Becoming more libertarian by the day...
This will be a semi-political post. You've been warned.
I have two issues to blab about, and although I will use my time to bash both Republicans and Democrats, the issues are just common sense. I think you will enjoy.
The first issue is a bill that was introduced in the Wisconsin legislature yesterday to require that voters show a photo id in order to vote. In case you aren't aware, and you probably aren't... there is a massive vote fraud investigation going on in Wisconsin, looking into all sorts of issues we had in this state with the past election. At the core of the problem is the fact that many, many, many people registered to vote using non-existent addresses or voter registration cards that couldn't even be read by election officials. This isn't supposed to happen, obviously. It's illegal to register to vote in this state without showing photo id and proof of address.
The easy solution is to require that people show a photo id with some type of proof of address when they show up to vote. The proof of address is either on the photo id, or in the form of a recent utility bill, or something of the sort.
Now, because Democrats overwhelmingly benefit from the vote fraud that the current laws allow, they are 100% against requiring a photo id when you vote. They say it will disenfranchise students, the elderly and the homeless. But their logic is indefensible.
Because.... you have to show a photo id and proof of address when you register to vote! Well, by law you should have to, but we know its not happening. But think about it... if the law requires you show those things when you *register* to vote, why can't someone show those same things when they actually vote?
I don't know... your guess is as good as mine.
Now... I said I would bash Republicans as well, and here we go... Way over in the lovely state of Washington there is a bill called HB 1016. What HB 1016 does is prevents insurance companies from denying coverage to people who own certain breeds of dogs. They usually go after Rottweilers, pit bull breeds, Chows, etc... Many insurance companies will not insure you if you own those breeds, or mixes of them.
So look into it before you get a dog! I can't tell you how many people don't even know insurance companies do this... Even more people don't know it's illegal to own certain breeds of dogs in certain towns in this country. Look into it before you move!!!
Recently HB 1016 was brought up for discussion and vote in the Washington legislature's Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee. It passed on a party line vote of 6-4. 6 Democrats voted for it, and 4 Republicans voted against it.
Color me blue. Or at least a shade of blue.
I don't know when it became the Republican's platform to allow money hungry insurance companies to outlaw anything that they don't want to take on the risk for. It's simple, the insurance companies do not want to take on the risk that a dog of certain breed may bite someone, which would result in them being sued.
What if the insurance companies decide some day that Ford Mustangs are too risky for them to insure? What if they decide children under 5 years old are too risky to insure?
I will tell you what would happen. If you own your house, you either choose between keeping the things the insurance won't insure, or keeping the insurance for your house. And if you want to keep your house, the choice is real easy...
The problem I have with insurance companies is, if you own a home or even rent an apartment, you are basically a forced customer. You may not need insurance if you rent, but you certainly do need it if you own your home. So if I must have insurance to own my home (which is perfectly legal), it's stupid to say they should be able to tell me I can't own certain breeds of dogs (which in most places is also still legal). They are effectively saying that you cannot own two perfectly legal items together, a home and a dog.
Adding insult to injury is the fact that we have no say in who makes these decisions. If a government outlaws a certain breed of dog, that is different. The public can choose to live with that, or vote their elected officials out of office. With an insurance company, you have to live with their decisions, but you have absolutely no say in who makes the decisions.
So Washington Republicans, you are WRONG on this issue. Your decisions are indefensible and it's quite apparent where your campaign contributions come from. When you sell your soul to the devil, be ready for hell.
Scary huh? I try...
peace nick
I have two issues to blab about, and although I will use my time to bash both Republicans and Democrats, the issues are just common sense. I think you will enjoy.
The first issue is a bill that was introduced in the Wisconsin legislature yesterday to require that voters show a photo id in order to vote. In case you aren't aware, and you probably aren't... there is a massive vote fraud investigation going on in Wisconsin, looking into all sorts of issues we had in this state with the past election. At the core of the problem is the fact that many, many, many people registered to vote using non-existent addresses or voter registration cards that couldn't even be read by election officials. This isn't supposed to happen, obviously. It's illegal to register to vote in this state without showing photo id and proof of address.
The easy solution is to require that people show a photo id with some type of proof of address when they show up to vote. The proof of address is either on the photo id, or in the form of a recent utility bill, or something of the sort.
Now, because Democrats overwhelmingly benefit from the vote fraud that the current laws allow, they are 100% against requiring a photo id when you vote. They say it will disenfranchise students, the elderly and the homeless. But their logic is indefensible.
Because.... you have to show a photo id and proof of address when you register to vote! Well, by law you should have to, but we know its not happening. But think about it... if the law requires you show those things when you *register* to vote, why can't someone show those same things when they actually vote?
I don't know... your guess is as good as mine.
Now... I said I would bash Republicans as well, and here we go... Way over in the lovely state of Washington there is a bill called HB 1016. What HB 1016 does is prevents insurance companies from denying coverage to people who own certain breeds of dogs. They usually go after Rottweilers, pit bull breeds, Chows, etc... Many insurance companies will not insure you if you own those breeds, or mixes of them.
So look into it before you get a dog! I can't tell you how many people don't even know insurance companies do this... Even more people don't know it's illegal to own certain breeds of dogs in certain towns in this country. Look into it before you move!!!
Recently HB 1016 was brought up for discussion and vote in the Washington legislature's Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee. It passed on a party line vote of 6-4. 6 Democrats voted for it, and 4 Republicans voted against it.
Color me blue. Or at least a shade of blue.
I don't know when it became the Republican's platform to allow money hungry insurance companies to outlaw anything that they don't want to take on the risk for. It's simple, the insurance companies do not want to take on the risk that a dog of certain breed may bite someone, which would result in them being sued.
What if the insurance companies decide some day that Ford Mustangs are too risky for them to insure? What if they decide children under 5 years old are too risky to insure?
I will tell you what would happen. If you own your house, you either choose between keeping the things the insurance won't insure, or keeping the insurance for your house. And if you want to keep your house, the choice is real easy...
The problem I have with insurance companies is, if you own a home or even rent an apartment, you are basically a forced customer. You may not need insurance if you rent, but you certainly do need it if you own your home. So if I must have insurance to own my home (which is perfectly legal), it's stupid to say they should be able to tell me I can't own certain breeds of dogs (which in most places is also still legal). They are effectively saying that you cannot own two perfectly legal items together, a home and a dog.
Adding insult to injury is the fact that we have no say in who makes these decisions. If a government outlaws a certain breed of dog, that is different. The public can choose to live with that, or vote their elected officials out of office. With an insurance company, you have to live with their decisions, but you have absolutely no say in who makes the decisions.
So Washington Republicans, you are WRONG on this issue. Your decisions are indefensible and it's quite apparent where your campaign contributions come from. When you sell your soul to the devil, be ready for hell.
Scary huh? I try...
peace nick
posted by Nick at
12:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home