1

Steal from Poor - Give to Rich - Dear President Obama,

Dear President Obama,

George W. Bush decided that the original bailouts that had gone all year for him was just not enough. He needed to offer an 85 billion dollar one for AIG. Then offer a huge package of 700 billion. It was originally voted down due to voters contacting their legislators not to pass. Then the stocks plumeted the next day. Neither you nor McCain was against the bill. So the second time it went through. Yes, this was during Bush's term as well. This new, "700 billion dollar bill" in which it had been named actually was 1.5 trillion or so. Now the media is telling you that if you are a democrat that you are for the bill and if you are republica then you are against it. We are being told, that this is the only option in the entire universe. WOW! I had no idea. The only option?

Well, Mr. President Obama, this letter is written just to say this: "UP YOURS!" You are just as phony, convining, and belligerent as any other bozo that has sat in the white house. Why won't you serve the citizens of this country that youare supposed to protect? Why won't you uphold our constitution? How can a company be free to become a part of the new big 3 if you hold them down by stealing money from them and giving it to a top producer/competitior? What that means is this: Giving a top company money like Chrysler doesn't give another car company that didn't bring this upon themself to become a top producer/competitor and take their spot? They should be free to fail and another company should have been free to take his spot. You didn't inherit this mess. You asked for it. You didn't talk against the bailouts during your campaign against McCain. Yes, this started during the end of the Bush era. But now it is your reign. You have only acted just the same. Mr. Presiden Barack Hussein Obama. My sister wrote a poem when she was a child. It went....

"U.S.A. We are number one.

U.S.A. We get the job done

U.S.A. Take it to the bank.

U.S.A. We have the best bank.

(then I added to the poem)

U.S.A. Saddam Hussein

U.S.A. That's the name of their game. "

It was more of a chant after desert storm. We spoke out each letter of (you, essss, A) and it was awesome. Who are you but one individual who will fight to take more from us. Yes, I scrutinize and I am sure your people have placed me on some list just for utilizing something that I am suppose to have like freedom of speech. But I suppose if I use the freedom of speech then that must mean in some unwritten law that I must surrender my right to due process? Ron Paul supporters on a terror watch list just for being a Ron Paul supporter is insane? Yes, it has been reported that if you supported Ron Paul you are a potential threat to this country. I should say that everyone is a threat. If you are not rich, ever been laid off, ever voted for a candidate that didn't win, you somehow must be a threat to this country. They should make it universal; all across the board and not just this one time - for any Ron Paul supporter. If you have ever been denied credit, you should have to pay this loss to due process. If you have ever been injured by anyone, been a victim of a crime or victim of a routine police traffic stop and received a ticket. (You should all be on some list) If you have ever paid a bill even one day late, you should be on a terror threat list.

And President Obama, even those with abnormally much more power than the average man should be on the terror threat list. For they are the ones most likely to abuse such powers. They are the evil doers. Oh, I guess that would include you, but don't worry - I was also thinking of - I mean, actually (wink wink) thinking of the CEO's who abuse their power.

2

I DON'T LIKE CHANGE!

So far - not liking the new format......they of course must attempt to make money off of the google ads, etc - through our news settings....what if you wrote the news story?

Politics.com just has a bunch of usernames but only a handful of us use it!

discussion is open to talk up or talk down any part of what "politics team" has recently altered to the current site

3

After Watching Micheal Moore's Film, Sicko, (Part 2)

So, the initial thoughts after watching the film are located in my part 1 blog. (http://www.politics.com/blog/7114/after-watching-micheal-moores-film-sicko-part-1/) Now that a near month has gone by and people have brought the subject up to me, where am I with this issue? I will get back to that in a minute, but first here is what happened in the first blog.

To sum it up: In the 1st blog I brought up, how the current system is broken with insurance companies that deny payment for life threatening surgeries. They do this for profit. They create pre-existing conditions whether you have them or not just by looking at your past medical records. For example, because you said you had headaches, they will call a tumor pre-existing condition.  I also brought up the current forms of socialism that we have such as schools or libraries. I discussed Hillary who wanted to regulate the industry. We've regulated the power companies, the water companies, the phone companies, etc. Yet people in general don't want to treat this as a needed utility. We need energy, water, and communication services.  Are we not equal in our need for healthcare?

The response in the first blog: Mostly attacks Micheal Moore instead of going after the issue intact. People attempt to call him a propagandist as a negative term, like an insult. People do this when they call someone liberal or conservative in this culture as well.

In my daily life after watching the film: When I've discussed politics with people and then they bring up an opposition against Universal Healthcare without a why. So I ask and and ask and ask. And only one person had a good answer which was a financial motivation to do well in school. He said he knew someone that put up 145k on his dorm room which was the average first year starting salary for students out of his medical program. So my question to him was, do you really want a doctor who is motivated by money rather than motivated by helping the person that is sick? He brought up law school and lawyers as an example as well. I responded to him. People go to law school for different reasons. I have seen a few surveys ranging financial motivation between 9-14% which isn't a lot. If you were innocent of crime, you wouldn't want the lawyer defending you to have been part of that 9-14%. Yet his reasoning is the only one that is pro-privatized healthcare with at least some guts.

Sometimes, I'd bring up Micheal Moore's film "Sicko" and then someone would respond, "You know that film isn't true" And I'd tell them to please tell me which parts so that I could go back and re-watch it. Yet the scare tactics get people to not watch the film.

Where was I on this issue before I watched this film?  I didn't like the idea of loads of insurance company workers being  out of work. That was my sole reason for being against universal healthcare. They are legalized crime. They murder people for profit. End of story.

What happens when it is you? Half of the families in 2005 that filed bankruptcy had filed at the onset of a serious medical problem or accident. Many of you might say, so what that they didn't have insurance? 75% of those families who had filed bankruptcy had medical insurance at the time of the serious medical problem or accident. They played by the rules, had education, had a mortgage, and even had health insurance.

A doctor, Elizabeth, from India, here in America for quite some time called what insurance companies do as inhuman. She is the first person and only person that I have invited into that issue. Out of everything she said, my favorite quote, "You can't have too many ethics and still be a millionaire." It makes sense. 

These millionaire and billionaire CEO's are murdering people. Yet the middle class  proponents of privatized healthcare don't see that this this could be them filing bankruptcy or dying as a result of these crimes against humanity. You could lose everything. This isn't an argument for the uninsured. The film is about you, who have played by the rules the entire time. This film is about you, who have insurance. Don't criticize the film about being inacurate until you can pin point exact points of the film just because you don't want to watch it.

Micheal Moore brings this discussion to the fore front and does it well. A Harvard Professor said that there are two myths in healthcare in the USA today, one is, "I have health insurance, so that means I'm safe" (or really safe if I pay a lot) The other is that universal healthcare doesn't work. She says, "there is some really embarrassing data....." According to the film, the system is NOT being altered to fit the needs of the people; but, the people are being changed to fit the needs of the system. 

They say, people grow conservative. - well, maybe those are thoughts for  (part 3)