doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Presidential candidate supports INDIVIDUAL RKBA

Jack, which level of govt provides essential services is scarcely quibbling. It's the basic difference between Republicans and Democrats! Whether schools and the police are controlled by the federal government in other countries isn't the point. We're talking about the good old US of A, where they're not. Comparatively speaking, there's relatively little federal funding provided to K-12 schools. Most of the money is either from the local district (here in Iowa, a combination of property taxes and local option sales tax) or a state funding formula. That's very different from putting the feds in control. And as I said, I have not seen anyone's health care plan that includes levels of local control similar to what we see with our schools and police. If I did, I'd be much more willing to consider supporting such a plan. I have a voice in what happens at our local school, because I get to vote in school board elections. (I can even run for the school board.) Likewise, I get to vote for the county sheriff, which gives me a voice in local law enforcement. If I lived in a town instead of in the country, I could vote for the mayor and city council, who oversee the local police. Where do I find the equivalent of those options in any national health care plan?

Marklart, a lot of people believe that setting a date certain for withdrawal from Iraq is not a good idea. Did Clinton set a date certain for withdrawal from the former Yugoslavia? If he had, and if we'd pulled out, I wonder if Kosovo could have declared independence, as it just did--with American troops still there? And bombing Iran, if it turns out they are indeed developing nuclear weapons, is an option I would not want to take off the table. Of course Israel might take care of that one for us anyhow.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion Larry, as am I. If you think staying in Iraq and bombing Iran is a good idea, that's your perogative. However, about 60-70% of Americans disagree with you. Good luck with that in November.

Which has the most costly, most cumbersome and lowest-performing health care system in the developed world.

The national health care plans proposed by Hillary and Obama keep control of the system, not in the hands of government, but rather in the hands of rapacious for-profit insurance companies and HMOs. Gee, does that mean they're closet Republicans?

Marklart, not having a public universal system cuts an even higher swath as a disincentive when companies and manufacturers choose locations for expansion. Productivity is calculated higher in those countries where health benefits are paid from federal taxes i.e. the auto industry in Canada. The US is paying a high price in a world where competitiveness and productivity rules.

Larry, as a military career man, you know that the every attempted occupation of non-Western countries since the Second World War has ended in failure. Even now, in Afghanistan, the West is not talking about victory---it says there is no military solution---and it's not talking about imposing democracy; maybe stabilization in a negotiated settlement with the Taliban. More troops and surges or bombs for that matter are no longer the answer. War has changed. Even Mr. Bush is getting it: his mantra of a war on terrorism has changed to "the long struggle." The notion the West can get what it wants by throwing its weight around hasn't much hold in Staff Colleges today.

I have continued to read this tread with great interest and it has morphed into a discussion about health care vs national defense. First, as one that holds great reaspect for The Consitution, not as a living document but as chisled in stone.

The difference in Iraq and health care are plain, there are provisions in the Constitution for National Defense and not one word about providing health care for anyone. How did this country ever become daddy and mommy to everyone within it's borders, legal and illegal? What ever happened to the concept and belief of working hard and taking responsibilities for your own actions or lack thereof? How many in this country that do not have health insurance but do have a Flat Screen TV, New Car or other Luxuries that they put ahead of their needs?

So now there are many that belive we should beging another form of welfare and social crutches? I think that the government should follow the "Directions" (aka Constitution) and leave the rest to us. The social programs that begun in the 60's h ave, for the most part been a miserable failure.

Let me ask this....... How many here, reading this are willing to walk up to a stranger on the street, dig in your pocket and hand them thousands of dollars? Well, if you say yes, have at it, I for one have no interest in doing so and if we let the government get involved with health care, that is exactly what you will be doing.

It is referred to as a "re-distribution of wealth".... Marxism that leads to socialism that has been proven a miserable failure. Is that what you really want? I think not.


As one that has a more than passive interest in military matters I feel that tactically as well as strategically the war on teror will remain a very fluid situation. It will continue to be a long term war with no borders, no waring government and one where we have to be as agressive as our adversaries. We cannot talk to them "sternly" and talking to them is a sign of weakness. Some think that our action in Iraq was usless in that struggle, I totally disagree.

The Coalition in Iraq, taking out Saddam resonated loudly throught the middle east as well as the world. Syria has backe way off in its involvement in spreading state sponsored terror. Qaddafi as well. Matter of fact, other than Iran, those countries in the Mid east with "State" based terror support have toned it down.

Then you have N.Korea and Iran. They are NUTS, mentally instabe leadership but as long ss there are countries and companies supporitng them and blocking efforts by the international community to suppress them, they will remain a cancer on the world scene.

I don't profess to know the answers, because I don't. but I do know that "taking sternly" to our enemies as far from a solution.

Steve, If you don't mind. What form of health insurance covers you and your family? Who pays for it? Any family members in the medical profession? Regards, Jake

Steve, Britain learned quickly what worked with the insurgency in Northern Ireland and the British mainland, and it wasn't street-fighting, heavy weapons and bombs. A political strategy over 30 years brought implacable foes to the table. "The long struggle" works because insurgencies over time erode under measured military pressure and diplomacy, and are often consumed in pieces to democratic processes.

Syria suppressed mercilessly an Islamist revolt in 1982 which liberal democracies could not sanction today. The United States can use neither the British or Syrian strategies in Iraq because both models require a state, and the state was removed by potentate Bremer in the regime-change. Iraq's puppet gang favours Iran.

Canada has just finished an analysis of its six years in Afghanistan, asking "What are we doing?" instead of focussing primarily on humanitarian objectives, ostensibly our reasons for being there in the first place. The answer: failing militarily and in development because of ill-coordinated NATO and UN strategies.

Canada and the US aren't "talking sternly." They are recalibrating. They have learned that conventional military superiority is no guarantee of victory in guerilla warfare and, on the evidence, may produce opposite results i.e. Iraq.

Regards, King

My health insurance is through a pool at my employer. It is part of my compensation. Although I don't actually handle the money to pay for it, I jolly well earn it. I seriously resent implications that my employer somehow, benevolently, "gives it to me." My employer compensates me for my work and I work for my compensation. Part of my compensation is pay, part is insurance, part is vacation and holidays, part is a retirement plan, and a few others. Recently, we have had to "tighten out belts" on insurance; my employer had to adjust for rising costs vs the value of the part of my work that buys the insurance. Same for retirement. The world changes.

I have a big problem with "can't afford health insurance," when the leading health issue is obeasity!! I think Ormand is right that there is always money - - the issue is what you spend it on. I have no issue with social safety nets and charity. But, I think the country is becoming addicted to the idea of entitlement.

Just out of curiosity, how many of you know exactly how much was expended on your behalf from any source during 2007?