Federal Health Police

[texas1234]

All I know is that when the apocolypse comes which is what everyone is worried about the folks in some African countries will just think its another day. I am all for checks and balances but I sometimes think we are really paranoid. However, with that said I think this healthcare bill will expand government control to our detriment. I just dont want to be told what to do everyday. Thats why I got married.

[PSLOwner]

Second, what does this have to do with guns and gun issues?

While I agree this is probably nothing, why are you so concerned with trying to police what the moderators have clearly chosen to allow?

It's just a shame that the moderators just recently decided to reject their rule about limiting the talk about guns or gun related issues. They dont like the president, so they decided to change the rules to turn this into a free for all section. It was just nice to go somewhere and talk about second ammendment issues without it turning into a tin-foil-hat-wearing cesspool. Hey, it is their board and they can run it anyway they seem fit.

[Keith B]

Second, what does this have to do with guns and gun issues?

While I agree this is probably nothing, why are you so concerned with trying to police what the moderators have clearly chosen to allow?

It's just a shame that the moderators just recently decided to reject their rule about limiting the talk about guns or gun related issues. They don't like the president, so they decided to change the rules to turn this into a free for all section. It was just nice to go somewhere and talk about second amendment issues without it turning into a tin-foil-hat-wearing cesspool. Hey, it is their board and they can run it anyway they seem fit.

As a fairly new member here (less than 6 months) I reject your accusation of 'mods changing rules'. There has been no change in the way any of the forums have been moderated for content with respect to political issues. If it falls within the guidelines and doesn't break the rules, then we allow it within reason. There are many that don't like the president and what he is doing these days. When you come to a forum where the major-majority of the members are conservatives, then what do you expect to get discussed?

Bottom line, if it breaks the rules, we will do something about it. If it doesn't and you personally just don't like the topic discussed, you have the option to ignore it and stay out of the thread; kinda like using the channel or off buttons on your TV remote if you don't like the programming.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Second, what does this have to do with guns and gun issues?

While I agree this is probably nothing, why are you so concerned with trying to police what the moderators have clearly chosen to allow?

It's just a shame that the moderators just recently decided to reject their rule about limiting the talk about guns or gun related issues. They dont like the president, so they decided to change the rules to turn this into a free for all section. It was just nice to go somewhere and talk about second ammendment issues without it turning into a tin-foil-hat-wearing cesspool. Hey, it is their board and they can run it anyway they seem fit.

It's clear you haven't taken any time to read even a small percentage of the threads in the off-topic or political sections before making this insulting and false accusation. As to whether a poster dislikes the President or his position on healthcare is pure speculation, but something I would expect from a member who refers to the entire forum as "a tin-foil-hat-wearing cesspool."

Moderating "off-topic" and "political" sections is always difficult and that is why we resisted adding either of them for so long. However, we make every effort to honor the wishes of our members and they were added. Yes, there is much more gray area in these sections and it is harder to draw bright line limits. As Keith posted, you have a choice not to read it, or to leave the forum entirely. If you truly feel it's becoming "a tin-foil-hat-wearing cesspool" then why would you stay?

In truth, it's not that you don't like the subject, you just don't like opinions that are opposite of yours. Healthcare is hardly the first non-Second Amendment thread to run on the forum, but only now do you complain. This is most revealing.

This much is certain, our Moderators put in a lot of hours without any compensation and they deserve more respect than you are showing.

Chas.

[Kythas]

Pwned

[The Annoyed Man]

Second, what does this have to do with guns and gun issues?

While I agree this is probably nothing, why are you so concerned with trying to police what the moderators have clearly chosen to allow?

It's just a shame that the moderators just recently decided to reject their rule about limiting the talk about guns or gun related issues. They dont like the president, so they decided to change the rules to turn this into a free for all section. It was just nice to go somewhere and talk about second ammendment issues without it turning into a tin-foil-hat-wearing cesspool. Hey, it is their board and they can run it anyway they seem fit.

Government regulated healthcare is all about government cost control of healthcare. Government cost control of healthcare is all about regulating what will be covered, and what won't. And eventually, it gets down to regulating the behaviors that government deems to affect cost. Therefore, if government decides that your right to keep and bear arms is superseded by government's "right" to control your behavior in the interest of containing medical costs, your right to keep and bear arms, and by extension your right to obtain and keep a CHL, will be thrown right out the window.

THAT is how this is related. You would have to be willfully blind not to see it.

NEXT: I am a self-employed businessman. I am uninsurable because of pre-existing conditions. The only insurance that will take me is the Texas High Risk Pool, at a cost of just under $500/month — which I cannot afford. But even if I could, that policy has a $7,500 deductible, with $5,000 out of pocket before I see any benefit. Add to that the nearly $6,000 per year in premiums, and I'm out $18,500 per year before coverage really kicks in.

Compare that to the following: I need to see a doctor, I go to the doctor. I pay the doctor. I leave. I buy my prescriptions at Walmart. I spend less than $1,000.00 per year on my healthcare. I own my home outright and have a line of credit against it with a zero balance. I have no debt. I have two significantly large annuities that can be cashed in if necessary to pay for something catastrophic.

In other words, I have absolutely no need for the government to insert itself into my healthcare. But, under the plan which you appear to support, beginning in a few months, I am going to have to start paying a fine to the bloody IRS in order to satisfy your lust for my assets to pay for crappy medical care for others. THIS is what you support. And every time I have to cut that check to the IRS, I will be thinking of you, and people like you, that support this abomination of a legislation package and agree that it should have been rammed down the throats of a people who are overwhelmingly against it.

And you want to know what this has to do with guns? How about the right of a citizenry to defend itself against an overarching government run by anal retentive leftists who have an insane need to limit the liberties of the citizenry?

Come November, and in 2012, your side is going to go down to the defeat it so richly deserves.

[PSLOwner]

"My side"? I dont have a "side". I voted for Bush the first time.

The forum topic states "Political Issues: This is the place for gun-related political discussions. "

[Keith B]

"
The forum topic states "Political Issues: This is the place for gun-related political discussions. "

Yes, and it is correctly titled. It doesn't say "Political Issues: This is the place for ONLY gun-related political issues."

[PSLOwner]

"
The forum topic states "Political Issues: This is the place for gun-related political discussions. "

Yes, and it is correctly titled. It doesn't say "Political Issues: This is the place for ONLY gun-related political issues."

Point taken, my mistake.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

As stated above...if you do not like it do not read it.

Whats the point in reading something you do not like when you have the choice not to? Sounds pretty silly to me.

Also why try to hijack the thread? Why not send a PM to the moderators?


And as for this being a "cesspool"...what does that make you as a member of this "cesspool"?

[PSLOwner]

Also why try to hijack the thread? Why not send a PM to the moderators?

Hijack a thread about "brownshirts" coming to get us? Perish the thought.

[stevie_d_64]

Also why try to hijack the thread? Why not send a PM to the moderators?

Hijack a thread about "brownshirts" coming to get us? Perish the thought.

Since you turned the topic onto an absurd tact, I'll jump in here and throw a little advice from someone who has been around the block a few times...

The base issue is that some of us do tend to think outside the box and recognize the "potential" of these moves being prepared legislatively, and being made by a government out of control...

You call it paranoia, I call it being prepared...

Some of us actually do more than blogging about these things, and pointing out the obvious, and sometimes the potential, to elected officials that we have groomed a good relationship, over many years, keeps everyone we talk to (here and other places), up to speed...

Your "ready, fire, aim" methodology, while commendable, needs honing...

Welcome to the forum...

[gemini]

Second, what does this have to do with guns and gun issues?

While I agree this is probably nothing, why are you so concerned with trying to police what the moderators have clearly chosen to allow?

It's just a shame that the moderators just recently decided to reject their rule about limiting the talk about guns or gun related issues. They dont like the president, so they decided to change the rules to turn this into a free for all section. It was just nice to go somewhere and talk about second ammendment issues without it turning into a tin-foil-hat-wearing cesspool. Hey, it is their board and they can run it anyway they seem fit.

Government regulated healthcare is all about government cost control of healthcare. Government cost control of healthcare is all about regulating what will be covered, and what won't. And eventually, it gets down to regulating the behaviors that government deems to affect cost. Therefore, if government decides that your right to keep and bear arms is superseded by government's "right" to control your behavior in the interest of containing medical costs, your right to keep and bear arms, and by extension your right to obtain and keep a CHL, will be thrown right out the window.

THAT is how this is related. You would have to be willfully blind not to see it.

NEXT: I am a self-employed businessman. I am uninsurable because of pre-existing conditions. The only insurance that will take me is the Texas High Risk Pool, at a cost of just under $500/month — which I cannot afford. But even if I could, that policy has a $7,500 deductible, with $5,000 out of pocket before I see any benefit. Add to that the nearly $6,000 per year in premiums, and I'm out $18,500 per year before coverage really kicks in.

Compare that to the following: I need to see a doctor, I go to the doctor. I pay the doctor. I leave. I buy my prescriptions at Walmart. I spend less than $1,000.00 per year on my healthcare. I own my home outright and have a line of credit against it with a zero balance. I have no debt. I have two significantly large annuities that can be cashed in if necessary to pay for something catastrophic.

In other words, I have absolutely no need for the government to insert itself into my healthcare. But, under the plan which you appear to support, beginning in a few months, I am going to have to start paying a fine to the bloody IRS in order to satisfy your lust for my assets to pay for crappy medical care for others. THIS is what you support. And every time I have to cut that check to the IRS, I will be thinking of you, and people like you, that support this abomination of a legislation package and agree that it should have been rammed down the throats of a people who are overwhelmingly against it.

And you want to know what this has to do with guns? How about the right of a citizenry to defend itself against an overarching government run by anal retentive leftists who have an insane need to limit the liberties of the citizenry?

Come November, and in 2012, your side is going to go down to the defeat it so richly deserves.

[snorri]

Like someone said, police carry guns. That means a new Federal Health Police is gun related. If it was like a domestic Peace Corps, unarmed, providing health related services in the lower income urban and rural area, that would be different. It would still be outside the legal limits of the Constitution but not gun related until patriots enforce the Constitution.

[gigag04]

Pretty sure TAM covered it well, as did Keith and Chas, so I'll keep this one short, and throw out a thanks to all involved in running this forum, including the quality posters from which I have learned much over the years.