Who is Sammy Hancock? » Politics

Smoking Indoors

Sammy Hancock — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 16:05:59 +0000

I’m sitting here, awake earlier than I should be, and on Twitter I see someone that visited the Independent, a local bar/pool hall partly owned by a guy I’ve met before, where she wants Atlanta to ban indoor smoking. Now, I have a problem with this. First off, if you’re going to head to a place that is a bar, EXPECT to walk away smelling like smoke. A bar is a place to drink and smoke, plain and simple. Second, the government has NO BUSINESS in dictating if a business establishment should allow smoking or not. Third, liberals are retarded. Ok, that last point doesn’t have much to do with my argument here, but I’ll leave it up.

Now, if I was to head to a bar, I’d expect there to be smoking, and being an adult, I can make choices for myself. So, I can either go and breath in smoke and get, OMG SECOND HAND SMOKE, or just go somewhere else where there isn’t a cloud of smoke in the air. It’s really not that difficult of a decision. I don’t want my RETARDED government telling local establishments that they have to ban smoking. It’s ridiculous. If people don’t like it, open up a bar that doesn’t allow smoking indoors to give you and your hippie retarded loving friends a place to go without being harmed by the ghastly smoke.

Now, I’m not entirely nuts, which I’m sure many lefties might think, but I don’t think there should be smoking in work, around your kids, OR even when you’re pregnant with your child. That’s just plain dumb. But, I feel if you’re an adult, you can make adult decisions on how you wish to surround yourself with smoke or no smoke and that you should also know to not smoke around your child. It’s all about our own personal choice. No one forces you to go to these bars, so quit fucking complaining. My government shouldn’t force my local watering hole to ban smoking.

I’m not here smoking to harm you, you’re here harming my choice by involving government because you’re too stupid to make your own choice, to fucking leave.

Quick thoughts before the weekend

Sammy Hancock — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 08:18:11 +0000

There’s a lot of name calling and mud slinging going around over health care lately and it’s pretty sickening, both sides really. So here’s my quick take before I sit down this weekend and read through everything.

Hold the town hall meetings, lay ground rules, have police enforce said interruption rules, ie you will be removed if you cause a disturbance. If people want to speak, let them ask their question and answer it. Let this be a civil matter. In fact, give people tickets, draw 20, answer those questions and end the town hall.
Everyone should be allow to enter without feeling bullied. It goes with my next point.
Allow people to record town hall meetings. Why? Because it’s a public gathering about a public matter. We should be informing everyone we can with what’s going on during these meetings.
No one should stop anyone from discussing health care with other people at town halls that are doing so in a civil matter, that means no yelling at people or ACORN grabbing police officers to shut up dissenters. It’s free speech, it works both ways, we can agree to disagree.
Quit the name calling and get down to the issues. What matters most to the people. Whether it’s the cost of the program or what’s in the bill, this should be time to meet with our representatives and work things out, not shut out people against a plan.

That’s all I have right now it. I’m going to catch up on a few other of life’s fun things and soak in everything that’s happened this week and write a few more articles.

The Right is bad, not the Left

Sammy Hancock — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 08:17:33 +0000

Over at Politico, Lanny Davis is running his mouth over people protesting, really?

The “shout downs” organized by the Republican right meet one of the classic definition of “fascist” tactics–defined as using shouting and disruption to deprive the civil and respectful debate of ideas. There is literally no defense to these tactics. I don’t criticize those who feel genuine anger or fear and show up to meetings to express those emotions. But I do call out the tactic of screaming and disrupting a meeting and the fact that this is a systematic tactic by thugs who want to prevent civil discourse, not promote it.

Code Pink anyone? Yeah, they shout down all the time when Bush was in office, where are they now protesting the continuing war in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Fascist? Really? Seems like your government is one step away from being “fascist” by silencing those who do not agree, seems to fit more into this whole not allowing debate. In fact, I’m all for debating the Health Care bill. I’d like to see it debated and discussed OPENLY for 3 months, and each point broken down in the 1000+ page document that no one seems to have read.

Let’s have the media name names, publish photographs, and do interviews of those responsible for approving, even organizing these techniues. And let’s find an investigative journalist – are there many left – to prove these so-called grassroots shouters are, or are not, being paid.

Can we please do this next time any Liberal speaks out against a Conservative talking point? Please? It’s only fair! I mean, we didn’t do it in the 8 years Bush was in the White House, I think it’s fair we start doing this as well. Wait a second, the more I think about it, these techniques were invented by Liberals. Yeah, yell and scream and add nothing to the debate, sounds as Liberal as apple pie.

Blah blah blah, people being paid. So what about ACORN? They’re being paid by the government to ensure Obama is at the top, but no one goes on about that. Before speaking out do a little research first. Even without those people in Florida, Bush still had that state, they were just trying to pull a tactic they had not perfected yet, which they did finally in MN when Franken was finally allowed into the Senate after months of fighting over votes.

Why So Serious?

Sammy Hancock — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 14:00:15 +0000

I know it’s been repeated ad nauseum the past couple of days, but it’s true, why is the left so serious about going after someone for desecrating their savior? We Americans have free speech and we didn’t go after liberal artists depicting Bush the same way or in much worse ways. It’s funny, when the right is made fun of, we push on and push the facts ahead, when the left is made fun of, they want to pass some new law or go after someone for speaking their minds or expression their artistic ways or simply continue to ridicule the right or bring something from the past up, like on The View.

So, here it is, a call to arms. Spread the picture far and wide, post bills like the first, get the word out, our President does not have Americans best interests in his heart, only the backers of the Fed and himself.

Speaking of pictures of O great one. What the hell is with Mr Narcissist and his giant mural on his fake birthday?

Remember kids, it’s perfectly right to pick on the Right, but never pick on the Left, because that’s wrong, unfair, evil, despicable, racist, mean spirited, or any other words that the Left throws out when it can dish the dirt but can’t take it.

Did I wake up in 1930s Germany?

Sammy Hancock — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 08:16:38 +0000

As horrible as that is to title my post today, Obama’s Communication Director, Linda Douglass, has come out to say there is disinformation about the Healthcare Bill up for vote in the House.

I’m sorry Linda, what? Obama can say 12 different things, but today he says another and it’s ok? Have some accountability.

On top of that, Obama wants all you good little boys and girls to turn in any one opposed to the Healthcare bill.

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Now, that site seemed fishy, so I’ve already sent it in. But you can also send in more Obama speeches and links, because nothing what he says it true. He hasn’t stuck to most of his promises in the election, why should we trust him now?

If anything, that bill should be discussed on both sides to determine what is best for us. There is no reason to force this thing through without anyone reading it. I say make every person in the House and Senate sit in and have each one of them read it aloud on CSPAN so we the American people and hear what is in that Bill. Only then should they sit down and decide what to strike out and add, and then read it again. Then they can vote.

I’m against this 100%, who’s turning me in?

Lack of a health plan

Sammy Hancock — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:15:58 +0000

Yesterday Jim DeMint (R-SC) came out with a piece on Health-care freedom at www.thestate.com and a lot of the comments left about his plan were most of the same attacks from the left about how the GOP is nothing be fear mongering, in Lobbyists pockets, how “evil” insurance is profiting from us, or how sudden infant death syndrome is the 3rd highest in SC, which I don’t think is a direct correlation to what a Senators job actually is, but people will think what they want. In fact, one comment left was by a person who said the GOP was wrong but didn’t even know if the Democrats were right. It goes to show you people are deeply entrenched in their sides and refuse to come to a common ground on such a huge issue.

For everyone that thinks socialized medicine work, why not move to Massachusetts and let us know what you think of the current health care system. For those claiming the GOP wants you to die young and die fast, you’re completely wrong. Even Obama said older people would be treated less to make way for the young, so in fact we would be dying well before our average age under his plan. It’s tactless to throw a situation where you say the GOP would let one child die while letting another leave, since the GOP doesn’t treat your kids, it sets laws in place. And yes, people do get treated in both programs, not just socialized medicine. In socialized medicine they do have to wait longer, and they might get the wrong treatment by the time they get treated, but in America, when something is wrong, they try to get it fixed fast. Even our current system it’s not that difficult to get health care, you have to be willing to sacrifice certain things you’ve become accustomed to, like that fancy car or all your electronics. Those are luxury items and if you wanted greater health care coverage you would drop those and buy it yourself. The problem isn’t the system, the problem is the people using the system, so everyone except the Government to baby them, which is wrong, but it’s such a hot button issue now, there’s no turning back. One more thing, if you do have insurance through your current job, yes you get to keep it, but there are no more new plans, so if you leave your job, you have to choose wait times and government health care.

Jim DeMint’s plan is very simple, and in a time of people rushing through and spending money he takes the time to think of alternatives, even when people speak out against him, and wants people to decide for themselves.

You keep your current health care plan, on your own or job group plan.
If you don’t have a plan, you can get one or shop around with a voucher. It’s your own plan, separate from your job. It travels with you.
Shop for plans across state lines. Let the free market dictate pricing. More competition means better pricing and better services, unlike in the government run scheme.
Costs? Not $1 Trillion like the bill currently sitting in the house. It’s funded by the bailout funds for Wall Street.

Honestly, how can anyone be behind a government that has screwed up Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security to the point there might not be any room to save them. The only efficient thing Government does do is spend money and wage war. And right now, Obama’s government is at a record high for spending, frankly, I’m tapped out of money, I can’t afford anymore, how can you?

We’ll just tax you for success

Sammy Hancock — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:15:02 +0000

Over at Politico, Dems threaten insurers with new fees, there’s some talk about Dems wanting to punish insurers with up to $100 Billion in fees if they don’t hop on the bandwagon with the hospital and pharmaceutical industries with finance reform.

Schumer and Sens. John Rockefeller (D-WV), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) pounded the insurers, who they portrayed as unwilling to help pay for reform even while they have enjoyed exploding profits.

â€œThe insurance companies are the people who are just rapaciously, greedily and unstoppably making money by underpaying the patient, by underpaying the provider and by overpaying, therefore, themselves,â€ Rockefeller said.

I love when Democrats don’t get what they want from a big business, they end up calling them greedy. No where does it state that insurers HAVE to participate in any reform, it’s a gesture of good faith if they do. This is just more of the same old Democrat shtick blaming big business for being successful and wanting to make us feel special by going after them. Like they are really saving us from big profits. They should be focusing on spending less money in the budgets and eliminating pork from bills.

Schumer pointed to the profits of the 10 largest insurance companies which shot up 428 percent between 2000 and 2007, from $2.4 billion to $12.9 billion as a reason health care reform is needed.

I agree that health care reform IS needed, but Government supplied health care is NOT the option we need.

â€œAs families and small businesses struggle during the current economic slowdown, now is not the time to impose new fees on health care coverage that will make coverage less affordable. To make health care more affordable policymakers should focus on initiatives that promote value and make the system work better and more efficiently, said AHIP spokesman Robert Zirkelbach.

Mr. Zirkelbach is completely right, but we should be talking about reform and not acting without first accessing the situation and creating a plan to deal with what is found. We only need look as far as our own state of Massachusetts to see how horrible public health care can be.

But Schumer said they are working to make sure the fee can’t be passed through to consumers. Additionally, a strong government-run insurance plan that competes with the private market will make it more difficult for insurers to pass along the increased costs.

More government bureaucracy at work people. Until we stand up and fight our representative in the Senate and the House, they will continue to pass such childish measures on companies doing everything legally in their rights to be profitable. A government-run insurance plan will not be competitive, because they have already written into their health care bill that there would be fees on private plans, to the point of making them obsolete.

Please contact your Senator and tell them this is a bad idea and to work on breaking down the barriers and creating portable individual health care. Also, contact the Republican on the Finance Committee that sees this as right, Senator Olympia Snowe, and voice your concerns that government interference in the free market will not be tolerated.

Quick Thoughts on Sotomayer

Sammy Hancock — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:13:46 +0000

I don’t like Sotomayer. Why? Because she rules in favor of race discrimination based on how she feels the outcome should be. It’s true that if a white male were being picked for this position and he was overturned 4 out of 6 times by the Supreme Court that he would stand no chance of being elected. But because Sotomayer is Latina and a Female, this suddenly has no relevance whatsoever on what people think. Stuart Taylor Jr. says it perfectly when referring to race and sex:

So accustomed have we become to identity politics that it barely causes a ripple when a highly touted Supreme Court candidate, who sits on the federal Appeals Court in New York, has seriously suggested that Latina women like her make better judges than white males.

Indeed, unless Sotomayor believes that Latina women also make better judges than Latino men, and also better than African-American men and women, her basic proposition seems to be that white males (with some exceptions, she noted) are inferior to all other groups in the qualities that make for a good jurist.

Any prominent white male would be instantly and properly banished from polite society as a racist and a sexist for making an analogous claim of ethnic and gender superiority or inferiority.

Imagine the reaction if someone had unearthed in 2005 a speech in which then-Judge Samuel Alito had asserted, for example: I would hope that a white male with the richness of his traditional American values would reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life and had proceeded to speak of inherent physiological or cultural differences.

Stuart also makes a point that, “President Bush’s appointments of Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005 and Justice Samuel Alito in 2006 moved the Court closer to the absolutist “colorblind Constitution” position of Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, who see virtually all governmental racial classifications as unconstitutional.”

So in essence, Sotomayer’s approval would only move the Court away from being “colorblind.”

It’s a damn shame when we worry more about being racist instead of worrying about picking the right person for the job. As Dr. Thomas Sowell says, “Performance matters.” The position of being a Supreme Court justice is the highest in the land for a judge and should also be the place for only judges that consistently side with the law of the land. They should interpret our Constitution and previous cases when thinking about a current case. Never should a judge bring their own feelings into this. SCOTUS Judge Clarence Thomas said it best:

“[T]he job of a judge is to figure out what the law says, not what he wants it to say. There is a difference between the role of a judge and that of a policy maker…. Judging requires a certain impartiality.â€

This is what we should be talking about during these hearing for Sotomayer, not about where she came from, not about her being a “wise latina”, but whether or not she is impartial to the law. It’s a waste of time to dissect anything else but being impartial.

I also do not believe in taking from international law and using it to interpret our own Constitution. The only thing a SCOTUS Judge should take into account when making a decision, is US law and our Constitution, nothing more.

And finally, for people saying she’s smart. She’s not. She just retracted her Wise Latina statement, and she said policy was made by the court even though she knew it was wrong for saying so on the record.

Anyone can pass a class and graduate. It’s all memorization and tests. The true judge of being smart, is actually going out there and doing your job and the results that come from doing a great job. So far, Sotomayer has shown she is ignorant of the laws, judges without impartiality, and thinks she’s better than anyone else out there. If acted the same way she did, I would have been burned at the stake.

Trolls v Linda Sanchez

Sammy Hancock — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:13:00 +0000

I saw this bill earlier this year and thought it was a joke and a waste of time and resources. And now it seems this bill is coming up for vote in the House. Why? I have no earthly idea. The idea is that if you badmouth, name call, pick on or whatever to cause someone emotional harm that it would be illegal. Have we become a nation of pansies? Plus, who is to judge what emotions can be deemed a felony? Certainly not our Congress. A little name calling online is what being online is about. The ability to piss off your fellow man to the point they want to break a monitor is a freedom we have, until now. This speech is the same speech protected in the 1st Amendment. It doesn’t fall under clear and present danger which was set by Schenck v. United States in 1909.

I completely understand where this bill (HR1966) comes from, but I find it a broad over-reaching act perpetuated by Government bureaucracy to silence critics of their Congress and Administration rather than protect our teens when that is best down by the lazy parents of this generation.

Let’s go through these parts, piece by piece, shall we?

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) Four out of five of United States children aged 2 to 17 live in a home where either they or their parents access the Internet.

(2) Youth who create Internet content and use social networking sites are more likely to be targets of cyberbullying.

(3) Electronic communications provide anonymity to the perpetrator and the potential for widespread public distribution, potentially making them severely dangerous and cruel to youth.

(4) Online victimizations are associated with emotional distress and other psychological problems, including depression.

(5) Cyberbullying can cause psychological harm, including depression; negatively impact academic performance, safety, and the well-being of children in school; force children to change schools; and in some cases lead to extreme violent behavior, including murder and suicide.

(6) Sixty percent of mental health professionals who responded to the Survey of Internet Mental Health Issues report having treated at least one patient with a problematic Internet experience in the previous five years; 54 percent of these clients were 18 years of age or younger.

Sec 2, 1: So the Internet is far reaching

Sec 2,2: They should expect to get targets of ridicule. Putting ANYTHING online will be a source of ridicule. You learn to develop thick skin, if not, just shut that computer down and play some Candy Land. The Internet is a source of people with lots of free time and lots of opinions they wouldn’t express in person. It’s easier to ignore it and move on. If you wallow in self loathing because someone made fun of you online, please, step away from the computer.

Sec 2,3: This is what make the Internet great and bad. The ability to be somewhat anonymous and voice your opinions. It doesn’t mean anyone has to take anything you say to heart. It’s as easy as stepping away. But it’s all still free speech, to an extent.

Sec 2,4: Emotional distress, depression, etc etc. This can all be caused by people bullying in person, does that make those acts illegal? No, because it’s all part of growing up and dealing with life. I want a society where we learn to deal with our issues with each other instead of relying on Government and laws to nerf the world.

Sec 2,5: Government trying to blame something else for violent behavior instead of parents.

Sec 2,6: Simple solution. Have parents limit or take away their kids rights at being on the Internet. The Internet really isn’t a great place for kids to explore on their own. I’ve been there and seen the worst but I turned out OK. I wish my parents would have limited me a bit more, but this was before the times of the Democrats and their feel good police squad.

SEC. 3. CYBERBULLYING.

(a) In General- Chapter 41 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 881. Cyberbullying

`(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

`(b) As used in this section–

`(1) the term `communication’ means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; and

`(2) the term `electronic means’ means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.’.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 41 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`881. Cyberbullying.’.

(6) Sixty percent of mental health professionals who responded to the Survey of Internet Mental Health Issues report having treated at least one patient with a problematic Internet experience in the previous five years; 54 percent of these clients were 18 years of age or younger.

Sec 881, a: I hope I can now go after all those people making fun of Palin and Palin backers. I have a huge list of bloggers and people on forums. BRING IT.

I have full confidence that we can easily beat this utterly stupid bill and if not, we can fight this all the way to the Supreme Court, unless of course Sotomayer is sworn in, but that’s another post entirely.

Are you against America?

Sammy Hancock — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 08:11:39 +0000

So I’m reading And So It Goes in Shreveport and Pat is talking about Mr Henry Waxman. Yes, the one named in the Cap and Trade bill now sitting in the Senate, hopefully waiting to die. You see Mr Waxman claims if we’re not behind this bill we are against our country. Pat does a good job going through many things in the article but I want to focus on his claims of the GOP and individuals against this bill.

It’s not just the GOP that’s against Cap and Trade, it’s people who actually pay attention to what’s written in this bill and the implications it has on our country as a whole. If I were truly against our country, I’d be supporting this bill because it is by far one of the bills that will doom our wonderful country. But as it stands, I’m a Libertarian and believe this bill is MORE of the same Government interference in our daily lives.

Section 304 of HR2454 states:

(A) preparation, and public disclosure of the label through filing with tax and title records at the time of–

(i) a building audit conducted with support from Federal or State funds;

(ii) a building energy-efficiency retrofit conducted in response to such an audit;

(iii) a final inspection of major renovations or additions made to a building in accordance with a building permit issued by a local government entity;

(iv) a sale that is recorded for title and tax purposes consistent with paragraph (8);

(v) a new lien recorded on the property for more than a set percentage of the assessed value of the property, if that lien reflects public financial assistance for energy-related improvements to that building; or

(vi) a change in ownership or operation of the building for purposes of utility billing; or

(B) other appropriate means.

It’s scary to think that the government will now have ability to inspect your PRIVATE residence to ensure you comply with energy efficiency laws set by the government. Granted you will also be inspected by people not properly trained in determining what is actually energy efficient besides those little green labels on your devices and windows.

Interestingly enough, this bill doesn’t talk about auditing Al Gore’s residence to ensure he isn’t being a big fat hypocrite.

Apparently the bill is also written where us as homeowners do not have to comply, but at the same time requires the states to meet a percentage of energy efficient homes and if those demands aren’t met, they could lose a big chunk of money from the government.

â€˜(6) OUT OF COMPLIANCE-

â€˜(A) IN GENERAL- Any State for which the Secretary has not accepted a certification under paragraph (5) by a deadline established under this subsection is out of compliance with this section. Comments Close Comments Permalink

(B) LOCAL COMPLIANCE- In any State that is out of compliance with this section as provided in subparagraph (A), a local government may be in compliance with this section by meeting all certification requirements applicable to the State. Comments Close Comments Permalink

(C) NONCOMPLIANCE- Any State that is not in compliance with this section, as provided in subparagraph (A), shall, until the State regains such compliance, be ineligible to receive– Comments Close Comments Permalink

(i) emission allowances pursuant to subsection (h)(1); Comments Close Comments Permalink

(ii) Federal funding in excess of that State’s share (calculated according to the allocation formula in section 363 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6323)) of $125,000,000 each year; and Comments Close Comments Permalink

(iii) for– Comments Close Comments Permalink

(I) the first year for which the State is out of compliance, 25 percent of any additional funding or other items of monetary value otherwise provided under the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009; Comments Close Comments Permalink

(II) the second year for which the State is out of compliance, 50 percent of any additional funding or other items of monetary value otherwise provided under the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009; Comments Close Comments Permalink

(III) the third year for which the State is out of compliance, 75 percent of any additional funding or other items of monetary value otherwise provided under the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009; and Comments Close Comments Permalink

(IV) the fourth and subsequent years for which the State is out of compliance, 100 percent of any additional funding or other items of monetary value otherwise provided under the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.

So it is with great interest for states to comply with the government if only to receive federal money. We’ll see which states actually comply with this and which ones will stand strong against a bill which Congress has no right to pass.

But back to what I originally wanted to talk about and that was being against America. Is this really the only arsenal in Democrats bag at the moment? To guilt ordinary citizens into thinking they are wrong for opposing this huge piece of legislation that would raise energy rates, cause job cuts and raise the costs of goods in your economy.

Honestly if you listen to the media and supports of this bill, you’d think all those opposed were for killing puppies and kittens because they didn’t support this erroneously backed bill. The simply fact remains, not supporting this bill is more American than supporting it. Because you’re using your rights to question those elected to represent you in Washington. In the end we control America, but at the moment they are controlling us when we should be asking them to stop wasteful spending and get working on serious issues instead of this smokescreen. As Americans, it is our duty to ensure what we want is spoken for by the people we elect and if not, it is our duty to vote or remove them when they fail to comply with what we want. Until we stand up for ourselves, they will always treat us like serfs.