Ask a question

Was The Backlash From The Webpage Change And Obama

How can Obamacare be explained in layman's terms?

From Reddit:(http://www.reddit.com/r/explainl...)Bob: Hi, insurance company. I'd like to buy some health insurance.Insurance company: No. You had cancer when you were 3 years old, and  the cancer could come back. We're not selling health insurance to you.Bob: It's not my fault I got cancer when I was three! Besides, that was years ago!Insurance company: If we sell insurance to you, we'll probably lose money, and we're not doing it.Bob: But I need insurance more than anyone! My cancer might come back!Insurance company: We don't care. We're not selling you insurance.Obama: Hey, that's totally not fair. Bob is right, he does need insurance! Sell Bob some insurance.Insurance company: If we have to, I guess.Mary: This is cool. Obama said the insurance company has to sell insurance to anyone who needs it.Sam: Hey, I have an idea. I'm going to stop paying for health  insurance. If I get sick, I can always go buy some insurance then. The  insurance company won't be able to say no, because Obama's told them  they have to sell it to anyone who needs it!@Dave: that's a great idea! I'm not paying for health insurance either, at least not until I get sick.Insurance company: Hey! If everyone stops paying for insurance, we'll go bankrupt!Obama: Oh come on Sam and Dave, that's not fair either.Dave: I don't care. It saves me money.Obama: Oh for god's sake. Sam, Dave, you have to keep paying for  health insurance, and not wait until you're sick. You too, Mary and Bob.Mary: But I'm broke! I can't buy insurance! I just don't have any money.Obama: Mary, show me your piggy bank. Oh, wow, you really are broke.  Ok, tell you what. You still have to buy insurance, but I'll help you  pay 95% of the cost.Mary: thank you.Obama: I need an aspirin.Insurance company: We're not paying for that aspirin.

Has there been any backlash in France against the yellow vest protesters?

There are one or two people (literally very very few) who have expressed exasperation at the disruption caused by the protests and of course most criticise the opportunists responsible for the violence. But the vast majority of French residents, myself included, support the objectives of the gilets jaunes.I’ve never been particularly political but in this case I’ve found myself passionately involved. Macron has treated the ordinary people of France with contempt. First he withdrew the wealth tax, which, despite his noble intention of removing a serious impediment to foreign investment, was seen to favour the rich. It was criticised as such. He then wanted to impose a tax on diesel fuel, which, had he not been forced to back down, would have been highly prejudicial to ordinary people and those who live in the country, where there is little or no public transport. There were also plans to reform the pension system. If he goes ahead with this I believe his presidency will end amid widespread violence.I would like to see him step down. I believe his presidency is now fatally impaired and although it would be disruptive, an election would at least provide a new start.

Is it ethical for Obama to re-enter politics to dispose of Trump?

“Dispose” of Trump? The wording of the question has all the tones of a mob hit, and, while I can’t be certain, I don’t think that he a profession Obama has tried yet, though I’m certain there are many of his detractors who might disagree. When I met Obama, he seemed very nice.I don’t think ethics enters into the equation about whether or not he can do anything, or might even want to do anything, about Trump, and there are a lot of Trump supporters who he would still have to sway in order to vote Trump out. From the looks of things, he has happily passed the duty of what I think may be the most stressful job in the world onto someone else.This, to me, is not the face of a man who wants to re-enter politics.Would it be ethical for him to speak out for or against any of Trump or any of his ideas? Sure. Last I checked the First Amendment was still functional and Obama is still an American. (Though I’m positive there are many of his detractors who still don’t believe that, including until very recently, the current president.)From the crowd that is shouting fake news at us, this poll showed that more republicans believed Ted Cruz *was* born in the US (he was born in Canada) than Barack Obama (he was born in Hawaii, 50 stars in our flag… Hawaii is one of them…)Despite what these poll numbers say, Obama is American, and we still have the right to speak our minds. Obama can’t run for president again due to term limits, but I’m sure, if he wanted to, he could enter politics again in any number of ways. From the looks of things, he has absolutely no desire to do so anytime soon, and I can’t blame him after how we treated him.

Why do people think that the gun laws in America are going to be more strict even though we have made gains?

Much like peace, the price of freedom (including the 2nd Amendment) is eternal vigilance.


Basically I agree with everything you say, but I still recommend we all continue to remain observant and resist control efforts when necessary by using the ballot box, the courts, and other legal means.

I agree that huge gains have been made and will hopefully continue to be, but look at states like CA, where I live. As a former active and reserve LEO, I have rights that the average citizen doesn't, and the residents here just lost a lot of ground due to an ignorant legislature and a moron of a Governor. I don't think most gun owners would be happy living in CA, and while it isn't likely to happen nationwide, it would not take much to tip the balance. Our current President and his anti-gun cabal haven't had the time or resources to focus on gun control with all that they have on their plates, but I never assume that will always be the case, and as we saw with "gunrunner" and several other actions and statements, attempts are being made to discredit legal firearms ownership by this administration.

As of now, most Supreme Court cases are 5-4 decisions, so just one change to any of the typical "conservative" pro-2nd Amendment votes on the court, and recent gains could be overturned. Couple that with an anti-gun Executive who legislates via Executive Order, or an unfriendly Legislative Branch, and the Brady Bill could rear it's ugly head again OR we could do something stupid like sign that awful UN Small Arms treaty that keeps popping up... remember, we are "citizens of the world" according to some out there (mostly globalist/NWO/progressive tools, but they are growing in boldness if not strength.)

I'm sure the folks in England and Australia thought that it "could never happen here" until it did, so I say it pays to be aware and fight the good fight by education, honest debate, and the facts- all of which prove that legal gun ownership by a population reduces crime and makes for a safer more "polite" society.