Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

Mar 29, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Chambersburg Public Opinion

Two local organizations are hosting a Second Amendment Freedom Rally on from noone to 2 p.m. April 6 on Courthouse Plaza in downtown Chambersburg.

Comments
10,981 - 11,000 of 11,004 Comments Last updated Apr 3, 2014

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12650
Mar 28, 2014
 
...see 'reported'

hmmm not to self single quote one finger future reference.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12651
Mar 28, 2014
 
I guess i will have to go back to using two hands to type...

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12652
Mar 28, 2014
 
Independent wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Dan, some common ground. I agree with you on this 100%.
Bet you never thought you would hear that, huh?
Don't let it go to your head though.
:^`P
I'm glad you're on the right side of that issue.

Now go convince the Former Paratrooper that torture is always wrong, not just when it's done to American citizens.
FormerParatroope r

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12655
Mar 29, 2014
 
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
She didn't misspeak. The right has taken one sentence out of context to dishonestly distort its meaning.
<quoted text>
Objections by the minority were not only considered, their ideas were incorporated into the bill. But they still voted against it.
There is no reason in the world to believe that those who voted for the ACA didn't understand it. I can't believe you've swallowed that rightwing propaganda.
<quoted text>
The individual mandate includes a financial penalty. The government has the legal right to impose that penalty under its taxing authority granted in the Constitution. That is what the government argued at the SCOTUS.
Taxes are designed to raise revenue. Penalties are designed to modify behavior. The individual mandate is a penalty, not a tax.
<quoted text>
This is completely false. The ACA clearly and specifically says that Congressmen and their staffs are required to purchase health care from Exchanges.
It is surprising that you don't know that. Your "greatest opposition" to the law is based on a myth. Your "greatest opposition" is to something that simply does not exist.
What do you believe was the context? I have seen the complete Exchange of when she said it. What did I miss?
What ideas of the opposition were included? As I recall, the majority said there's was the only way.
Yet it was argued as a tax. A tax is what made it Constitutional.
Not everyone is required to participate, if your current plan meets the standard you are allowed to keep it. I still have my private plan, I am not required to go to the Exchange. Congress has a even better plan, provided by you and I, so why would they enroll into the Exchange? How many in congress have enrolled? How many are keeping what they have? Maybe that provision has changed like so many other parts?
FormerParatroope r

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12656
Mar 29, 2014
 
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
The US executed Japanese war criminals for waterboarding US POWs after they were tried by US judges and found guilty of the war crime of torture. If it was torture then, it was still torture when we did it.
It doesn't need to be a perfect world for us to refrain from immoral behavior. Some things are moral absolutes and torture is one of them. We will never have anything close to a perfect world as long as people justify behavior for themselves that they consider war crimes when conducted by the enemy.
. What the Japanese did in that War was far from waterboarding. We do not stuff a hose in someone's mouth then jump on them and burst the internal organs. A completely different thing altogether. The Japanese performed real torture, they used many methods to induce pain and then death.
FormerParatroope r

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12657
Mar 29, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Has your recent arrest stopped you from downloading kiddie porn?
"Your" not very bright.
Thanks for sharing, shug.
PS: Bush was the POTUS on 9/11 and he was POTUS the month before that when he was told there was a plot to crash hijacked jets into US landmarks.
Who was POTUS when we first confronted Bin Laden? When did he first attempt attacks against the US? Who was POTUS when we were offered Bin Laden?

Yet you stray from the point. That's ok, your just someone who needs to spout ignorance and deviance on the internet.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12658
Mar 29, 2014
 

Judged:

2

1

1

FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>. What the Japanese did in that War
What the US did in Iraq was torture.

Sad when someone who claims to be a vet wants to say it isn't torture unless it was as bad as the Japanese in WWII.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12660
Mar 30, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Congress = jobs bill
Nonsense.
Congress = tax bill.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12661
Mar 30, 2014
 
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
Who was POTUS when we first confronted Bin Laden?
...
Ronald Reagan.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12662
Mar 30, 2014
 
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense.
Congress = tax bill.
Pearls = swine.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12663
Mar 30, 2014
 

Judged:

2

Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Ronald Reagan.
Ronald Reagan made Bin Laden an ally, Sweet Pea.

As he did Saddam Hussein.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12664
Mar 30, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ronald Reagan made Bin Laden an ally, Sweet Pea.
As he did Saddam Hussein.
So? That came after the confrontation.
Any adversary worth their salt knows that an enemy identifies itself from a "confrontation", and one of the best ways to keep your eye on your enemy is to stay "close" to him after he identifies himself as such.

The question was "Who was POTUS when we first "confronted" Bin Laden"?
I correctly answered that question.
<smile>

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12665
Mar 30, 2014
 

Judged:

4

1

1

Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
So? That came after the confrontation.
Reagan made Hussein an ally.
Reagan made Bin Ladin an ally.

Company you keep.

<Smile>

Wipe your chin, BooBoo.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12666
Mar 30, 2014
 

Judged:

3

Aquarius-WY wrote:
The question was "Who was POTUS when we first "confronted" Bin Laden"?
Then we can agree that Reagan never confronted Bin Laden, he made him an ally.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12667
Mar 30, 2014
 

Judged:

3

Aquarius-WY wrote:
I correctly answered that question.
You didn't.

Ronnie never confronted Bin Laden.
Diogenese

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12669
Mar 30, 2014
 

Judged:

4

4

4

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't.
Ronnie never confronted Bin Laden.
Neither did any other president. So what's your point as if you really had one?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12670
Mar 30, 2014
 
Diogenese wrote:
<quoted text>
barefoot2626 = BU LL SH IT
"Diogenese" = Phluffer.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12671
Mar 30, 2014
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Diogenese wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither did any other president.
Obama killed him.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12674
Mar 31, 2014
 

Judged:

4

3

3

for the record wrote:
<quoted text>
..........
He killed four guys in Benghazi while he was sleeping off a good snort.
Correction:
He killed four OF OUR OWN GUYS in Benghazi while he was sleeping off a good snort.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12675
Mar 31, 2014
 

Judged:

4

4

3

FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you believe was the context? I have seen the complete Exchange of when she said it. What did I miss?
You missed understanding what she was actually saying. She was not saying that the bill was some sort of secret and the only way anyone (including Congress) could know what was in it was to pass it.

She was speaking of the controversy surrounding the bill and the outrageous lies that were being told about it. The American public was being intentionally misled about the bill by the GOP, so Pelosi was simply acknowledging that the public would understand the truth once they saw what the law actually does.

And that's been borne out. As Americans see what the law actually does, they like it. They understand that it is beneficial and that they were being lied to.
FormerParatrooper wrote:
What ideas of the opposition were included? As I recall, the majority said there's was the only way.
The Democrats wanted single payer. But they gave that up immediately in the face of GOP opposition and proposed a public option instead. They compromised on that too, giving it up and including the GOP idea of an individual mandate instead. Accepting the individual mandate and market-based insurance as the basis for reform were HUGE concessions to the GOP.

The ACA also included the GOP ideas of personal responsibility incentives in rate-setting, tort reform, extending parents' coverage to young adults, and automatic enrollment of employees in employer plans (opt out instead of opt in).

If you honestly remember that year of debate as "the majority said there's only one way," I have real concern for your ability to be objective about the facts on this issue.
FormerParatrooper wrote:
Yet it was argued as a tax. A tax is what made it Constitutional.
It was not "argued as a tax." It was argued that the government had the authority to implement the penalty under its taxing authority. The government can levy penalties as well as taxes under its taxing authority. The government's TAXING AUTHORITY is what made the penalty Constitutional. There's a difference (which I already explained).
FormerParatrooper wrote:
Not everyone is required to participate, if your current plan meets the standard you are allowed to keep it. I still have my private plan, I am not required to go to the Exchange. Congress has a even better plan, provided by you and I, so why would they enroll into the Exchange? How many in congress have enrolled? How many are keeping what they have? Maybe that provision has changed like so many other parts?
In ANOTHER concession to the GOP, the ACA included language specifically requiring Congress and their staffs to get their insurance on the Exchange. It was a stupid provision, but the GOP felt strongly that their base needed to know that Congress was not exempt.

And that provision has not changed. How do you not know this?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••