Ion01

In that case I guess we can disband all branches of the military, all police and all fire departments, all public health departments, and just look out for ourselves. Exactly what I was just about to say. The governments job is to protect our freedoms! Thats where the police and military comes in! And I would be fine with privating the "health department" and even fire departments! Yeah, we had great city fires when fire departments were private. Great killer epidemics before public health departments and the CDC, too. Lots of deaths due to corrupted food prior to the FDA. I guess you're OK with that just so long as you're not personally affected. First, you have no facts to back that up. Second, the FDA is a huge problem. One such example is irradiation of food. Food posioning could be completely destroyed with irradiation with no side effects but because the FDA just doesn't beleive the data so 5000 americans die every year from food posioning. Good job FDA. The idea that without the government such regulation would not exist is rediculous. Maybe the government should get involved in skydiving.....Oh....wait.....we regulate ourselves don't we? Thats incredible! In addition many industries have standards that everyone follows...and if you don't you are a failure in that industry due to the free market, not government regulation! For example, OSHA has many safety standards, as a result of following thier rules the only recordable injury we had this year was because we followed their idiotic rules or the government would have shut us down. The reality is also that we follow thier rules to for fear of the government but becuase our customers require that we have near perfect safety records and in order to accomplish that we have to go well beyond OSHA requirements. Our standards, due to our customers, for safety are much higher and farther reaching through out our company than anything OSHA requires. OSHA Requirements are only incidental and, infact, constrains us in such a way that it makes it more difficult for us to truely operate safely! So lets get the government involved in skydiving because its just an industry just like any other industry and without government regulation the greedy DZO will continue to use and exploit, and even kill you! Without government control there is only anarchy!

Here are the facts! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5uJgG05xUY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZzHU3ZfTtY&feature=channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgLrZc7cws8&feature=channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XeW5ilk-9Y&feature=channel

In that case I guess we can disband all branches of the military, all police and all fire departments, all public health departments, and just look out for ourselves. Exactly what I was just about to say. The governments job is to protect our freedoms! Thats where the police and military comes in! And I would be fine with privating the "health department" and even fire departments!

Here is more! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csOrHnaGafg A quote form the beginning of the video: Its the governments job to watch out for us, to take care of us...thats their job. What? That is not their job!

Thats what you don't get.....our leaders are now freinds with the dictators! We give them reparations? Are you kidding me? You are okay with that?

Also, does it not worry anyone that the the enemies of this country like Obama and some have even voiced that in their speeches to the UN? Here is one such example: Libyan President Muammar al-Qadhafi showered Barack Obama with unexpected praise on Wednesday, telling the U.N. General Assembly he hoped Obama "can stay forever as the president of the United States."

A possible Trend? http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13249171?_requestid=5883011 There has also be a case of this same pledge being show along with a "worksheet" for the children to fill out! http://newsblaze.com/story/20090127224509nnnn.nb/topstory.html *** Here is a song children are being taught in one school! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aqMTD5UFmU Notice things in the song like "equal work means equal pay...." Sound like communism to me.... Also "yellow, black, and white. All are equal in his (obama's) sight...." Or how about this one.....apparently they can only accomplish thier goals because of Obama..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqF19Phn0Og And did anyone notice how in obama's speech to the UN General Assembly how whenever he talked about something "bad" about the US he used all inclusing terms like "the US" or "Americans" but when it was something good it was typically Obama who had done it....like he said "On my first day in office, I prohibited - without exception or equivocation - the use of torture.....I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed.....I have made clear that we will help Iraqis transition to full responsibility for their future.... have outlined a comprehensive agenda to seek the goal of a world without nuclear weapons....I....I.....I....." And why is it if someone doesn't agree with or opposes things like healthcare we are against HIM....Obama. Why is it not against the policy or even the administration? No....its against OBAMA! Does anyone remember this quote? "I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God." Do you remember the worksheet, that was abandoned after the outcry, for obama's speech to the schools? It asked things like "What is Obama asking me to do? What can I do to help Obama?" Has anyone noticed a trend? Can't you see the similarities to countries like Cuba or North Korea, or, how blind are you to the obvious?

Ever hear of the Bill of Rights? I know, kind of obscure as a reference. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness Step in it much? In reality there is!! The constitution enumerates what the federal government can do. Therefore, if it is not stated as something it can do then that means it can't. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Notice it says the powers NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution..... That means that if the constitution doesn't say they can then they can't! Here is a simple example: If your mom told you to go to the store and buy milk and bread and you brought milk, bread, and ice cream then you didn't do what was asked of you! Your mom does not have to say "Buy milk and bread and don't buy ice cream, cake, pie, steak, chicken, chips, soup, candy bars, etc..... She need to only tell you what you can buy and that ultimately excludes everything else. Lets make a simple math equation out of it just like you learned in school when learning to do word problems. Buy milk + buy bread = did what mom said. Therefore buy milk + buy bread + buy ice cream doesn't = did what mom said. Its just like 1+2=3 but 1+2+4 doesn't = 3 or 1+2+5 doesn't = 3 Its that simple!

Bull - there's nothing preventing him from going to the doc and being a cash patient. Except cash. So, one again, rather than be responsible and save up money for just such a situation or when things got bad we should just pay for his irresponsibility. Lets remember, people go to the poor house in a car with a house and with a TV here in the US. In other countries those with a lot or a "well established" may have a mud house and a bicycle and can buy their own food instead of having to grow it! On top of that there is no insurance company so if you need some type of medical care its cash only! Do you know what this is called?...............Its called life! I shouldn't have to pay for them cause I was prepared and they weren't or because I work hard and they don't or because I am responsible and they aren't.....and if things get tough for me I don't expect or want anyone else being force to pay for my situation either! I will make the appropriate and tough decision and live with the consequenses. Why should I have to also live with the consequenses of other too? There is no right to healthcare! There is no right to riches! There is no right to happiness on the the freedom to pursue it!!!!!

The costs are less because people don't get treated and die! Do you have no clue what its like in the UK! Why do you think people travel from all over the world to use our healthcare system? According to some of the feds own estimates it could cost us more per person than healthcare typically does! In addition do you have any idea the amount of debt the UK system has resulted in? This should help get you started in educating yourself with the FACTS! http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html Maybe you like Canada..... http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=2748 Here are more FACTS!

Also, the real robbers are the government officials who are rediculously rich off of our hard work. We can chose to buy or not buy a particular product so a business doesn't take our money as some would claim.....the fed does. You have no choice but to give 35-40% of your money to the government! Even God didn't ask for more than 10%!

So where in the constitution is the government given the right to determine what someone should be payed? Also, someone can't get by at 7 an hour in california where as you can drive a decent car and have an nice apartment in oklahoma at 7 an hour so how can you have a single standard for the whole country. In addition, the minimum wage just causes the devalue of the dollar through inflation. If everyone was payed 100 dollars an hour then 100 dollars isn't worth that much anymore. Its that simple!

Just like in the UK where everyone love public healthcare so much! They love it so much they die for it.....litterly, while waiting to be treated. Some love it so very much they come here to get treated by our third rate system instead of using thier own wonderful public system! this is true. even thatcher didn't have the balls to mess around with or sell off any bits of our nhs (after all we'd fought a world war to get it)

He goes to a free clinic......do you know where those free clinics typically come from? The Big Evil Business!!! They contribute money to such causes....sometimes for the audacity of having thier name on the clinic! We have to stop these evil empires from helping society! The fed needs to step up now!

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072E-802A-23AD-45F0-274616DB87E6

Awesome, so lets go right ahead and set up a system like in the UK (which obamacare is modelled after) where a patient in the hospital is so thirsty they drink water from a nearby plant or 4,000 women give birth in hallways because there isn't enough room or someones spleen supposedly removed spleen bursts.......Its so great we must make sure everyone has access to such a great healthcare system!

No....you got it all wrong....the white guy is racist as evidenced by his having cornrows. He was making fun of the black people by having some himself......he was so obviously being racist!

Imagine if Pope Benedict gave a speech saying the Catholic Church has had it wrong all these centuries; there is no reason priests shouldn't marry. That might generate the odd headline, no? Or if Don Cherry claimed suddenly to like European hockey players who wear visors and float around the ice, never bodychecking opponents. Or Jack Layton insisted that unions are ruining the economy by distorting wages and protecting unproductive workers. Or Stephen Harper began arguing that it makes good economic sense for Ottawa to own a car company. (Oh, wait, that one happened.) But at least, the Tories-buy-GM aberration made all the papers and newscasts. When a leading proponent for one point of view suddenly starts batting for the other side, it's usually newsworthy. So why was a speech last week by Prof. Mojib Latif of Germany's Leibniz Institute not given more prominence? Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC's last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously. Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN's World Climate Conference--an annual gathering of the so-called "scientific consensus" on man-made climate change --Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool." The global warming theory has been based all along on the idea that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would absorb much of the greenhouse warming caused by a rise in man-made carbon dioxide, then they would let off that heat and warm the atmosphere and the land. But as Latif pointed out, the Atlantic, and particularly the North Atlantic, has been cooling instead. And it looks set to continue a cooling phase for 10 to 20 more years. "How much?" he wondered before the assembled delegates. "The jury is still out." But it is increasingly clear that global warming is on hiatus for the time being. And that is not what the UN, the alarmist scientists or environmentalists predicted. For the past dozen years, since the Kyoto accords were signed in 1997, it has been beaten into our heads with the force and repetition of the rowing drum on a slave galley that the Earth is warming and will continue to warm rapidly through this century until we reach deadly temperatures around 2100. While they deny it now, the facts to the contrary are staring them in the face: None of the alarmist drummers ever predicted anything like a 30-year pause in their apocalyptic scenario. Latif says he expects warming to resume in 2020 or 2030. In the past year, two other groups of scientists--one in Germany, the second in the United States--have come to the same conclusion: Warming is on hold, likely because of a cooling of the Earth's upper oceans, but it will resume. But how is that knowable? How can Latif and the others state with certainty that after this long and unforeseen cooling, dangerous man-made heating will resume? They failed to observe the current cooling for years after it had begun, how then can their predictions for the resumption of dangerous warming be trusted? My point is they cannot. It's true the supercomputer models Latif and other modellers rely on for their dire predictions are becoming more accurate. But getting the future correct is far trickier. Chances are some unforeseen future changes will throw the current predictions out of whack long before the forecast resumption of warming. Lorne Gunter is a columnist with the Edmonton Journal and National Post. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do%3Dpost_write%3Bforum%3D35=Post+New

Well, you are correct about one thing...its not a democracy but a republic......and since people travel all over the world to use our healthcare system and since we have the highest average living standards in the world I can't help but laugh at the rest. Thanks for helping me start my day with a smile. republic, like in "banana republic"!? where the rich get their way while the poor.. well, fuck the poor! edited to add: you havent traveled much, have you!? Do you know what a republic is? Its not just a name!It says nothing about the rich. In addition, "rich" people can't force others to be irresponsible in a free society. However, the government can and does take peoples money and are irresponsible with it for them! In a free society you can work hard and get an education and become rich if you want.....but thats not what some people want... some want to do nothing and get payed for it! Since when is that right? The rich provide good paying jobs so people don't have to be poor! What do people who refuse to work and live on welfare do for others......nothing. There is example after example of poor people working hard and becoming rich. A perfect example is the guy who started the company I work for. He litterally had nothing except an education and a massive debt. He then got some investors and bought a patent and started a company which only had about 5 people employeed. This company now employees several hunderd people over the US and several hundred around the world and is still growing even after he has left. He always consider those who worked for him family and he saw the company he made as a way to help people by giving them jobs! that is what freedom does and can do and that is what the government is trying to destroy! What would you know about where I have travelled anyways? Also, what would you know about what I think or do for the poor? What I do is help them get a job or help them get the education they need for that job. Just paying them for doing nothing does nothing more than keep them poor as why should they work when they get payed the same or more for not working? I know and have help many people who truely lived in poverty and came here for the opportunity to get out of that poverty. (I am not talking about what we view as poverty in this country....having one TV and one beat up car and a mobile home.....like thats so bad.....I am talking about having to get water from a muddy river that is miles away every day!) People come here to escape the clutches of oppressive governments so that may have the freedom to work hard and make thier own choices.....not to live under another oppresive government! If things are so bad here then tell me why we are considered the richest country in the world? Why do poeple come here from all over the world for our healthcare? Why are the majority of medical advancements made in thei s country? Why do so many medical professionals come here to practice? Why do people float on up turned cars to leave cuba (which has a lot of the things our government is trying to put in place!) and come here? Why do people sneak across the border to come here? If its so bad why come here where its worse? Besides, how does it concern you? Why does it matter so much to you whether or not we have government run health care. If things are so great everywhere else then why aren't people going there? Why won't people go there and leave me alone with my freedom instead of trying to take it way from me? If you don't want freedom then go where there isn't freedom instead of trying to take mine away.....

I can call right now and change my insurance company.....however I can't change anything the federal government has or is doing right now. So you admit that the capitalist system works? However no one is talking about reforming the governments current involvement and the massive debt it brings or the fact that thier current involvement is actual a major cause of higher healthcare costs. And the government does is not supposed to have the power to reform a private business. So if some guy in a black robe says it then it must be true.....the black robe means he can't possibly be wrong... Besides, if you wanted to know what Augustus Caesar thought about something would you read some modern day writers "interpretation" or would you read what , Augustus Caesar had to say? James Madison[1] (March 16, 1751 – June 28, 1836) was an American politician and political philosopher who served as the fourth President of the United States (1809–1817), and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. Considered to be the "Father of the Constitution", he was the principal author of the document. Sotomayor said that judges legislate from the bench which we all know that is not what they are supposed to do yet she, and others do it anyway. What does Obama think about the constitution? If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. First, Obama is wrong, it is not negative liberties but positive. The constitution chiefly describes what the government can do and that, in turn, means that if the constitution doesn't say the government can do something then they can't. But thats a side point. The real point here is he sees the constitution as flawed, and many around him do to. Do you really think that someone who sees the constitution as flawed will follow it or search for the true and correct meanings of the constitution? Let me help you out here. The answer is no. They will twist and manipulate things in order to get what they want. The ultimate point here is that the ultimate authority is the constitution which the government sees as restrictive and something they have to get around in order to achieve thier goals. Thus the interpretations of the courts can and sometimes are wrong and we should not jump headlong into the hole that the courts have dug for us! We should stand up for our rights and the constitution! The government was established by the people for the people! On another note, why should the vast majority of people be punished with worse healthcare in order to reward those who are either exercising thier freedom or have chosen to be irresponsible? Just like the "bail out" of those who were behind on thier house payments. Its rediculous.... but its what people like our president calls "social justice" or "redistribution of wealth" (lets just call it what it is: communism) and that is what the government healthcare system is really about!

Well, you are correct about one thing...its not a democracy but a republic......and since people travel all over the world to use our healthcare system and since we have the highest average living standards in the world I can't help but laugh at the rest. Thanks for helping me start my day with a smile.

The fact is, it doesn't matter how you or I interpret the Constitution. The only interpretation that matters is the interpretation of the judicial branch. Not even the Federalist Papers trump the SCOTUS' interpretations. From United States v. Butler: The Congress is expressly empowered to lay taxes to provide for the general welfare. Funds in the Treasury as a result of taxation may be expended only through appropriation. (Art. I, § 9, cl. 7.) They can never accomplish the objects for which they were collected unless the power to appropriate is as broad as the power to tax. The necessary implication from the terms of the grant is that the public funds may be appropriated "to provide for the general welfare of the United States." These words cannot be meaningless, else they would not have been used. The conclusion must be that they were intended to limit and define the granted power to raise and to expend money. How shall they be construed to effectuate the intent of the instrument? Since the foundation of the Nation, sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the enumerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view, the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are, or may be, necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court has noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Mr. Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of § 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution. If Congress so chooses to pass legislation to establish and fund via taxation a universal healthcare plan, they are within their Constitutional power to do so, under (at least) the general welfare clause. First, anyone can "interpret" anything to fit what they want. Second, the whole point of the constitution is to prevent this type of twisting of the "rules" to get whatever people want. Third, the only "interpretation" that really matters is that of the people because we elect the officials that make the laws!!

Unlike the government you can change insurance companies if they aren't honest. That give the people in a free market total control. You can take your money wherever you want but when the government gets invovled you have no choice. They take it and do whatever they want with it! Its not like the insurance companies CEO's are lying like this. If they did thier stocks would plummet and they could crumble over night. We can't do that to the government. And that agenda does nothing compared to the governments. They can only have an impact on one aspect of your life and even then, as explained earlier you can go to one who has a positive impact. With the government can have total control and you cant get out from under it! And that is thier agenda! total control! The reform should be reforming the government. Once again the people who got rich by taking your money are saying those who provide you something in exchange for your money are the greedy.....get real! Do you not see how rediculous that is? At least a company fulfils its supposed greed through honest means and provides millions with good jobs and good pay and provides its customers who choose to use them a service in return! I suggest you read the constitution and federalist paper 41 for starters. Also, are you claiming the courts are perfect and are never wrong? That everything the government has done up to this point is totally within the bounds of the constitution because of some court decision...as if the judges are perfect? According to James Madison, "the most important and fundamental question" he ever addressed was the meaning of and relation between the general welfare clause and the enumeration of particular powers. This question is the most "fundamental" because the answer determines the very "idea" or "nature" of the U.S. Constitution. Commentators virtually agree on the answer Madison proposed and defended in Federalist 41, namely, that the general welfare clause is neither a statement of ends nor a substantive grant of power. It is a mere "synonym" for the enumeration of particular powers, which are limited and wholly define its content. From this answer, it follows that the primary meaning of the national dimension of the federal Constitution is limited government, understood as a government with a limited number of powers or means. The thesis of this essay, however, is that, contrary to the commentators' claims, Madison argued that the clause was a substantive grant of power for the generally stated end and that the primary purpose of the ensuing enumeration was to define more particularly the ends alluded to by the phrase "general welfare." Hence, the meaning of the general constitutional government in the American federal system is a government oriented to a limited number of limited ends. The term welfare it self comes from the middle english word wel faren or to fare well....or a more commonly well-being. The original idea is that the government provides for this through protecting your freedoms to obtain such things. One word even used today in the definition of welfare is happiness. Well, it makes over half the country very unhappy to have public healthcare! So that means that are not living up to that if you want to take it that way. It is simply saying the are to look after our well-being by protecting, through such things as the military, our freedoms! Also, notice the use of the term general....meaning not everyone gets this "welfare" or well-being or even health if you want to got their. They "promote" it, as used in the preamble, by protecting our free market and the "general" person has healthcare and everyone can choose to pay for it or not have it! Also, by using the term "general" it prevents the use of it in specific terms such as congress providing for the health of people. Welfare can only be used in a general sense as a result meaning through the methods I have already talked about, such as protecting our freedom and free market! From federalist 41: For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. What this simply means is if everything congress had the power to do was included in the quote you provided why would the constitution them go on to define each power congress had? The quote you provided is a general statement that is then expounded upon with specifics later......and later we find nothing about providing healthcare or any such thing. We do however find the tenth amendment. Why then if what you quoted tells us all we need to know about the power congress has in this matter is it followed by all of this: To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; To establish post offices and post roads; To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. What you quoted is a small general statement to encompass all of the above..... therefore if it is not defined in the above it does not fall into the generalization or summary which you quoted. It is not a grant to provide healthcare!

In a thin metal tube traveling at great speed where there are people that are pretty much always going to be in the line of fire and have no option to escape? Where there are already uniformed armed professionals patrolling the vehicle? No. You pretty much have to go with the same regs as the airlines. Sorry. Okay, so if someone wants to kill a bunch of people then amtrack is the place to go because once you sneak your weapon on the train there is no one that can stop you! Great idea! You see if people were allowed to carry guns when someone decided they wanted to shoot a bunch of people up they 1. may think twice about it as they know they will get shot by someone else or 2. they get shot by someone else before very many or any really get hurt or killed.......I'll take number two! In your case you would prefer the shooter have no opposition.....because....remember that the bad guys don't follow the rules. Its just like requiring people to have permits....that doesn't stop the bad guys from getting guns because they don't care about the law so they don't get permits.

Lets see US national debt is 11,800,000,000,000 dollars or 38,448 per citizen! The three largest budget items are defense/war $576,968,000,000 Social Security $464,993,000,000 and medicare/medicaid $450,518,000,000 then liabilities of Medicare/Medicaid $39,766,527,000,000 social security $10,727,046,000,000 and prescription drug $8,596,508,000,000 the total liability per citizen is 192,158 Do you really thing the government can be responsible for every individuals healthcare!?!?!?!? We are supposed to be free and I want the freedom to do what I want even if that means not have healthcare! I should be fined for not having healthcare....its my choice! I am supposed to be free!