Does Massachusetts Hold the Key to Stopping ObamaCare?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Gosh man. When I looked at this thread I noticed the word Hope. Thought some people didn't believe in Hope.

I hope you buy car insurance.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Because they are in your mouth....

Which one are you? Robert or Melvin?

[Krikit 1,164]

Posts containing TOS violations have been removed, along with the ones quoting them. If you continue in this manner I predict a very short shelf life for this thread.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Which one are you? Robert or Melvin?

Marc, sober up, then return with a comeback above the kindergarten level. I suspect however, even that is above your intellectual level.

[justashooter 430]

you can lead a dog to water, but you can't make him think.

[Danno 1,228]

Q:Why is Obama not in the State shoring up the vote for this critical seat?

A: He don't want his finger prints on this one should she loose, seems every time he gets involved in an issue it goes down in flames.

Olympics

NJ

VA

Climate Change Summit.

Professor Gates

you name it.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I wonder if you out of staters realize how deeply unpopular Corzine was in NJ, even well before Obama was ever President...

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Q:Why is Obama not in the State shoring up the vote for this critical seat?

A: He don't want his finger prints on this one should she loose, seems every time he gets involved in an issue it goes down in flames.

Olympics

NJ

VA

Climate Change Summit.

Professor Gates

you name it.

Some precincts in MA are now reporting up to 85% turnout in absentee ballots. How many do you think are Coakley supporters?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Coakley bristles at the suggestion that, with so little time left, in an election with such high stakes, she is being too passive.

“As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?’’ she fires back, in an apparent reference to a Brown online video of him doing just that.

Why go around and shake the hands of the unwashed while you could be inside taking money from lobbyists? Coakley is right. Brown is an idiot 'man of the people'.

2mTbiQD_Rfs

[Danno 1,228]

Coakley bristles at the suggestion that, with so little time left, in an election with such high stakes, she is being too passive.

“As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?’’ she fires back, in an apparent reference to a Brown online video of him doing just that.

Why go around and shake the hands of the unwashed while you could be inside taking money from lobbyists? Coakley is right. Brown is an idiot 'man of the people'.

2mTbiQD_Rfs

Who is Lenny Clark?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Lenny's a Boston Comedian.

Edited January 15, 2010 by John Galt

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The bottom has fallen out of Martha Coakley's campaign. She is drawing fire statewide fror her unabashed abuse of a family kept in prison for three years after being proven innocent. she has largely disappeared. The Democrats are circling the wagons and trying to deide how to keep the health care bill on life support after she blows this election. Obama doesn't know whether he should show up and try to help her or not ( atelling situation in itself)

I am taking Brown and giving 8 points. Brown 54% Coakley 46%

[Wei&Shu(Joe) 2]

Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund E-Mail Alert

8001 Forbes Pl, Suite 102

Springfield, VA 22151

http://www.goapvf.org

January 12, 2010

The best opportunity to defeat ObamaCare may come from, ironically, Massachusetts.

In the race to succeed the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, Republican State Senator Scott Brown could become the key vote to stop nationalized health care.

With Senate Democrats controlling 60 votes, Republicans were unable to muster the 41 votes needed to block the anti-gun health care bill when it passed the Senate on Christmas Eve. But the bill must still be voted on by both the House and Senate, and the Senate is scheduled to reconvene on January 19 -- the same day as the special election in Massachusetts.

How big of an issue is health care in this election?

Scott Brown told Politico: "If you feel that Washington and the health care bill that they're proposing is systemic of the problems in Washington and the failure to understand average people anymore, then you vote for me because as the 41st senator. I can stop a lot of this stuff in its tracks. I can actually force them to go back to the drawing board."

Ordinarily, a Massachusetts Senate race is a cinch for Democrats, who dominate state politics. But a recent Public Policy Polling poll shows Brown up one point against his opponent, anti-gun State Attorney General Martha Coakley!

Should Scott Brown pull off a win, the ObamaCare legislation would die instantly as Democrats will have lost their 60th vote.

As state Senator, Brown is considered one of the most conservative Republicans in the Bay State -- supporting issues like concealed carry of firearms and earning an "A+" rating from the state pro-gun group, Gun Owners Action League.

His opponent is the type of radical anti-gunner people have come to expect from Massachusetts. Late last year, Attorney General Coakley filed a brief urging the state Supreme Court to uphold a law requiring firearms to be kept under lock and key when not in use.

The choice for gun owners in this race could not be more clear -- and the stakes could not be higher.

After telling gun owners for a year that they had nothing to fear from the national health care bill, Democrats in Washington finally admitted that that was a bald-faced lie. So they stuck a bunch of language in the most recent version of the bill supposedly addressing the gun problems (which they claimed for so long did not exist!)

But the new language does not prohibit the FBI or the BATFE from trolling the ObamaCare medical database in search of medical reasons to disqualify citizens from owning firearms.

Already, the Department of Veterans Affairs -- which operates its own nationalized health care system -- has denied around 150,000 veterans their Second Amendment rights based on the opinions of doctors, and not on the basis of any criminal conviction. And that is just the tip of the iceberg should the health care bill pass for the rest of the population.

So you can see how important this Massachusetts special election on January 19 is for the nation.

It is also clear that concerned citizens from all over the country should do all they can to get Scott Brown over the finish line.

This is a very expensive race, and Scott's opponent has so far out-raised him significantly, as she's raked in millions of dollars from ObamaCare supporters.

And, even though Scott is carrying the Republican message that will likely dominate the 2010 Congressional elections, news reports indicate that the Republican national committees have shown only token support. That must change, and change quickly.

Sure, Massachusetts is normally a safe Democrat state -- but these are not normal times. This race is winnable. Scott Brown was down by 31 percentage points in November, but he is now effectively tied in the latest poll.

There are several action items that can be taken by people from every state:

1. Visit Scott Brown on the web at http://www.brownforussenate.com and make a generous contribution. And, please make sure all your contacts know about the importance of this race.

2. Contact National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn at info@nrsc.org and urge him to pull out all the stops to elect Scott Brown.

3. Email Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele at info@gop.com and deliver the same message.

4. Of course, if you live in Massachusetts, vote for Scott Brown on Tuesday, January 19.

Together, we can strike a blow to anti-gun national health care -- and send a powerful message to Washington -- by scoring a win in liberal Massachusetts.

Sincerely,

Tim Macy

Vice Chairman

If only there was actually something in reality called "Obamacare", this topic would have some relevance to something. If only the paranoia of gun owners were gold, we'd all be rich. If only all these right wing fantasies had even a modicum of basis in reality, it might allow for an actual discussion to take place.

Can you produce any copy of any pending or passed health insurance legislation that contains or contained "anti-gun" provisions? Of course you can't because there never was any. Now, in response to all of you gun nuts wetting your pants about imaginary restrictions on your second amendment rights, the Senate version of the bill was passed with language that specifically addressed all of the childish rumors that were created by the right and the gun lobby to get you riled up (you sure didn't disappoint them, did you). Memo: Right wing think tanks and gun lobby doesn't equal "Obama". Maybe checking the previous bills to see if they were telling the truth would have been a good first step, no? Then again, true believers rarely check on the "information" they are fed.

Now that all of the non-existent "previous language" has been struck from the bills (bet that didn't take a lot of work, eh? Nice job if you can get it) and all of your whines are specifically and overtly addressed in the Senate bill, a new straw man must be built, right. Nothing in the bill prohibits the FBI from "trolling" the medical database for gun ownership information...except for all the current laws that specifically deny law enforcement access to protected health information without a signed release or a court order. Ooops. So even though it is already illegal for the FBI to troll medical records for any information, you need it to be said again in every piece of legislation that's passed because you're afraid someone will take your widdle gun away? So what do you need to have in the bill...Oh yeah and all the other laws of the US are still on the books, in case you were worried.

If the FBI or local police come to my office and ask for info on a patient, I cannot legally give them anything except for some very very specific situations. They need a release from the patient or a court order. Maybe the gun lobby should get a copy of HIPAA and read that bill.

It is amazing that this whole tempest in a teapot above is created from pure ideology and conspiracy thinking and it's lack of support from any aspect of reality is simply overlooked or attributed to a new conspiracy by the true believers.

But please, prove me wrong and post the health care legislation language that threatened gun ownership or the section of the current bill that exempts law enforcement from the current restrictions on access to protected health information. Post the actual language so we can see that it really does exist. If you can't, then it night be a good idea to stop posting false information to forward your religious beliefs on VJ. Just a thought.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

If only there was actually something in reality called "Obamacare", this topic would have some relevance to something. If only the paranoia of gun owners were gold, we'd all be rich. If only all these right wing fantasies had even a modicum of basis in reality, it might allow for an actual discussion to take place.

Can you produce any copy of any pending or passed health insurance legislation that contains or contained "anti-gun" provisions? Of course you can't because there never was any. Now, in response to all of you gun nuts wetting your pants about imaginary restrictions on your second amendment rights, the Senate version of the bill was passed with language that specifically addressed all of the childish rumors that were created by the right and the gun lobby to get you riled up (you sure didn't disappoint them, did you). Memo: Right wing think tanks and gun lobby doesn't equal "Obama". Maybe checking the previous bills to see if they were telling the truth would have been a good first step, no? Then again, true believers rarely check on the "information" they are fed.

Now that all of the non-existent "previous language" has been struck from the bills (bet that didn't take a lot of work, eh? Nice job if you can get it) and all of your whines are specifically and overtly addressed in the Senate bill, a new straw man must be built, right. Nothing in the bill prohibits the FBI from "trolling" the medical database for gun ownership information...except for all the current laws that specifically deny law enforcement access to protected health information without a signed release or a court order. Ooops. So even though it is already illegal for the FBI to troll medical records for any information, you need it to be said again in every piece of legislation that's passed because you're afraid someone will take your widdle gun away? So what do you need to have in the bill...Oh yeah and all the other laws of the US are still on the books, in case you were worried.

If the FBI or local police come to my office and ask for info on a patient, I cannot legally give them anything except for some very very specific situations. They need a release from the patient or a court order. Maybe the gun lobby should get a copy of HIPAA and read that bill.

It is amazing that this whole tempest in a teapot above is created from pure ideology and conspiracy thinking and it's lack of support from any aspect of reality is simply overlooked or attributed to a new conspiracy by the true believers.

But please, prove me wrong and post the health care legislation language that threatened gun ownership or the section of the current bill that exempts law enforcement from the current restrictions on access to protected health information. Post the actual language so we can see that it really does exist. If you can't, then it night be a good idea to stop posting false information to forward your religious beliefs on VJ. Just a thought.

I don't have to. Coakley will lose tomorrow, healthcare is DOA as written. There is no need to pint out anything in the current healthcare bill as it will never come to pass. Really a moot point, and as a gun owner and someone against this political vomit they call healthcare, I really do not care WHY it fails.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

So now you're telling me what I think, lol. Can't wait to tell you I told you so!

I'll be waiting. Actually I was telling you the truth, I know it isn't a factor in what you think, but I think you know the truth.

Oh, and Patches Kennedy renamed her "Marsha" (or is it Marcia?) LOL

Brown 54% Coakley 46% (recent polls, since yesterday when Obama showed up, show Brown winning by 15% but I do not believe that)

So now you're telling me what I think, lol. Can't wait to tell you I told you so!

I'll be waiting. Actually I was telling you the truth, I know it isn't a factor in what you think, but I think you know the truth.

Oh, and Patches Kennedy renamed her "Marsha" (or is it Marcia?) LOL

Brown 54% Coakley 46% (recent polls, since yesterday when Obama showed up, show Brown winning by 15% but I do not believe that)