Quantcast

If Obama leads the Country toward socialism, would you support States separating from the Union?

Snowball 2012/06/21 03:58:22
Related Topics: Obama, Union, Socialism, Forced
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Mike III% 2012/06/21 05:51:29 (edited)
    Yes, States were suppose to maintain their sovereignty, why not?
    Mike III%
    +3
    Yessir, 10th amendment, nuff said.

    If my state was seriously thinking about succession, I would support it and even propose that my state also absorb 1/50th of the national debt when succeeding so we can do so responsibly.
  • mchappell2 2012/06/21 05:42:53
    Yes, States were suppose to maintain their sovereignty, why not?
    mchappell2
    +1
    But the second option sounds more like the truth of the matter actually...Too many zombies out there
  • Vijay Pawar 2012/06/21 05:41:20
    Other
    Vijay Pawar
    +1
    If separated, the democratic agenda has no meaning.
  • Dana 2012/06/21 05:21:00 (edited)
  • Mike III% Dana 2012/06/21 05:53:31 (edited)
    Mike III%
    +1
    This should tell you that your senators are not working for you, or have you forgotten so quickly that the house is the only part of government where republicans are a majority (and only by 2.1%). In short, Republicans just retook the house nearly a year after Obama was elected, Democrats STILL control both the entire judicial branch, Senate, and the entire executive branch. Really, this is an excuse, the same excuse that is made when someone calls into work and says they're not coming in today because their 5 y/o sister threatened to kick their ass if they did.

    It is also noteworthy that the house is setup by representation per population -- not per state, which means the majority of the population has voted republican in the house. This has major implications for the democrats.
  • Dana Mike III% 2012/06/21 07:19:07
  • Mike III% Dana 2012/06/21 10:57:56 (edited)
    Mike III%
    +3
    To your edit, Obama's agendas all have very firm socialist roots, and are still easily greased through the senate because of the blue domination there. Obamacare is just one example of socialism at its finest. The "Spread the Wealth" ideal that Obama lives by is also just another to scratch the surface and now he's starting class and race warfare. Anyone that knows their history knows how this simply overlays with Hitler's takeover and establishment of the Nazi Party (which directly translated into English means "[German] National Socialist Worker's Party". When you look at the few years that lead up to Hitler taking power, one that knows their history can't help but to shudder.

    1) Hitler rose to power using the economic turbulent times with promises of "CHANGE", "HOPE", and moving "Forward".
    2) Hitler took office and divided the nation down the center via religion and ethnicity.
    3) Hitler established worker internment camps that later became death camps (FEMA).
    4) Hitler seized control over all of German resources (See Obama's Preparedness Exec Order)
    5) Hitler set up programs to have families and friends report each other whom said bad things about the Nazi's (See NDAA)

    I have several more, and I know each by itself means near-nothing, but when you add this up, the subtotal is not pretty.
  • Incognito Mike III% 2012/06/21 15:41:58
  • Dana Mike III% 2012/06/21 16:53:39
    Dana
    Obama care, oh please. Do you have any idea what is in that bill? Any idea?

    Lets see,.... no more caps on the medical care you can receive, so if your child gets leukemia, half way through her treatment the insurance company can no longer say she gets no more coverage.

    ON that child with leukemia, she can no longer be dropped from her coverage because she is sick.

    As of fall of 2011, the child w/ leukemia who was previously denied getting coverage, could finally get an insurance policy long with every other child who was sick, and could not be charged more and could not be declined. That sick child finally had medical care.

    In 2014, people who have been denied insurance for ANY reason, will not longer be denied, all can get it, no one turned down.

    Prices are not allowed to increase as they have in the past... they have tried it in places and were not allowed.

    That is just a few things about the health care reform act.

    So you tell me.... why is it horrible to allow the child w/ leukemia to continue getting her care?

    Why is it horrible to allow that sick child to get an insurance policy?

    Why do you prefer that the child die instead?

    Answer that...
  • Dave Dana 2012/06/21 17:24:55
    Dave
    Have you read the entire law (two thousand pages plus) ? You are cherry-picking on decent provision and ignoring all the hundreds of negative provision within it.
  • Dana Dave 2012/06/21 17:55:42
    Dana
    Did read it, and yes long and incredibly boring. Took me about 3 days. Nothing but legalese and trying to cover up every single possible loop hole the insurance companies would crawl through to deny coverage.

    Read the link I posted... gives a time line of what has been done and what will be done. Explanations of everything... easy to read. Much better than the one the White House put out.
  • Mike III% Dana 2012/06/26 10:43:14
    Mike III%
    Yet it forces insurance on people... The thing is, when you create a law that says you must go outside twice a day to ensure you are healthy, this is no longer a law that promotes freedom, it is a law that promotes socialism.
  • Dana Mike III% 2012/06/26 15:53:46
    Dana
    They passed the laws years ago requiring everyone to have auto insurance if they owned and drove a car. Had to do it, because so many were going uninsured and harming others... that it was ridiculous. For health insurance, this was put in by the GOP, demanded by the insurance companies, because they felt that if the insurance companies would no longer be allowed to just jack up your rates at any time, or no longer be allowed to just dump you when you got sick... that in order for them to be able to lower rates and make insurance more affordable for as many as possible, they would have to require it of everyone. Remember this was initiated by the GOP. I remember thinking..,. now they will use this against the bill... and of course they have. But here is the bottom line, as much as I do not want anyone "telling" me that I must have insurance... I do need insurance! We all need medical care. You may not be sick today, but you could drive down the street tomorrow, and get hit by another car and be in a world of hurt w/ hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills. It can happen to any of us. Or remember the swine flu a few years back? Putting so many in the hospital? I had it too, could not afford any care, but was lucky. Because I really needed help, just plain could not get it.
  • Mike III% Dana 2012/06/26 21:34:01 (edited)
  • Dana Mike III% 2012/06/27 02:59:25
    Dana
    You may take it any way you want to, you basically misconstrued, whether intentionally or not... what i wrote.

    As as far as auto insurance goes,.. we used toi\ have to pay additionally for "uninsured" motorist. not anymore. And "liability" means if you cause the accident... YOU are LIABLE. That is why it is called LIABILITY insurance.

    Go back and pay attention to 2009, re read the info and see who it was who demanded the insurance clause. YOu will see then.

    For me.. life is short and frankly, you do not want to learn truths, you just want to argue and hate. So to me, you are a waste of time.
  • Mike III% Dana 2012/06/29 06:00:14 (edited)
  • Mike III% Dana 2012/06/26 10:46:53 (edited)
    Mike III%
    I have read every single word. I'll even concur that some of it is good, but like I said in the response above, going outside sounds good, promoting a regiment of going outside is good even creating laws that tell buses and trucks that they can't stop you from going outside is good, however when you "COMMAND" that people MUST go outside every day crosses the line of a free republic stands for and becomes socialism/marxist.
  • Dana Mike III% 2012/06/26 16:01:07
    Dana
    But in reality, no one is telling you you must exercise or stand in the rain each day. No one will ever close down McDonalds, or even eliminate high fructose corn syrup, no matter how bad those 2 things can be for your health. And look at the countries that are not free? Like China, they still have McDonalds there too! So that line your worried about and rightly so, is not the one we are talking about. We all need health care at one time or anther, we just plain do. heck, my ex who has not been to a doctor in the entire 17+ years we have known each other, slipped and fell in the mud of all things here on New years, and broke his ankle in 4 places! he had to have major surgery, pins and plates and months of lay up, literally bed rest for nearly 3 months alone... (here at my house since he fell here and could not get on a plane to fly home....) ha ha... you know that movie Misery?? just kidding....

    anyways,. he did not expect a freak terrible injury like that, but it happened anyways and thankfully he does have insurance, very good insurance and while he still had to shovel out several thousand dollars, his insurance paid the majority of his bills. What if he had had no insurance like me? yikes!
  • Mike III% Dana 2012/06/26 22:20:14
    Mike III%
    But in reality, no one is telling you you must exercise or stand in the rain each day. Yet the tell me that I have to work 2 extra hours per day to afford the insurance they're going to require me to have. That is bull.

    And look at the countries that are not free? Like China You are going to try and compare a Marxist government now as you carelessly leave out the more comparable systems like Canada and Norway -- two of the epicenters of capitalist economic social healthcare systems that have proven this type of system fails miserably.

    We all need health care at one time or anther, we just plain do. That is simply not true at all, and when I do need it, I will get it, but that is and should remain MY CHOICE. Ever try and do the math for insurance? IT IS STUPID MATH -- $400.00/mo for one person for $20,000 coverage per year. Simply saving that $400.00/mo would be BETTER insurance than HAVING insurance, and if medical insurance ever gets so much that you can't afford it, what then? CHARGE A BROKE PERSON A PENALTY INSURING HE LOOSES WHAT ELSE LITTLE HE HAS LEFT? What a retarded plan.

    slipped and fell in the mud of all things here on New years, and broke his ankle in 4 places! And my homeowner's insurance would have easily covered this without all the hassle of medical insura...

    But in reality, no one is telling you you must exercise or stand in the rain each day.
    Yet the tell me that I have to work 2 extra hours per day to afford the insurance they're going to require me to have. That is bull.

    And look at the countries that are not free? Like China
    You are going to try and compare a Marxist government now as you carelessly leave out the more comparable systems like Canada and Norway -- two of the epicenters of capitalist economic social healthcare systems that have proven this type of system fails miserably.

    We all need health care at one time or anther, we just plain do.
    That is simply not true at all, and when I do need it, I will get it, but that is and should remain MY CHOICE. Ever try and do the math for insurance? IT IS STUPID MATH -- $400.00/mo for one person for $20,000 coverage per year. Simply saving that $400.00/mo would be BETTER insurance than HAVING insurance, and if medical insurance ever gets so much that you can't afford it, what then? CHARGE A BROKE PERSON A PENALTY INSURING HE LOOSES WHAT ELSE LITTLE HE HAS LEFT? What a retarded plan.

    slipped and fell in the mud of all things here on New years, and broke his ankle in 4 places!
    And my homeowner's insurance would have easily covered this without all the hassle of medical insurance.

    What if he had had no insurance like me? yikes!
    And you're about to make my case for me... Answer: He would have gotten treatment anyways because it is FEDERAL LAW THAT HE CANNOT BE TURNED AWAY FOR EMERGENCY TREATMENT OR TREATMENT RELATED TO AN EMERGENCY, and been responsible for the bill in which he could have easily called and had them work with him and put them into payments EASIER TO PAY than insurance over the period of a year or two.
    (more)
  • Dana Mike III% 2012/06/27 03:02:13
  • Mike III% Dana 2012/06/27 11:01:01 (edited)
  • Dana Mike III% 2012/06/27 17:00:00
    Dana
    How about this? Make your own choice to not breathe air then. You have that right. You can even get help for this,. just use a plastic bag.

    your lies about Canada are exactly that... lies. They spend much less per person on medical than we do, and they get much more. No one was charged 800% of anything. Blatant BS crap. YOu see you miss the entire point..... the insurance companies are the ones who are in this for profit and they are the ones who are pricing this out. We are the only country that has "for profit" medical. In Canada your tax dollars go straight into paying medical.. no middle man, no insurance company. Are you getting this?
  • Mike III% Dana 2012/06/29 05:53:02 (edited)
  • Dana Mike III% 2012/06/21 16:54:43
    Dana
    For more real info that is actually accurate... go here...

    http://www.healthcare.gov/law...
  • Dana Mike III% 2012/06/21 16:59:18
    Dana
    you think FEMA is like Hitler? Federal Emergency Management Association... FEMA?????? Are you nuts? These are the people who were in charge of operations when 911 hit, Katrina hit, the Oklahoma bombings, etc...

    And you call them Hitler?

    Bush made FEMA weak and Obama took it back to how it was under Clinton where it would be strong again.

    Do you remember katrina and how screwed up the operations were because of mismanagement? Then Gen Honore came in and took over and straightened it out. Too late for many because Bush's pal Micheal Brown had already screwed up beyond belief.

    This is in part why Obama had to fix it!
  • Dave Dana 2012/06/21 17:27:32
    Dave
    Do YOU remember when then Mayor Ray Nagin REFUSED to evacuate using SCHOOL BUSES because he wanted buses with A/C and bathrooms ? Don't blame Bush or FEMA when it was the LOCAL New Orleans government who caused nearly all the problems. Not even going to mention how poorly the Louisiana governor handled the state-led relief effort.
  • Dana Dave 2012/06/21 18:38:19 (edited)
  • Mike III% Dana 2012/06/26 10:45:14
    Mike III%
    Obama has given fema the power to set up interment camps to "reboot a local economy". This is PRECISELY what Hitler did, and then used these camps to enslave and imprison the ethic minority.
  • Dana Mike III% 2012/06/26 16:03:57
    Dana
    Please provide more info for this. And please tell me, do you really believe that what Hitler did would ever be repeated again? Ever? Not in the USA or any other civilized country. Do not know about N Korea, but they are the only ones who live under the rule of complete crazy nuts.
  • Mike III% Dana 2012/06/27 11:04:59
  • Dana Mike III% 2012/06/27 17:02:42
    Dana
    This is in regards to homeland security, AT military bases... you idiot.

    You think we do not need homeland security?

    Just let the bad guys in? Bush did, he had no problem with it. But you may not want to tell the victims of 911 that you think homeland security is unnecessary. But give it a whirl,. let me know how that works out for you.
  • Mike III% Dana 2012/06/29 05:56:17
    Mike III%
    This SPECIFIES FEMA as well -- go back to school and learn to read.

    THIS DOCUMENT ALSO GIVES UNLIMITED AND UNABRIDGED POWER TO FEMA IN THESE CAMPS THAT IS EVEN ABOVE REPROACH FROM THE JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES AND HAS NO OVERSIGHT.
  • Dana Mike III% 2012/06/21 17:00:31
    Dana
    actually reading your posts proves to me you're past help... beyond it. You need serious medical help, nothing I post on here, or anyone else could help you.
  • Mike III% Dana 2012/06/26 10:45:29
    Mike III%
    I could say the very same for you.
  • Dave Dana 2012/06/21 17:23:10
    Dave
    VOTE OUT EVERY INCUMBENT. REPEAT AS NEEDED UNTIL THE MESSAGE IS RECEIVED AND OBEYED.
  • Dave Dana 2012/06/21 17:22:08
    Dave
    Obama is a failure in all he attempts --- a lucky break for the rest of us !
  • Dana Dave 2012/06/21 18:43:54
    Dana
    YOU prefer the country and all Americans to suffer, just because you hate the POTUS. Are you in congress?
  • bman~AVA~BTTB 2012/06/21 05:18:26
    Yes, States were suppose to maintain their sovereignty, why not?
    bman~AVA~BTTB
    +4
    Absolutely! And if that happened then I'd move to one of those states. I'll not live under socialism. I know we're moving toward that direction and if the socialist does indeed steal another term then I believe our country will indeed be doomed.
  • mchappell2 bman~AV... 2012/06/21 05:44:35
    mchappell2
    +2
    Amen Brother !!!!!!!!
  • bman~AV... mchappell2 2012/06/21 05:46:52
    bman~AVA~BTTB
    +1
    Appreciate it sir.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/29 08:52:16

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals