gdp's Comments

Jason A Clark : An Explanation of the Apparent Contradictions Between the Old Testament and the New Testament of the

Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:19:06 +0000

I'm so very glad you found this article helpful. I don't have all the answers to questions people will ask you but there are a lot of answers out on the web. Good luck.

Tenth Amendment Center : Federal Health Care Nullification Act

Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:21:39 +0000

I think the Act would be more effective with a majority of states enacting it but I do think there are some states (Texas for one) that could, in fact, be strong enough to fight the federal government. The Feds, of course, would immediately try to withhold federal money from the states. This can be countered by the States by refusing to send any money (taxes or any other) to the federal government.

Tenth Amendment Center : Federal Health Care Nullification Act

Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:19:47 +0000

I tend to agree. The above mentioned Act is pretty good, but it might need to insert language that would inhibit the federal government from trying to punish the citizens in a state that enacts this Act by using federal agencies.

Jason A Clark : Does Anyone Else Think This Sounds Like Nazi Germany?

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:15:08 +0000

You're right. I didn't catch the sarcasm. Sorry about that.

Jason A Clark : Does Anyone Else Think This Sounds Like Nazi Germany?

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:25:18 +0000

What's your point? A liberal group of Europeans gives Obama a prize that he didn't earn and which he himself says he doesn't deserve and this somehow justifies his actions? The Nobel Peace Prize is a joke. Heck, they even gave one to the terrorist Yassar Arafat - http://bit.ly/25zxvG.

Jason A Clark : Is Obama At It Again - Lying About Support for "Death Panels"?

Wed, 9 Sep 2009 20:55:35 +0000

How is a family supposed to get an "additional means" of paying for the non-provided care? No family would be able to afford healthcare out of pocket for an older family member who most likely has an expensive disease or malady. And almost every single analyst (and common sense) tells us that most, if not all, health insurance companies would be driven out of business if they have to compete with government healthcare. There's a good chance there won't be any company around to offer any "additional insurance" plans. Furthermore, all of us grow old (unless we die young) which means we'll all eventually have to take out such a plan right at the point in our lives where we have the fewest means to pay for it. And I can't even imagine how expensive such a plan would be! Heck, I can't even imagine how or why any insurance company would want to offer such a plan - their payout would be near 100%. There's no money in that. Which leads to the obvious conclusion. Since no private insurance company could cover these people denied benefits by the government plan they would simply be out of luck. At that point the most any older person could hope for would be a new government plan to then cover them. That would be unlikely to happen, but it if did, it would just be one more thing bankrupting the country.

Jason A Clark : Does Anyone Else Think This Sounds Like Nazi Germany?

Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:56:46 +0000

OK, I'll try one more time...

Well you've surely proved yourself to be yet another conservative OR right wing Libertarian making buffoonish statements without supporting or backing them up with proof.

So you accuse me of doing what I accused you of doing...? How original for a liberal.

You're obviously so gullible, naive or just plain ignorant Jason that you actually believe all the right wingnut 'Deather' lies you've been told on Fox about Obama's plans for death panels, killing off the elderly and/or taking away health care. Tell me where, other than Fox News, World Nut Daily, or some other right wing whacko site of corporatist lies that cites exactly where the Dem party or the White House has Death Panels or killing off the elderly planned..

I have no idea why you are so angry. However, it's ignorant of you to say that I must be believing lies from Fox news concerning death panels and killing off of the elderly. You know nothing about me so why do you presume I heard something and believed it? Isn't it possible that I actually listened to/read all of the evidence and formed my own opinion? The truth is, yes, this plan will lead to something that people have started calling "death panels." It's common sense and a logical conclusion. If the government is paying for health care and there comes a time when there isn't enough money to go around, they will, of necessity have to limit the treatments they provide. Now, the very people who drew up this legislation and are advising President Obama on health care have written and have said numerous times that it makes more sense to deny treatment to people who have less to give back to society than those who have a full life ahead of them and are likely to contribute more. I didn't have to make that up or have Fox news tell me what it means. It's pretty easy to understand. It's also easy to understand that this means, once again by necessity, that some sort of group (a panel of "experts" perhaps) will have to be the ones that make the decisions about who gets health care and who doesn't. If those people buy into the same thinking that the current administration and its officials subscribe to then they will logically deny benefits to elderly people or disabled people and give it to those who can contribute more to society. That's completely logical. I didn't need anyone to tell me to reach that conclusion. Although, I must point out that I NEVER claimed that anyone was going to "kill off the elderly." That's your interpretation, not mine. Surely you jest by using mainstream media to point out how I'm somehow wrong... Even Obama would admit that the media practically works for the administration. Of course they dispute what the other side says. I mean, you denounce me for using information from a news source or sources and you call anyone who prints or says the same thing I'm saying a "right wingnut 'Deather'" or a "right wing whacko" then you try to use media (or as some might say, left wing nuts) to prove your point. In an intelligent argument you can't refute all the opposition's sources as being unreliable and then claim that all of yours are correct - that's a one sided argument - I'm always wrong and you're always right. I still have no idea where you get that Bush had people with "anti-war t-shirts jailed for peaceful anti-war protests against him." I'm sure you probably picked that up from one of your "always right" media organizations and then didn't bother to do any research on your own to find out of that's really true. You are not going to change my mind with your ignorant and spiteful arguments. Please go away and stop wasting my time.

Jason A Clark : Does Anyone Else Think This Sounds Like Nazi Germany?

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:55:12 +0000

There is no evidence to support what you just said. It is the democratic congress members who are accusing their constituents of being "un-american" and "evil mongers" for wanting to voice their opposition to the proposed legislation of their representatives. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Jason A Clark : Does Anyone Else Think This Sounds Like Nazi Germany?

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:50:04 +0000

Your arguments are absurd and you are ridiculous. Seriously, you sound like a liberal spokesperson. If we aren't for Obama's liberal health care "reform" then we MUST be evil, greedy, capitalists who want to see the sick and poor die a horrible death for lack of medical care... Get real. The socialist countries you use as examples and our own socialized examples of Medicare, Medicaid and the VA are all horrible failures. Even those countries are now saying their health care plans aren't sustainable. Medicare and Medicaid are on a short trip to bankruptcy and the fraud rate is astronomical. To use those as examples of success shows your ignorance of the subject. Besides, who ever said that our current health care system doesn't have problems? I never claimed that. That doesn't mean I think we need to nationalize it and run every single insurance company out of business so the government can use my tax dollars to care for illegal immigrants who have colds. You're incapable of actually participating in a logical argument. The "death panels" and elderly euthanization isn't exactly my idea of obscene lies. Rather, they are the logical conclusion any sane person would reach after reading the health care "reform" bill and reading the writings of people like Rahm Emmanuel's brother and other administration insiders who have previously and publicly voiced support for such measures.

Jason A Clark : Does Anyone Else Think This Sounds Like Nazi Germany?

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:51:28 +0000

Are you even a real person? Is this some kind of joke? Are you and Adnihilo one and the same? This article DOES NOT compare the health care reform itself with anything the Nazis did. It compares the White House program to monitor American citizens’ speech opposing Obama's health care policies with Nazi policies which also sought to limit opposition. You spent four minutes researching your comment but you couldn't spend two minutes actually reading the article? Don't be stupid.

Jason A Clark : Does Anyone Else Think This Sounds Like Nazi Germany?

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:53:44 +0000

You can't say "factually speaking" and then state something that's obviously an opinion. It is not, nor can it be, a fact that "anyone who's against health care reform in the US serves as a Corporate Shill for greedy health care insurance companies whose profit grew 1000% in the last 5 years is a corporatist and supporter of Fascism..." You're ridiculous. The "health care reform" that is being peddled on us has nothing to do with actually reforming legitimate problems with the health care system. At least, very little to do with it. It's becoming painfully obvious to everyone that this "reform" is simply a way for the government to take over the health care system of this nation - that's not reform, it's socialism. I am not a supporter of "greedy health care insurance companies." I don't even know, in fact, that they are "greedy." Who can prove they're greedy? Isn't a company's sole reason for existence to make money off of investment? How can doing so make them greedy? It is, in fact, government policies that force the cost of medicines and treatments to go up. Policies along with a judicial system that's never met a lawsuit it didn't like. Salvemini's statement doesn't exactly apply to the state our health care system is in (our economy in general even). The State only pays for the blunders of private enterprise if we allow the state to take on that responsibility and to raid the public coffers to do so. I would argue that our economy would be much better off in the long run if the government had not intervened in the banking, finance, and automobile industries over the past year. Allowing them to fail would have the truly fair thing to do. Furthermore, I never wrote nor even implied that Hitler started a government national healthcare system in Germany. My comparison to Nazi Germany was with the Whitehouse program that asks citizens to spy on other citizens for "the State." And it sounds very much like a Nazi program.

Jason A Clark : Does Anyone Else Think This Sounds Like Nazi Germany?

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:07:49 +0000

I have to disagree with your interpretation of the statement made by the Whitehouse. The press release said:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Although it says "if you get an email or see something on the web" in the last sentence, it previously mentions rumors traveling "through casual conversation." I would argue that this implicitly implies that people should report anything they read, see, or hear. Since only Obama loyalists are likely to actually forward emails from their friends or coworkers or report the latest watercooler rumors, I stand by my generalizations. I do not think it is a great leap at all for people to make comparisons between what the press release says and what we know fascist states have done in the past. If it were a great leap I'd be the only one making the comparison...not one of probably hundreds or thousands. It defies logic to believe that the Whitehouse seriously believes people will read into their statement that they don't want any personal information about people who oppose their agenda. It's also hard to believe the administration would seriously use this to somehow fight misinformation. It seems much more likely the information would be used to develop the spin they'll need to use to fight the truth...that people simply do not want this overhaul of the health care system.

Jason A Clark : Does Anyone Else Think This Sounds Like Nazi Germany?

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:21:13 +0000

Had the message from the Whitehouse explained their reasoning the way you did and specifically said that they don't want anyone to send them names or addresses then I might could agree with you. Unfortunately, they didn't. Even taking your explanation into account it seems a rather crude way to address "misinformation." Surely the Whitehouse and the President's administration can find out what people are saying about them and their programs without having their loyalists spy on people. It was a terrible and potentially illegal request that immediately brings to mind Nazi Germany and a dozen other police state nations over the past century. They might not have intended it that way, but that was the honest conclusion people came to when hearing about it. The PATRIOT act is terrible legislation. Although I understand why it was proposed and passed many of the act's provisions are unconstitutional in my opinion (and in the opinion of the courts in some cases). Just because George Bush wanted it doesn't mean I agree with it. I think there are some things in the act that certainly help law enforcement but my concern, shared by many others, is that the act simply goes too far and derails far too many constitutional rights of American citizens. I don't know all the details of the FISA Amendments - at least not enough to say I agree or disagree with it entirely. However, I don't have a problem with warrantless electronic surveillance as long as proper care is taken to not infringe the Constitutional rights of American citizens. It's my understanding that FISA applies only to persons outside of the United States. It's a slippery slope but I don't have nearly as much problem with surveillance on people outside the US even if it's a citizen. I still think some accountability is required to make sure there's a purpose for the surveillance other than a fishing expedition. Pre-emptive warfare for national security is a much larger issue, of course. Do I think, philosophically, that a nation has a right to engage in pre-emptive warfare? Yes, BUT I think there's a very fine line that would justify it. Japan engaged in pre-emptive warfare on the United States at Pearl Harbor and I would say that was wrong. Japan wasn't defending freedom or their country or other people who were being enslaved or murdered... Japan was waring to build empire. A pre-emptive strike to enable empire building would seem to be an illegitimate act. Conversely, an argument could be made that a nation has the right to strike pre-emptively if that nation honestly feels it is necessary to maintain freedom or protect its citizens. Of course, there will always be a debate concerning whether or not these conditions have been met.

Jason A Clark : Congressman Fleming Confirms Mandatory End-Of-Life Consultations in Health Care Bill

Fri, 7 Aug 2009 03:31:39 +0000

I love how people who disagree with me always leave a real name... Read the bill? Don't you think you should be talking to your representatives. I would bet money I've read more of it then most of them have. I haven't seen the section you refer to where it says these "counseling sessions" only take place if they are requested. And no, medical professionals do NOT recommend that senior citizens come in and talk to them about when their conditions are too far gone to "waste" resources on. What you are referring to is not the same thing.

Jason A Clark : California Supreme Court Says Homosexual Rights Trump Christian Rights

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:25:49 +0000

I'm not sure why you're disappointed. In fact, your comment is rather confusing. The article is arguing that the religious rights of the doctors are being trampled on in order to protect/promote the "rights" of homosexuals. If you argue that homosexuality is a "religious issue" (which wouldn' t really make sense) then you're arguing that one religion is more worthy of rights than another. Even if you argue there is such as thing as "gay Christians" it doesn't change the point of the argument. First of all, I would think that anyone who claims to be a Christian (even if they also claim to be gay) would not have a problem with going to a doctor who has no moral objection to the procedure. To object to allowing someone to exercise their freedom of religion is completely disingenuous with true Christianity. However, it's also disingenuous for a true Christian to perform a procedure that goes against what the Bible teaches. A so-called "gay Christian" might not agree with this, but they would be wrong.

Jason A Clark : The Senate Trying To Silently Pass A "Pedophile Protection Act"

Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:09:30 +0000

Section 10 of the bill does contain a paper assurance that, "Nothing in this Act...shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct...or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution." But First Amendment protections are easily overridden by the application of US Code Title 18, Section 2 about criminal accessories: "Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal." If so-called "hate" is criminalized, then anything said in opposition to one of the protected groups can be defined as incitement to violence, and therefore illegal speech.

Hate Crimes and the Sedition Act of 2009 I still dispute the validity of this bill as it undermines Fourteenth Amendment "equal protection of the law," making some groups more equal than others. I also maintain that the law is unnecessary since everything contained in the bill is already against the law. The only difference is that this bill will force law enforcement officers and the courts to try to determine what someone was thinking when they committed the crime and would punish them more severely if they "hated" the sexual orientation of the victim. Our government has no business acting as a "thought police." For those interested, the links to the bill(s): H.R. 1913 S. 909

Jason A Clark : California Supreme Court Says Homosexual Rights Trump Christian Rights

Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:22:24 +0000

Name one procedure that a homosexual needs that cannot be done by a non-Christian doctor. The truth is, homosexuals have access to the same healthcare and treatment that everyone else has access to. This isn't about access to equal treatment, it's about forcing ALL doctors to accept the homosexual lifestyle which is just another front in the war that the homosexual lobby is waging against Christians who do not agree with their lifestyle. To force doctors who have a moral objection to the procedures to perform them is tantamount to terrorism. How can anyone agree that the homosexual "right" to convenient access trump Christian doctors' moral obligations to their faith? As I said in the article:

In my opinion this ruling clearly violates an individuals rights to freedom of religion. The court simply cannot force someone to do something that violates their religious beliefs if it does not endanger another person.

If I'm not mistaken, freedom of religion was around a long time before anyone thought of having a freedom of "sexual orientation." In this case it's obvious that the homosexuals who are not being harmed by the doctors' refusal to treat them is no where near the same level of civil rights abuse the doctors would suffer if they were told they had to perform procedures they find morally and ethically abhorrent.

Jason A Clark : The Senate Trying To Silently Pass A "Pedophile Protection Act"

Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:09:45 +0000

I agree that the bill won't do much to deter hate crimes but I disagree with you that it's harmless. Even if I didn't think it was dangerous for the reasons I've stated previously I wouldn't think of it as harmless. No bill that could potentially limit freedoms or place a whole group of people into a specially protected category can truly be called "harmless." The potential for abuse and harm is certainly there. The simple fact that one party wishes to sidestep the review and debate process gives me cause for concern. I respect the fact that you disagree with my views, but I take offense that you are calling me a liar. First of all, I didn't actually write the quoted part of the article. I did post it so I do take responsibility for that. However, I don't know how you can say it is lying when the article clearly says this or that could happen and gives examples here in the US and around the world where similar laws have caused abuses to actually occur. It's not a lie to state facts (these things did happen, the Penn. supreme court did call their hate crimes law unconstitutional) and then say that something similar could happen here, nationwide. Nothing in the article claims that these things will definitely happen. And you'll have to forgive me if I don't have faith in a judicial system that constantly and consistently legislates from the bench and "reinterprets" the constitution to mean whatever their politics want it to mean at the time. This bill will not pass if the Democrats will allow it to stand on its own. Being cowards, however, they will undoubtedly attach it to something else and try to force it through.

Jason A Clark : \"Read the Bills Act\" (RTBA) Should Be Made Law

Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:40:52 +0000

I think you're absolutely right. I believe that the Founding Fathers would be more disgusted with us (we the people) for allowing our government to reach the state that it's in. Your site turned me on to this bill so thanks for keeping hope alive.

Jason A Clark : The Senate Trying To Silently Pass A "Pedophile Protection Act"

Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:40:37 +0000

You may have defined what you think sexual orientation means and you may have even defined what the APA and the dictionary says sexual orientation means...but that doesn't mean that the courts will interpret it the same way. That's the crux of my argument. It's dangerous and unnecessary to pass a bill that seeks to place a whole new group of people on our anti-discrimination roster without specifically defining what people make up that group. Congress could at least clear this issue up by simply adding language that specifically defines sexual orientation as heterosexual, homosexuals and bisexuals. However, those responsible for the bill refuse to do so (as I mentioned in the article). I can only assume it's because they want the term to be more widely defined by the courts. It's not an outrageous claim to argue that the courts could very well "redefine" the word as it relates to this bill regardless of how the term is defined by the APA or the dictionary. The rest of my argument is anything but a slippery slope. History shows us that what I am saying is a very real possibility. As I said previously, it would be a very small step for the government or the courts to go from limiting violent actions to limiting speech. There's nothing about the government that calms my fear that this could happen. There is already a consistent campaign of hate against Christians and others who argue that homosexuality is a sin. I cannot imagine that this campaign will not continue and intensify to include limitations on speech of they are able to do so. This bill could very well be the vehicle they use to achieve their goal of silencing critics of homosexuality. I have not lied about a single thing in this article. Most of the article wasn't even written by me. But I don't think it's a lie to tell people what could happen or what I believe will happen. We have every right to warn people of the potential harm a bill could pose to Christian people (and others for that matter). But let me ask you this. Why do you think this bill is even necessary? What is the purpose of it? It's already against the law to harm other people. Why should we have a law that makes it worse to harm people if you "hate" them? Why should it be more wrong to harm someone because of their sexual orientation than it is to harm someone for greed or revenge? What further deterrent could this bill possibly provide? I stand by my argument that this bill is unnecessary and dangerous.