The open political discussion thread. Read the first post!

[2+2]

Originally Posted by TLyttle

+2
I am totally puzzled by the American attitude towards firearms, and I will likely never understand.

It's a national fascination/idolatry with The Duke. 20 or 30% percent of the population wakes up each morning imagining that they walk and talk like him. As long as they're not pointing a gun at you at the moment it's really kind of cute.

[Altitude]

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/618...s-haden-church

[Bob Dog]

sure got that right

[Slick]

HEY! Dont dog The DUKE lol.

[Altitude]

I never did understand the fascination with John Wayne. He was an actor, but the people that love him would have you believe what they saw of him on screen was his real life. Anyhow, I'd take the bad ass roles that Clint Eastwood played over Wayne any day.

[TLyttle]

Wait a sec... John Wayne appeared in many movies, but calling him an actor is pushing it. He changed nothing, regardless of the role, he was just John Wayne in just another movie. Eastwood is slightly better, still a distance away from acting.

Now, Tom Hanks, actor: go down the list, and there are few duplications in his approach, from Forrest Gump to CastAway. Truly a professional actor, one of the greats in his own time.

[RedRide]

Originally Posted by TLyttle

Wait a sec... John Wayne appeared in many movies, but calling him an actor is pushing it. He changed nothing, regardless of the role, he was just John Wayne in just another movie. Eastwood is slightly better, still a distance away from acting.

Now, Tom Hanks, actor: go down the list, and there are few duplications in his approach, from Forrest Gump to CastAway. Truly a professional actor, one of the greats in his own time.

I could not agree more.
Both Wayne and Eastwood simply Played/play the same character over and over simply because that is all they can do.

In fact, Estwood once got fired from an acting gig due to the fact that he couldn't act. Dirty Harry made him a star and he has been playing the same deadpan, monotone charactor ever since.

It was much the same with Wayne.

Tom Hanks on the other hand, is a true character actor, one of the best of our times.

[Altitude]

Originally Posted by TLyttle

Wait a sec... John Wayne appeared in many movies, but calling him an actor is pushing it. He changed nothing, regardless of the role, he was just John Wayne in just another movie. Eastwood is slightly better, still a distance away from acting.

Now, Tom Hanks, actor: go down the list, and there are few duplications in his approach, from Forrest Gump to CastAway. Truly a professional actor, one of the greats in his own time.

I agree on all points. As for Eastwood, I was referring more to the genre of a rough and tough bad ass (specifically the spaghetti westerns) not his acting ability. Though I believe Eastwood is more convincing than Wayne even with the limited role.

We probably shouldn't go too far off topic - this is supposed to be a political thread!

[Bob Dog]

John Wayne was a political icon as much as actor. He presented a simplified and idealised potrait of American frontier values in both his acting and and his public image; He portrayed an image of an alpha male in a land of unlimited resources, and celibrated American manifest destiny, be it on the forest or planes of the continent of North America, or the rivers, mountains and islands of the far east and south America. His films were made by euroamerican males and stated quite clearly a superiority and a sense of entitlement for that ethnic group. They are virtually all racist, particularly in their treatment persons of Oriental, Hispanic and native American descent. It is widely rumoured, contrary tothe public machismo that behind closed doors Wayne and Gary Cooper were boyfriends. Give me the moral uncertainty of most of Bogart anytime.

[Altitude]

Thanks for finding the political angle on Wayne. You're right on all counts, though I'd never heard the gay angle. He certainly personified an attitude that remains today in the minds of many conservative men. It's a shame that attitude didn't die along with him as it has no place in this day and age.

[RedRide]

Yes, Wayne personified an image that was carefullly cultivated and was very apealing to certain political views and attitudes.
This shoot first from the hip and ask questions later false, misgided, macho attitude which became universally known as the "John Wayne mentality".

His personal life did have some have mysteries of sorts and it is dificult to determine exactly what is true.
BTW, his real name was "Marion Robert Morrison"

[mo_feezy]

Charles Bronson was way more bad ass anyways.

[2+2]

Seeing as how this is the political thread...

Today Google news is showing a Washington Post article entitled "President Is Expected to Take Firmer Positions". You mean to say that the president is growing some nads? That would be a nice change for any democrat, let alone the president.

I can't imagine a worse president than W but at least he had/has nads. Reagan, omg if I could change a single thing in history it would be to eliminate Reagan from the presidency, but at least Reagan had nads.

Our current president (and the House and the Senate) needs to grow some nads. Same old, same old ain't going to cut it. Big business and their lobbyists are calling the shots and everyone knows it. The way they're controlling the public discourse on health care is a fine example. Getting the average working joe to declare that securing health care for working families is socialism is so manipulative it's amazing. I'd sit back and enjoy watching the testosterone filled dumb fecks being manipulated that way but I'm afraid it will be another 20 years before health care stands a chance again.

[Bob Dog]

The scam works this way: for years and years the person purchasing health insurance pays into a pool. All goes well for them until they need to draw out of that pool. At this time the insurance will go up, or sometimes be cancelled.

This (how fortunate for the insurance company) happens at the same time because the mark (yes mark) has become sick and is in a bind. He (or she)probably can not work or at least is unable to generate as much income as he did before to pay for the insurance. What you get is a poor sucker who has paid into a medical insurance pool for years, perhaps decades, who is no longer able to pay for it.

The result: years of payments in, few payments out. If you think that they are not aware of this you are not thinking. However, understanding this requires a several step reasoning process, which can easily be blotted out to the simple and not so simple minded with a well placed knee jerk sound bite. Socialist, Communist. No truth to it but for those who do not want to think, it is much easier to believe this horse shit than to modify their beliefs in a way that would be in their ultimate self interest. Silly rabbit tricks are for kids. So it goes on and the ignorant are played for fools

There is also another gambit involved here preexistiing conditions..Once your initial insurance policy has expired due to being cancelled,or being too costly to afford, all illnesses that you already have become preexisting condtions. The insurance companies need no longer pay for medical expense where they can be shown to have anything to due with any sickness you need them to pay for. As I said before this requires a little reasoning, which is easily blotted out by a couple sound bites. And thats the way it works, your health and wealth, stolen by investor class swine. One must remember that all your property is on the block for medical expenses as soon as these snakes slip out the back door.

Fully half of all foreclosures are for medical expenses and fully 40% of all people have no health insurance 6 months after the start of a truly serious illness. Gee where did that "medical insurance" go?

[TLyttle]

Holy smokes, an American that gets it, and has the guts to tell it like it is!! I'm impressed, Bob, good on ya.

However, you just know that the next barrage from the Neo-Cons will just recycle all the BS about communism, free choice, the market and all that balderdash. And that is the sick part that no health care can cure.

[Kal-El]

Originally Posted by TLyttle

Holy smokes, an American that gets it, and has the guts to tell it like it is!! I'm impressed, Bob, good on ya.

How's that health care and tax rates working out for you in BC?

[Darb]

In regards to Joe "You Lie" Wilson...

Wilson is the liar here.

H.R. 3200 SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

[Kal-El]

Originally Posted by Darb

In regards to Joe "You Lie" Wilson...

Wilson is the liar here.

H.R. 3200 SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

Read it again. Wilson is correct.

http://www.ridersusa.net/Content/Doc...hx?DocId=65521

Section 246 of H.R. 3200 does allow illegal aliens to receive
taxpayer-funded health care

The President is not being totally honest in his remarks. While the bill doesn't invite all the illegals to sign up, the bill does nothing to prevent them from signing up for the plan. They just won't be eligible for the affordability credits.

Critics of America’s Affordable Health Care Act of 2009 (AAHCA), the health care reform bill currently working
its way through the House of Representatives, have suggested the bill will provide taxpayer-funded health care to
illegal aliens. Supporters of the bill maintain that Section 246 will prevent illegal aliens from receiving benefits
under the bill. Section 246 states that “nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability
credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”1 As discussed in this
memorandum, Section 246 will not prevent illegal aliens from receiving taxpayer-funded health care benefits
under the bill.
(1) Illegal Aliens Eligible for Public Plan. Section 246 applies only to “affordability credit” access, but does not
apply to anyone attempting to enroll in the public health insurance plan created by Section 221. Affordability
credits can be used to offset the cost of health care coverage for individuals who enroll in private insurance plans,
but there is currently no provision barring illegal aliens from enrolling in the taxpayer-funded public plan. An
amendment offered by Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) at the Ways & Means Committee markup would have required
that enrollees in the public plan, or those seeking affordability credits, must verify eligibility with the Income
Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system.
That amendment was rejected by the committee on a party-line vote. As currently written, the bill would allow
illegal aliens to freely enroll in the public plan.
(2) Section 246 Lacks Verification Requirements. Over the years, Congress has required various methods to
ensure that only eligible individuals receive federal public benefits. The most effective of these methods involves
the requirement that an agency or employer confirm eligibility with a verification database. Examples of effective
databases to verify eligibility include the SAVE system, which confirms an individual is a citizen or qualified
alien (as defined by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, more
commonly known as the “Welfare Reform Act of 1996”)2 and is therefore eligible for certain benefits; the IEVS,
which confirms income eligibility for purposes of certain means-tested benefits like Temporary Assistance to
Needy Families (TANF); or the E-Verify system, which confirms an individual is work-authorized in the United
States. A lesser method to screen for benefit eligibility would be to require applicants to self-attest eligibility,
subject to penalties of perjury, on a benefit enrollment form. This method is unreliable because it depends solely
on the honesty of applicants and also fails to actually determine an applicant’s eligibility. The health care reform
bill does not require the use of any verification database to determine eligibility for affordability credits.
Likewise, this bill does not require any screening or self-attestation by applicants to determine eligibility for
affordability credits. Instead, Section 246 bars illegal aliens from receiving affordability credits but contains no
enforcement method to ensure compliance so as to preclude ineligible individuals from receiving that benefit.
Where enforcement is lacking, we can expect compliance to be similarly lacking. Accordingly, Section 246 will
do nothing to actually preclude benefits from being improperly provided to illegal aliens.
(3) Government Studies Confirm: Bar on Benefits without Verification is Ineffective. Government research
confirms that a statute that limits the availability of government benefits is meaningless unless it is also coupled
with a vigorous method of ensuring eligibility in order to eliminate fraud and abuse. For example, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) and other independent research have concluded that illegal aliens have
been a significant factor in the rise of Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) disbursements despite the fact that illegal
1 Section 246 (starting on page 143, line 3) available here.
2 The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), Pub. L.. No. 104-193 (1996).
2
aliens are technically ineligible for the tax benefits.3 Likewise, the Congressional Research Service (CRS)
reported in May 2008 that illegal aliens receive significant federal benefits, notwithstanding numerous federal
laws designed to prevent this form of fraud.4 CRS cited studies from the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Labor,
Health and Human Services, and a private organization to support the contention that a statutory bar alone will not
prevent illegal aliens from accessing government benefits.5 Accordingly, it is highly unlikely that Section 246
will operate to effectively prevent illegal aliens from receiving affordability credits provided for in the bill.
(4) Does Loophole Extend Health Coverage to Illegal Aliens Via Dependents? Section 246 may also berendered ineffective by virtue of Section 242(a)(2). 242(a)(2) states “members of the same family… shall be
treated as a single affordable credit individual eligible.”6 This raises the question of whether a family of illegal
aliens can qualify for the affordability credit because they have a single family member who is eligible. For
example, could an illegal alien woman receive the credit for herself simply by giving birth to a child in the United
States? If so, this exception would negate the general rule barring illegal aliens from receiving the credit and
would impose a significant cost burden on the American taxpayers.
(5) Recent Congressional Enactment to Limit Benefits for Illegal Aliens. In recent years, Congress has
enacted various provisions to effectively preclude illegal aliens from receiving taxpayer-funded benefits. For
example, the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 contained a number of reforms to ensure that only “qualified aliens”
(which excludes illegal aliens) would be eligible to receive “federal public benefits.” More recently, as part of the
Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, Congress precluded the issuance of stimulus rebate checks to illegal aliens by
limiting rebates only to persons with valid Social Security numbers (SSNs) while prohibiting checks for
individuals using individual tax identification numbers (ITINs) which can be used by illegal aliens.7 This
provision was effective in preventing the issuance of stimulus checks to illegal aliens. Likewise, the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 included language to preclude illegal aliens from receiving the bill’s
“Making Work Pay” tax credit.8
Conclusion. The health care reform bill lacks adequate safeguards to ensure that illegal aliens will not qualify for
the taxpayer-subsidized public health plan or affordability credits. The best way to protect the American taxpayers
is to require that each individual who enrolls in the public plan or who applies for an affordability credit to first
verify their eligibility using the IEVS and SAVE databases. Government studies confirm that statutory bars, like
Section 246, are ineffective by themselves to protect taxpayers. Congress has enacted effective language to
preclude illegal aliens from receiving benefits in recent years. The same willingness to adopt verification
requirements in the past is again necessary with respect to AAHCA in order to protect the interests of the
American taxpayers.