Freedom is a tenuous thing and shouldn\'t be taken for granted. Why should my country have to adapt to yours? If push comes to shove you are lacking in that department a bit I\'m just saying...

 

[Minicreatures]

Originally posted by skeeve

Originally posted by Minicreatures
In addition, this is an extremely important right for me personally as a woman. Do you remember fondly way back when, when I would have been considered not even a person but property!? With no voice, no recourse for actions taken against me? Not allowed to own land, or run a business, let alone be given permission to own and use a gun legally? I\'m certainly not going to let down all of my forebearers who worked hard to see that I would have these rights. So I\'m not going to take them lightly or give them away in the name of some nebulous abstract concept of \'safety\'.

Ok, it is a bit off topic, but all right, Let\'s be consistent then. Since you constantly refer to the Constitution as it was envisioned by your forebears how about you give up your voting rights right now. You, as a women didn\'t have them until 1920 (unless you were living in Wyoming). In fact, I am afraid , better half of US posters here wouldn\'t have voting right till probably 1830-40 due to insufficient property ownership. By the best estimates after all restriction were put in place ~ 10-20% of white male population was eligible to vote.

Any broad document is much easier to interpret restrictively then a narrow one. In the case of the Constitution all you need to do is redefine \"people\" - which was done several times during the last two centuries.
\"People\" during founding father\'s time and people now are two rather different demographic groups.

I was using my gender as an example of part of the reason WHY owning and maintaining the right to own a gun is important personally to me.

So let\'s not divert down the road and offtopic from the main point which was: people having a problem with normal US citizens attending a public political debate carrying openly guns they own legally.

Yes the interpretation and definition of what \'people\' means has changed with the times over the years, but the document itself has not been rewritten from its origins. And politicians certainly have tried.

Again this is an internal matter of personal rights of US citizens, which I don\'t think I can adequately convey. You choose to exist in your environments how you wish and though I don\'t agree with it, I\'m not biting your head off about it... just hoping it does indeed work out ok for you down the road. Historically speaking to be unarmed is a weak position that relies on everyone else falling in line. But people are chaotic and don\'t always function as a set program.

 

[Farin]

Freedom is a tenuous thing and shouldn\'t be taken for granted. Why should my country have to adapt to yours? If push comes to shove you are lacking in that department a bit I\'m just saying...

little offtopic, bu i gotta say this:

It doesn´have to adapt of cause Damned, the world would be so much more boring if you would adapt to our standards- do you have any idea how entertaining US politics is? lol
You have:
town hall meetings
Sarah Palin
dissapearing Governours
Joe Biden
....

And now let´s compare that with european politics : The biggest affair we had this year was about low milk prices and a staff car that got stolen from the secretary of health. yawn


No please , stay the way you are :beer:

---------------------

. Historically speaking to be unarmed is a weak position that relies on everyone else falling in line. But people are chaotic and don\'t always function as a set program.

Yes of cause: If you want peace, prepare for war or if you prefer latin: Si vis pacem para bellum.

I see your point. But i gess if we really dig into the historic background and do a comparative analysis of the history of guns in the US and europe (which would be cool , but I don´t have the time ) we would probabaly see that it boils down to the american war of indepence , which let you see a weapon as tool to fight opression / something positive and the fact that no armed rebellion here in europe in the long 19th century was succesfull - neither the french revolution, nor the german revolution of 1848 - if they had been, maybe we would see firearms from your point of view

 

[Dragonsreach]

Originally posted by MinicreaturesSo let\'s not divert down the road and offtopic from the main point which was: people having a problem with normal US citizens attending a public political debate carrying openly guns they own legally.

Unfortunately the topic has got heavily sidetracked away from this question.
So let me make this a little clearer as part of the overall question:
I have no problem with people owning or carrying firearms in accordance with local legislation.
But why attend a meeting to do with HealthCare openly carrying said weapons?
Is their intent to derail the meeting in much the same way as this thread has been directed from it\'s original question?

I also have a problem understanding the issue on the Health care bill is about?

Is it about the fact that this/these legislations are being rapidly forced through without, what people consider, a full democratic process?



As an outsider to the initial issue of this I have to say that any legislation which is \"rushed through\" will always leave me extremely suspicious of it\'s ability or intent.

 

[matty1001]

Originally posted by Farin
And now let´s compare that with european politics : The biggest affair we had this year was about low milk prices and a staff car that got stolen from the secretary of health. yawn

But Europe does have Berlusconi, never a dull moment with him!

Peace and love...

 

[Dragonsreach]

Originally posted by Farin
And now let´s compare that with european politics : The biggest affair we had this year was about low milk prices and a staff car that got stolen from the secretary of health. yawn

While the UK had a wonderful time with the exposure of Members of Parliment Expenses Claims.
£5000 of taxpayers money to build a Duck house on an MP\'s moat..........FFS!

No wonder we are so jaded with politicans. :|~

 

[generulpoleaxe]

Originally posted by Dragonsreach

Originally posted by Farin
And now let´s compare that with european politics : The biggest affair we had this year was about low milk prices and a staff car that got stolen from the secretary of health. yawn

While the UK had a wonderful time with the exposure of Members of Parliment Expenses Claims.
£5000 of taxpayers money to build a Duck house on an MP\'s moat..........FFS!

No wonder we are so jaded with politicans. :|~

mate, that was a small one.
how about all of the politicians from the main parties that have become multi millionaires since getting into politics without the wages to have done so!

on the gun issue, i believe that people should be able to own a gun if they so with but they are responsible for it\'s use.
as for people attending meetings (or standing outside) with firearms in an attempt to intimidate people, it shows what happens when people feel they are not being listened to instead being dictated to by their elected representatives.
politicians are gaining far too much power throughout the entire world, it\'s time the state was roled back and power given bac to the people (too much power in too few hands has always allowed the rule of tyrants be it through force or the elected process)

 

[Farin]

@Dragonsreach:

of cause i heared of this - i also was incredible sad when i saw how many people voted for Nick Griffin and his National front, or as i call them : Nazi Scum.

but i really meant entertaining , not the kind of politics that makes you wish for a second we had that kind of gun laws here in europe

-------------------

but back to topic: Yes it´s not as much the right to bear arms , but the time and place they chose to use that right.

I´m a german citizen, which means according to the Constituion i have the right to oppose and take action against anyone willing to destroy the democratic order of our state - that does not mean i will go to the Reichstag Building here in Berlin with a gun and shout \"Solicalist Opressors!Nazi Regime \" Everytime they pass a law i don´t like. If people would do that , the Building would be under permanet siege

But yet it´s exactly what those guys did - in my eyes


@matty1001

yep, but let´s face it : the guy is not the youngest anymore , and by my gross estimation of his daily viagra intake , we won´t have that much time left with him ....

 

[airhead]

Originally posted by Dragonsreach
But why attend a meeting to do with HealthCare openly carrying said weapons?

Why disarm to attend? In AZ an NM, open carry is not at all uncommon to see. I\'ve carried or been within reach of a weapon for longer than most CMON\'ers have been on this planet. Haven\'t shot anyone yet. Hope I never have to.

Is their intent to derail the meeting in much the same way as this thread has been directed from it\'s original question?

To a certain extent yes. Anyone that has voiced a dissenting opinion has been labeled \"un-American\" \"Nazi\" \"mob\" and even worse. Our government has basically become a one-party system with the Dem party ruling the House, Senate, executive branch. And they act like they are surprised and outraged that the populous does not want to do everything they are ramming down our throats.

I also have a problem understanding the issue on the Health care bill is about?

Is it about the fact that this/these legislations are being rapidly forced through without, what people consider, a full democratic process?

To an extent, yes. The President of GM was fired by the President of the US. That is a government official telling private enterprise how to run its business.

The Spending Initiative put us $Trillions in debt and had to be done in a week to avoid going over 8% unemployment. We are over 10% in many areas and over 9% nationally. Huge bill (1500+ pages) with amendment after amendment of pork attached to it. No Senator read the bill, the bill wasn\'t even in it\'s complete form on the floor when it was voted on.

Then came the TARP bill. This will prove to be the largest tax increase on the American people and business ever enacted. Another huge bill that \"had\" to be passed on very short notice.

Now they are going after health care. 1500-1800 pages depending on which version you look at. The Pres wanted it passed in 2 weeks before Congress went on break. This will basically put the government into the insurance business and eventually put business out of the insurance business. Moving us to socialized medicine. Many people are very against it for a vast number of reasons.

As an outsider to the initial issue of this I have to say that any legislation which is \"rushed through\" will always leave me extremely suspicious of it\'s ability or intent.

I challenge anyone to name anything the government does that private enterprise cannot do better and with less costs.

 

[Minicreatures]

I don\'t believe that it was the main intention of the people to derail or intimidate at the public meeting merely by attending with guns. I think that the President is taking advantage of the situation to distract from the outcome of this proposal which leaves alot to be desired in clarity among other things. I think the concern of the people was more about the concept of the proposed changes, the methods that would be used, the financing questions, and the hastiness of the proposed bill, which is large. Most likely our local representatives have not read through it, let alone the citizens.. and that means that it\'s very easy to add snarky stuff in there that becomes law if and when this is shoveled through pell mell. Similar to some of the previous administrations\' bills that became law regarding personal privacy being sacrificed in the name of national security.

It feels like the President is using the perceived \"intimidation\" as a sympathy card/ look at these ridiculously stupid yokels card to get this passed without everyone taking the proper time and consideration something like this should require. Politics is perception and public opinion over facts.

Farin, I agree, a historical study on guns comparatively would be interesting Also as a side note, one of my old roommates was from Germany, and we were watching at the time the presidential debates with Bush and Gore. It was very interesting to me because she said in Germany the debates are much more interesting since all different parties are allowed to join the debate, whereas in the US we only allow the two main ones to participate, and they both say the same thing practically.

And not to go off topic but... man a moat would be cool!

 

[Mr.S.Marbo]

Originally posted by airhead
I challenge anyone to name anything the government does that private enterprise cannot do better and with less costs.

Run the railways!!!!

In 1997 the nationalised system of railways in the UK were privatised.

*In 1994 the nationalised railways required a subsidy of £2168 million (that figure is adjusted for inflation to the 2005 equivalent value) to run. In 2005 private companies required financial support from the taxpayer of £4593 million!!!

*Safety - four major accidents have occurred since privatisation of the railways (Southall (1997), Ladbroke Grove (1999), Hatfield (2000) and Potters Bar (2002) - A total of 48 people were killed and 820 injured in these crashes). In addition to this there have been two other serious accidents (Great Heck (2001) and Ufton Nervet (2004)) with fatalities. In one case lessons from a previous crash were not learnt and the same mistakes made.

*One of the principal expectations from privatisation was that the railway service could be delivered more efficiently in the private sector because of the profit motive. The expectation that there were considerable costs that could be slashed from the system was not fulfilled; new operators found that BR (the government controlled rail operator before privatisation) had already done much of what could be done to improve efficiency.

*The privatised railway has not shown the improvement in punctuality and reliability that was hoped for.

*Every year I pay more for travelling by train and they are dirty, late, slow and expensive - much worse than when they were under government control!

Sorry a bit off topic but don\'t always assume the private sector does it better, it doesn\'t always. Both the public and private sectors can be inefficient. One thing the public sector can do better than the private is equitable distribution of resources, the private sector is concerned with profit only, it doesn\'t care.

 

[airhead]

but you have the option of choice?
Choose not to ride the train because they are not being timely or safe. They will go out of business and the bus company will fill the gap - or you\'ll all get cars like we do....

If you don\'t have the option of choice, then you don\'t have a real free market system working....

 

[skeeve]

I challenge anyone to name anything the government does that private enterprise cannot do better and with less costs.

This is a slogan again, I can even name the source . As any slogan it really doesn\'t make sense. Which government are we taking about? Federal? State? Local? and in which country?

If it is federal - anything that requires planning for more then two years ahead, does not bring immediate profit and requires large initial spending.

But lets see... Hmmm, FDIC comes to mind, highways, NIH,NSF, NASA (that became much worse after maintenance outsourcing) and CDC, student financial aid program, consumer and environment protection programs (that could be better if we somehow could get rid of special interest groups of ) the list could go on. Medicaid/care could be added as well with certain reservations

 

[wiccanpony]

wow! 4 pages and dueling pistols haven’t been drawn ... man! we be cool

 

[DrEvilmonki]

Originally posted by airhead



To a certain extent yes. Anyone that has voiced a dissenting opinion has been labeled \"un-American\" \"Nazi\" \"mob\" and even worse. Our government has basically become a one-party system with

nobs - Your government has basically become a one arty system because they were VOTED IN. Now the group that didn\'t get voted in are trying to derail the result of their own democratic system.

And again with the claim of being called unamerican and Nazi\'s. That is rich considering the bullshit about Obama\'s birth certificate and Faux News constantly comparing the government to Nazi Germany.

As to Obama firing the CEO of GM - so what. That is how businesses work, the SHAREHOLDERS determine the rules. GM wanted the money from the government in order to survive (because of the incompatence of it\'s management) so the Government sets the rules.

You lost - get over it. If the Democrates do a shitty job then vote them out, thats how democracy works.