I can't believe that no one is talking about that soldier's story. It broke my heart, that could have been my husband. I have never heard anything so disgraceful in my life!
As a recently returned vet I could not agree more. But that seems to be the running theme this time around. There are countless more just like him. What I don't understand is how, if this is the way gov healthcare treats vets (roughly 2% of the population)how is it supposed to be able to treat all of us in a nationalized healthcare system?
That is kinda a good point. But, I think you have it backwards. This has to do with the government finding ways not to fund soldiers in this corrupt healthcare system that we have. If there were universal healthcare, this soldier would have received treatment whether he was a soldier or not. He is in that predicament because he could not afford to pay for healthcare. That is the democrat's argument; make healthcare free for all.
I usually agree with Olbermann, but to say that today's ruling was because of a "misunderstanding of the 2nd Ammendment" is a complete JOKE! It's the first time in a long time that someone actually got it RIGHT! "The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"! This means that DC's ban on gun ownership was in DIRECT VIOLATION to the 2nd Ammendmant! It seems it is YOU Keith who misunderstands.
Actually, the whole 2nd amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
hasn't the need for the militia been replaced by the armed forces? I've never really understood how this guarantees civilians the right to own a gun, since none are in the military.
If you notice, 'a well regulated militia' and 'the right of the people....' are seperated. two totally different things! The militia was and is the standing army, while the individual whether a member of the militia or not has the right to protect themsleves.
I'd love to see some soldiers go to Capital Hill and demand for Dubya's impeachment. It's stories like this that disgust me the most about the Bush regime.
I can't believe that no one is talking about that soldier's story. It broke my heart, that could have been my husband. I have never heard anything so disgraceful in my life!
KiwiTwist03 3 years ago
As a recently returned vet I could not agree more. But that seems to be the running theme this time around. There are countless more just like him. What I don't understand is how, if this is the way gov healthcare treats vets (roughly 2% of the population)how is it supposed to be able to treat all of us in a nationalized healthcare system?
eluminated 3 years ago
That is kinda a good point. But, I think you have it backwards. This has to do with the government finding ways not to fund soldiers in this corrupt healthcare system that we have. If there were universal healthcare, this soldier would have received treatment whether he was a soldier or not. He is in that predicament because he could not afford to pay for healthcare. That is the democrat's argument; make healthcare free for all.
KiwiTwist03 3 years ago
I usually agree with Olbermann, but to say that today's ruling was because of a "misunderstanding of the 2nd Ammendment" is a complete JOKE! It's the first time in a long time that someone actually got it RIGHT! "The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"! This means that DC's ban on gun ownership was in DIRECT VIOLATION to the 2nd Ammendmant! It seems it is YOU Keith who misunderstands.
eluminated 3 years ago
yeah Keith is not always perfect. neither is Obama..
but they are the best we got right now...
chumashfalcon 3 years ago 3
We still got RON PAUL! Say no to McBama!
eluminated 3 years ago
Actually, the whole 2nd amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
hasn't the need for the militia been replaced by the armed forces? I've never really understood how this guarantees civilians the right to own a gun, since none are in the military.
bumblehead 3 years ago 2
If you notice, 'a well regulated militia' and 'the right of the people....' are seperated. two totally different things! The militia was and is the standing army, while the individual whether a member of the militia or not has the right to protect themsleves.
eluminated 3 years ago
I'd love to see some soldiers go to Capital Hill and demand for Dubya's impeachment. It's stories like this that disgust me the most about the Bush regime.
swaggajee 3 years ago 2
If they did that he'd probably have Homeland Security lock them up for being Enemy Combatants!
eluminated 3 years ago
And I'm sure the DC police would have a grand time tazering a few of them too!
eluminated 3 years ago