People in power make better liars, study shows
Iraqi women miss Saddam Hussein’s days
HealthCare Reform: Going into Details, People Would Support Slavery
Jake Tapper of This Week interview David Axelrod about the healthcare bill.
This bill is important to the American people, Jake, and when you get underneath the numbers and you ask people, do you support giving people more leverage against insurance companies so that they — if they have preexisting conditions, they can get coverage, so if they get sick, they don’t get thrown off, so they don’t have these huge premium increases of the sort we’ve just seen announced in states around the country, they say yes.
But again, when you go underneath, they support the elements of the plan. When you ask them, does the health care system need reform, three quarters of them say yes. When you ask them, do you want Congress to move forward and deal with this issue, three quarters of them say yes. So we’re not going to walk away from this issue.
David Axelrod’s arguement is most people are in favor of the details in the bill, therefore it is a good idea. One detail Axelrod left out–the majority of people are opposed to making health insurance mandatory. Leaving out the “mandatory” part is no small detail to be ignored, and here is why:
If polled most Americans would probably answer yes to all these question.
- Would you like the cost of food and clothing to go down?
- Would you like the cost of your housing to never go up?
- Do you want to prevent people from ever going homeless?
- Would you like not having to struggle to make ends meet?
- Would you like to live in a country that was more organized?
- Do you want congress to take action to make your life simpler?
- Are you in favor of the federal government regulating work place rules?
Using the same rational as David Axelrod: If you leave out the detail of losing your freedom, we can conclude most people are really in favor of slavery.
Census Data Not So Confidential After All
Venezuela’s Chavez Seeks Strict Internet Controls
Democratic Jihad: Obama Akbar
Democratic Jihad: Obama Akbar
New York floods mailboxes with 700,000 vintage tax-delinquency letters: You may be a debtor!
Four Beheaded in the War on Drugs
(Reuters) -Thirteen killed in crime wave at Mexico’s Acapulco
Thirteen people were killed in and around the Mexican beach resort of Acapulco early on Saturday in apparent drug-related violence, with four victims found beheaded, security officials said. WORLD Five of those killed were police officers whose night-time patrol was attacked by gunmen on the outskirts of Acapulco, a Pacific Ocean resort popular with tourists, the security officials said in a statement. The bullet-riddled bodies of eight other men were discovered in different areas around Acapulco, and four of them had been beheaded, the officials added.
One of the reasons alcohol prohibition was repealed in the US was the public became fed up with stories just like this. How many more innocent people must die before we learn the same lesson: that drug prohibition does not decrease addiction or crime? The reason for drug prohibition was to protect innocent lives, and yet here again drug prohibition results in the murder of innocent people.
Just as banning pizza would not cause the nation to loose weight because there would still be plenty of other ways to get fat, ending drug prohibition will not lead to an increase in addicts. It will just give those with addiction problems more ways to destroy their lives. Those seeking to escape from reality will always find something that isn’t in their best interest to fulfill their desire. There has been, and always will be, a certain percent of the population that has a propensity to become addicted to something.
There are people who do not touch alcohol even though its legal, because they see it as a harm to their lives. These same people won’t be rushing out to buy illicit drugs once they become legal. If drug prohibition were ended, there are those that would prefer one addictive drug to another. They would switch from alcohol to a drug, but the number of addicts would basically stay the same.
How many more murders does it take to see the cure is worse than the disease?