Judas Goat,  what exactly is the greater good.  A society in which nobody is able to take care of themselves, standing in line waiting for the Government to hand out your ration?  Is that the greater good?  Or is it a society where independence is welcome, people can, and do, take care of themselves, their families, and their neighbors.  Where an individual, emphasis added, is free to live in a society where he is rewarded, or not, based on his/her abilities.
Dave - Lodi CA

The "Greater Good" is everyone being equal. The "Greater Good" is no competition, no winners, no losers. The "Greater Good" is everyone sharing what meager things we have. Faster, Better, Cheaper are not options in a "Greater Good Society". Those things imply that people are unequal, and that is not allowed in a "Greater Good Society".

Sure, why not. A majority of people in the country think abortion is immoral, but that doesn't stop pro-death Democrats like these 41 Reps. from making people, forcing people, to buy government run insurance where the money is used to fund abortions. How immoral is that? But the left wing ideologies don't care about what other people think, they care about what they think, and the he** with anyone else!

This what America gets when you elect extreme leftwing people to powerful government positions. Maybe America will learn it's lesson as they did with Carter and Clinton where trying to run everyones lives.

Anyone that is against abortion should be put in jail! It's legal people, and the government should pay for it!

Once knew a woman that used abortion as just another form of birth control. She was a real peach. Class act. At least she paid her own way, but now it looks like that's ending with Pelosi and Company.

The problem is that this amendment is not about taxpayer money being used for abortions, it prohibits even individually paid premiums from being used.  Abortion is a legal procedure in this country.  To say that a legal procedure is prohibited from being covered by private insurance paid for by individuals just because the private insurance participates in the insurance exchange is rationing and interference in people's lives at it's worst.  

Last time I checked, it was still the law of the land, upheld by the Supreme Court after numerous challenges.

It is covered by private insurance.  It is covered in the insurance plan granted to memebers of both houses of congress.  

America is DAM lucky Bush didn't get his way of having everybody invest their Social Security in the stock market. We would be in a helluva worse situation than we are now.


Rob, Phoenix,AZ (Sent Monday, November 09, 2009 1:56 PM)





Bush only wanted to make this an option or PERSONAL CHOICE for those who wanted to invest their money where they wanted to instead of depending on the government, including bank savings accounts. With Social security going bankrupt, it is starting to look like it would have been a good option.

How about this....If one opposes having an abortion they buy a policy that won't pay for an abortion. Those women paying into the plan who don't have this restriction would be covered by paying premiums just like others. Since it is in a large pool of money it is hard to distinguish one cent from another and so denying benefits to one because another doesn't agree with the procedure probably won't work. Maybe two pools of money would work. Those who buy policies that allow women to decide and those who don't. Than and only then, it a woman needs an abortion, will she be able to get one using only funds from the one source and not the other. That should placate those so opposed. They can have the public option and not pay for the abortion part while those who don't care that much about the abortion issue or favor the woman's right to choose and have the government stay out of her uterus can do so by having a plan that pays for what the doctor does and what the doctor prescribes as best for the patient.

Sure, why not. A majority of people in the country think abortion is immoral, but that doesn't stop pro-death Democrats like these 41 Reps. from making people, forcing people, to buy government run insurance where the money is used to fund abortions. How immoral is that? But the left wing ideologies don't care about what other people think, they care about what they think, and the he** with anyone else!

This what America gets when you elect extreme leftwing people to powerful government positions. Maybe America will learn it's lesson as they did with Carter and Clinton where trying to run everyones lives.
Jane M., Boulder CO (Sent Monday, November 09, 2009 2:06 PM)

Please cite your reference to what you state as fact regarding the opinion of most Americans. Otherwise it is merely YOUR opinion and holds littl weight.

The "Greater Good" is everyone being equal. The "Greater Good" is no competition, no winners, no losers. The "Greater Good" is everyone sharing what meager things we have. Faster, Better, Cheaper are not options in a "Greater Good Society". Those things imply that people are unequal, and that is not allowed in a "Greater Good Society".
Lesser Society (Sent Monday, November 09, 2009 2:02 PM)
 Socialism at its finest. And yet you argue it is not

Oh Goody!!  This should stall the Senate bill for a while.  It will give the American citizens more time to research all the other horsecrap in the bills.

The full extend of liberals "Choice" is with abortion. From everything else, the liberals are against choice. Don't like you public school? Tough! Want to own a gun? Not a chance! Want to make a choice on a portion of your Social Security is invested? Not happening!

The Democrats, the true party of no, unless it's about abortion.

Judas Goat,  what exactly is the greater good.  A society in which nobody is able to take care of themselves, standing in line waiting for the Government to hand out your ration?  Is that the greater good?  Or is it a society where independence is welcome, people can, and do, take care of themselves, their families, and their neighbors.  Where an individual, emphasis added, is free to live in a society where he is rewarded, or not, based on his/her abilities.
Dave - Lodi CA

The "Greater Good" is everyone being equal. The "Greater Good" is no competition, no winners, no losers. The "Greater Good" is everyone sharing what meager things we have. Faster, Better, Cheaper are not options in a "Greater Good Society". Those things imply that people are unequal, and that is not allowed in a "Greater Good Society".
Lesser Society (Sent Monday, November 09, 2009 2:02 PM)

----------------------------------------------------

This will not happen until the incentive becomes progress of humanity, and not power and wealth.  Even then there will be those who take care of people, and those whom need to be taken care of.  That's humanity, we have needs, and we fulfill needs.  

Dave from california has it wrong because you can't expect either absolute.  100% of the country will never be dependent on the govt.  It wasn't even that way in communist russia, and it will never be that way here.  And there is absolutely no way to make people 100% independent either.  

Both are Utopian situations from equally skewed viewpoints.  The Greater Good is yes Everyone is given the opportunity to be equal...

The ubsurd assumption that people like living on food stamps, and in community housing is baffling to me.  Sounds like the life don't it?  Government cheese and welfare is something I want to just brag about.

It's that idiotic belief that people Choose to be in that situation, rather than just believing they have no other option is astounding.

Are there a minute few that game the welfare system?...absolutely!

And there are a similar percentage(or moreso) that game the tax system that earn millions each year?
Definately.

The truth is, that working toward one utopian situation or the other is counterproductive.  Working toward systems that work is not.  It's proven that socialized medicine provides longer lifespans, better options, and lower total costs than our current system.

That's the fact, and nobody has given up their freedoms to have that type of system.  Ask our seniors, ask our veterans...Ask our Politicians.

This is ridiculous.  No one is taking away a woman's right to choose.  Why should someone else's taxes pay for abortion?  Is plastic surgery, another elective procedure, going to be covered?  

Bush only wanted to make this an option or PERSONAL CHOICE for those who wanted to invest their money where they wanted to instead of depending on the government, including bank savings accounts. With Social security going bankrupt, it is starting to look like it would have been a good option.

The truth will set you free (Sent Monday, November 09, 2009 2:21 PM)

*****

It was an effort to further hurt the financial situation of SS just as they did with medicare advantage.  No more no less

Or 8 Words:

Reagan: "The deficit doesn't matter if the economy's growing"

MSierra

-----------------
It doesn't, to a point. But then we get into discussions like deficits and debt as percentages of GDP, and things like that. If you run a $200 billion deficit with robust growth, then you can get away with it. But if you run a $1.8 trillion dollar deficit, like Obama is doing, but with anemic growth, then that's trouble. But again, these are complicated issues, and you really can't discuss them to with most run of the mill liberals, because they do not understand.

Because obama's programs for job creation have worked out so well up until now, right Rick?
Save A Job, Club A Liberal (Sent Monday, November 09, 2009 1:37 PM)

Since you leave No name, i'll respond to JackA$$ Republican !President Obama's program's were desinged to Stop America from slideing further into the Abyss from 8 years of Bush/Cheney's Corparate War on American Society. Evidently, America's Police force is still underfunded as we see Fool's with TeaBags hanging off their Heads carrying around signs of Hitler & the Holocoust & trying to make HCR the same. It's a WTF moment, yall may as well move to Iran, since their leader also deny's the Holocoust! I & many like ME expect Nothing new from Dumba$$ Republican's such as yourself, as yall have funded Corparations against American citizens all in the Phony pretense of Religion.

May the Skies Open up today & take your Dumba$$ Home(as You call it), as I & my Family & many,many more American's are really sick of hearing about your Stupid nonsuggestions, are making America better for the Future.

Go build somemore Submarines with screendoor's, because thats what republican's do best, " Sink to the Bottom" !

The Democrats, the true party of no, unless it's about abortion.
Ross Edin, MN (Sent Monday, November 09, 2009 2:27 PM)

...............................................
Guess all the members of the Supreme Court must be registered Deomocrats.

Please cite your reference to what you state as fact regarding the opinion of most Americans. Otherwise it is merely YOUR opinion and holds littl weight.
moir


Even if it's a minority of people that believe abortion is immoral, are their rights not be respected and protected? I thought you liberals were for protecting minority rights? Apparently not though when it disagrees with a liberal dogma.

How about the part in the Pelosi Heath bill that states that if you do NOT sign up for health care, you can be fined up to $250,000.00 and spend some time in jail. How is that for making the country knuckle under to this Marxism attempt to control ALL of our liberties?

Forgot to add that for the record, NO ONE STILL knows all that is included or mandated in the health care bill since it is a policy of bringing 1000+ page bills to congress to vote on without allowing time to fully read or understand. This is what the Dems. did with the economic stimulus bill. The only thing that did not require 1000+ pages was when the Dems went into closed dorr session and voted themselves a 5.8% pay raise (even though we are in a bad way with the economy).

The truth is, that working toward one utopian situation or the other is counterproductive.  Working toward systems that work is not.  It's proven that socialized medicine provides longer lifespans, better options, and lower total costs than our current system.

That's the fact, and nobody has given up their freedoms to have that type of system.  Ask our seniors, ask our veterans...Ask our Politicians.


Greg P. NW Indiana


Socialized medicine requires that all the funding go to the patient. Sounds good, right? It's not. All R&D funding is cut. You know, the things that improve medicine. You don't see any country with socialized medicine having any great break throughs in medicine, at least not like the US does. The US provides the world with better drugs, procedures, and care because of it's R&D. That will all be lost, and life expectances reduced, all because of socialized medicne.

Congrats to Speaker Pelosi and the House Democrats, giving the people what they want and need is the bottom line.  

Kevin, Antioch, CA

You must be a terrific parent.

Women die because of lack of access to the kind of medical care the STUPAK ammendment insists will not be paid for. If a baby dies in the womb it sometimes causes a miscarraige.  Sometimes, it does not, and the mother must either wait weeks or months for the stillbirth, risking infection and infertility and death, or have a bloody chemical abortion alone at home with drugs prescribed by doctors (about $40) or, the safest method, have a D&C.  The Stupak ammendment would guarantee that unless a woman carrying a child that died in the womb can come up with at least $1,500, she will have to take the risk, because her insurance will not pay for the D&C to releive her body of the already dead child, a proceedure that is considered, medically, an abortion.

You're all dancing, but someone else is pulling the strings and calling the tune...

As a life-long Democrat I was happy to see the restriction on payments for abortions. I knew the opposition to this would cry quickly and, the court would likely block the restriction. But, it signals a breakthrough for those against abortion. It is time for the Democratic party to look again at this issue. It is about the only issue in the country (aside from the republican stand that all must have a right to tote any gun they want) where it is claimed that government has no right to restrict. This is in a country where we restrict the right to speech when it incites, restrict all kinds of rights in the interest of public and personal saftey, and restrict the governments use of inhumane treatement of prisoners albiet the last government ignored the law. This minimally restricted protection of abortion is only supported by a minority of the country and it is fewer each year. The party needs to shift its stand. This is not the 1960's. We do not face backroom abortion clinics or even a chance that all abortion will be outlawed. But, it is time to revisit this issue and during this administration when Democrats have a chance to do so while respecting those who in spite of the great advances in medical knowledge still do not belive that an unborn child is a human being and that it is simply some parasite they want to get rid of.

What happens to parents with sick babies after this legislation goes into effect?  Will they have the freedom to save their children's lives?  Or will bureacracy stand between them and the lifesaving procedures necessary, because the waiting list for tests and procedures is too long?

It may be pleasant to believe that nothing will change for the worse, but look at the swine flu vaccine distribution.  It isn't exactly going well, is it?

As i pray for my grandaughter, I also pray for other families with sick babies.  

And that this legislation dies in the Senate.
no joe, no bo,nj
please don't tell me that your could be this selfish to want HCR to die. so if this legislation dies in the Senate its ok with you to see more people die with out health care.
we are the greatest country in the world and  we are the only one of the G8 that don't provide for our citizens. this is a shame.
No Jo, so what your telling us is that because your daughter and son in law have the resources to do what they can to save their childs life, after this goes through HCR then your concerns are waiting list for the same type of treatment,
No Jo, our health care system is there for the haves, not the have nots. your post tells me that you are concerned about the waiting time for treatments, honey go to some heighborhoods and you will see that for some its not the waiting time, its the getting treatments. waiting times, come on. for many its all about getting care no matter how long it takes because these people have had to go with out, i would rather wait instead of going with out. so your saying your would rather see people go with out
so again i ask, you don't want HCR because of waiting times. No, i don't think so, also doctors have a oath to care for the sick nomatter what.
i don't think that the waiting time as you say will be what you say. you have hospitals who's beds go unused. once this goes through there will be a push to build more hospitals. so is that what your concrened about is hospitals.

the swine flu vaccine distribution are to me going well considering the vaccines had to rushed through before this flu season.

As things "progress" for Obama and the Democrats, the liberals are getting more shrill. It's easy to see why they, the liberals, are on the wrong side of history. If their ideas, on health care, jobs, stimulus, foreign policy, were so wonderful, we'd be seeing either results for, or support for those programs. Instead, bills are passed in the House, where the Dems have an 80 vote majority, by 1 or 2 vote majorites. Instead we see dozens of Reps that are very vulnerable for next years elections. So for the libs, the writing is on the wall, not many people like the idea of a huge government expansion.

We all know that abortion exterminates the unborn and even the partially born ... and Obama has signed to further allow it and taxpayers are paying for it.

If this is not a monstrosity then nothing is.

Buy into the sucker rally chumps!

Dig up yer gold and buy into the sucker stock market boom!

Git in anna gittout chumps! Barack opened the left side winna, jump in and jump out.

Michelle will be hostin the Iron Chef show in January where they will teach ya how to cook dandelions, cashed unemployment checks, shredded belts and shoes and unkept promoses of Barack!

Enjoy your multicultural hoey meal unemployed saps!

FORT HOOD MASSACRE AN ACT OF RADICAL ISLAM TERRORISM. ===

The SHOOTER used an FN 5.6 mm assault pistol, a specialized handgun designed to cause carnage.  The FN 5.7 is a semi-automatic pistol that fires an extremely high-powered, small caliber, armor-piercing bullet at a velocity of 2,000 feet per second from a 30-round magazine.  Its destructiveness is comparable to that of an M-16 assault rifle in semi-automatic mode.  ===

This is not the type of weapon an average person or doctor selects and learns to use in a visit to a local gun store.  People who “flip out” and go on a killing spree  usually use a traditional weapon, such as a .357 magnum revolver or a 9 mm pistol.  And they usually direct their violence towards a specific group of people with whom the have a grudge.  Terrorists, however, direct their violence indiscriminately at a group of innocent people they don’t even know!     LIKE HASAN DID. ===

If Hasan, a known disgruntled Muslim, was angry for being ‘picked on,’ he would have gone to the location where those people could be found.  He didn’t.  All the facts indicate that Hasan was an Islamic radical who committed a terrorist act and that he had been schooled or trained in the choice and use of the “cop killer” weapon by another terrorist. -  WHO & WHERE? -  Hopefully the “investigation” will not become a 'politically-correct' cover-up.

Feisty and MSierra

Both of you have that same challenged mentality.

You must have been beaten as children.

Gay weddings RULE!

All Gays and leftitst should have state funded abortions!

Soon you will ALL be GONE!

The dems are winning this, folks.  The GOP is just being obstructiove because thats akll they have.
There obly feeble weapon is to cause fear and scare anyone they can.
All the while substituting cultural warfare for actual ideas.

The GOP HAS NO IDEAS.   The ones they are touting do nothing but stand up for the status quo.
Dont let the GOP scare you, they are worthless and weak.  They are not incontrol, and wont be for the foreseeable future.
All they have are procedural roadbloacks and fillibusters, but thet is ALL the power they have.

When the economy recovers, healthcare is passed and a new Afghan strategy is pursued, the GOP will be left whining like a little pig,

Sorry !!
FIX IT LATER !!

GET HCR PASSED

The Stupak amendment is lousy
Suck it up

HCR can be amended after it's been passed

Social Security was a bare bones program when it passed in 1935
But, the premise was good, so it kept getting improved

HCR is similar
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good

Suck it up

Allen - Omaha, NE (Sent Monday, November 09, 2009 11:25 AM)

Excellent post.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I feel the need to voice a long standing ‘concern’.  Why is it that the gun lobby/wielding community believes that if everyone is packing then everyone is safer; but it is the policy of our military to train our service people (every rank, every position) in the proper use of firearms and then they do NOT let them pack heat on military bases?  These are just some of the ‘policies’ that a well trained militia has determined are COMMON SENSE, yet we continue to battle about it in the culture wars of Right versus Left.

This segues nicely to the ABORTION discussion.  If Abortion is a Moral Imperative, there should never be one mention of it in ANY Legislation as outlined by the framers of our Constitution.  If the framers simply could not KNOW or fathom a time where Abortion on Demand was possible, than you have to back pedal your little Right to Bear Arms argument; because surely they couldn’t conceive of weaponry meant to kill massive amounts of people.

It is not just hypocrisy it is an actual FALLACY to attempt to reconcile BOTH SIDES of the mouth on this type of rhetorical double speak.  So, let’s just sum it up – We are right, and you are Wrong.  More Government intervention and control (Schiavo, abortion and false wars) when the Republicans are in charge (with no ‘unpatriotic dissent’); but LESS Government when the Democrats are overwhelmingly elected with larger majorities than the Republicans EVER had in all three branches of government, ESPECIALLY on the issues that swayed the election (health care – a campaign signature piece, ending the wars – platform item, equal rights for all).  And yet, last week we saw dissenting elected officials encourage their constituents (whom, shockingly were toting hate speech) by willingly signing autographs to their ‘fans’.  Anyone else see the ‘disconnect’?

Has anyone counted the chattering class’ thousand cuts a day talking points?  Um, for those playing along at home – let’s see where the economy is come next August/September and THAT will tell you who gets ousted in the midterms.  Everything else is purely catnip.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
“…One thing is for sure and that is if the Democrats lose control of congress over HCR then we can forget about getting it, because the Republicans will never give it to us. Those Dems who vote no should be voted out for someone who will help the leadership take the hands of the Insurance Industry off of our throats.”  Kevin, Antioch, CA (Sent Monday, November 09, 2009 11:21 AM)

Well said, and in way fewer words than I mustered.  Thanks!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Rick, KY - Amen, brother!

To you geniuses once again using Tim McVeigh to defend the terrorist acts in Texas...McVeigh was anot a Christian. He was a self-proclaimed atheist. Even if he HASD been a Christian, there is no evidence that he yelled "I love Jesus!" as he set off the OK City bomb. Whatever religion he was (or not), had nothing to do with his atrocities. In the case of Islamic radicals, it has EVERYTHING to do with it.

Dems support abortion because they represent a class of people who believe the various governments should pay for everything. These people believe they are entitled to:
Housing subsidies, health care subsidies,heating bill subsidies, food stamps, legal aid, psychiatric aid, school subsidies, subsidized public transit, subsidized taxi rides to their subsidized health care visits and ad nauseum. So why wouldn't these people expect to have subsidized abortions? Why is this a surprise?

"Is plastic surgery, another elective procedure, going to be covered?"

No but Viagra will be covered.

Don't kid yourself ladies.  If this gets passed, the next thing in the right wing's line of fire will be cutting off funding for ALL BIRTH CONTROL.

No where in Roe v Wade does it state that abortion is only legal if you pay for it out of pocket.  

Why the democrats had to push for more restrict abortion funding rules while the republicans did not even address the issue in their substitute bill.
I believe the democrats in the senate would have an easier time getting sixty votes if they think combination: public option state opt in where those who opt out go under the trigger; if they do not decrease the un-insureds adequately by date certain they would be mandated to provide the public option.

Tort reform:  How much has Tort reform (tried in several states)lowered Doctor malpractice premiums?

Answer" .4 percent

You can limit injury lawsuit awards, but just try and ask the MAlpractice insurance provider to lower their premiums. Evidence suggests they do not.

So isnt the pursuit of tort reform a false argumant for lowering healthcare costs? The only 'costs' it helps lower is that of the health insurance company, not the doctor.

Seems like 'tort' reform is a culture war target for the GOPers that want to see the end of trial lawyers.

Since the "stupid" amendment made it into the bill, I think we need another amendment banning the provision of Viagra to men under their insurance; and how about another amendment calling for rigid enforcement of child support laws for fathers - don't pay, off to jail you go.  I couldn't help but notice that a lot of the Republican congress folks who voted for this amendment voted against providing health insurance to children - they are only interested in the baby prior to it popping out of the womb - after that, who cares?

All R&D funding is cut. You know, the things that improve medicine. You don't see any country with socialized medicine having any great break throughs in medicine, at least not like the US does. The US provides the world with better drugs, procedures, and care because of it's R&D. That will all be lost, and life expectances reduced, all because of socialized medicne. Rich Elam, Atlanta (Sent Monday, November 09, 2009 2:46 PM)

----------------------------------------------------

Then how are we the top military power?  Government funded grants and contracts...Ratheon DOES NOT pay for this stuff out of pocket.

Nothing will change...R&D being cut is a lame arguement.

Also I would argue that most of our greatest cures and medical accomplishments have come from universities funded by government grants, not insurance companies.

I just called Colin Peterson's office to express my outrage that the idiot not only voted against health care reform, but a woman's right to choose.  It is time for the Democrats to quit supporting mental midgets like Peterson who are really Republicans.  This district is too large, needs to be redrawn, and it is time for Peterson to have someone run against him that can win. The women that answered the phone was dismissive and rude until I reminded her who they supposedly work for.  All of you in Peterson's district...hit the phones.  It is time that he hears from you.  I will NEVER hold my nose and vote for him again, but he will not get the picture until his phones start ringing.  

The full extend of liberals "Choice" is with abortion. From everything else, the liberals are against choice. Don't like you public school? Tough! Want to own a gun? Not a chance! Want to make a choice on a portion of your Social Security is invested? Not happening!

The Democrats, the true party of no, unless it's about abortion.

Ross Edin, MN (Sent Monday, November 09, 2009 2:27 PM)
------------------------------------------------------
Actually, those of us that are "liberals" are for all kinds of choice. . . .

Choice to marry anyone we please (not so with Republicans who think they know better than others who should get married).

Choice to change jobs without having to worry about health insurance (but the republicans like having us tied to our current employer and being subject to pre-existing condition clauses).

Choice to believe or not believe in Christianity (but the republicans maintain this is a Christian nation and thus we should follow the bible for our laws).

Choice to live in a society free of assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons like those used to kill all those soldiers in Fort Hood (the republicans claim guns don't kill people, people kill people, yet there is no way 13 people would have died if that not had not been allowed to buy a high powered, high magazine capacity, semi-automatic handgun).

As for your position on Social Security, it is not YOUR social security. It is a government program, just like the military, the FAA, the Highway Administration, etc. Our government has ALWAYS pooled tax revenue (be it from tariffs as in our early years, or income tax in the past century) for the greater good of the country. Just like you cannot decide what to do with "your share" of taxes that go toward military, highways, air traffic control, and management of our nation's waterways, etc. you are not entitled to decide what happens to the social security taxes you pay.

Something republicans need to better understand is that once you pay your taxes, it is no longer YOUR money. Once paid, taxes belong to the government to manage.

Generally speaking, we could care less if you don't want to send your kids to public school. Send them to a military type school, a religious school, or home school them. We don't care. Just don't use public funds to pay for religious indoctrination and spend valuable classroom time teaching stories about the bible instead of fact based science. Perhaps you failed to notice that President Obama supports charter schools?

Tort reform:  How much has Tort reform (tried in several states)lowered Doctor malpractice premiums?

Answer" .4 percent

Tim, Seattle, WA (Sent Monday, November 09, 2009 3:19 PM)
__________________

Now you went & ‘did’ it Tim!

Shame on you for putting an ACTUAL fact out there! :0)

When the righties read facts... it causes them to break out in a rash and foam at the mouth!

Remember though… they’ll NEVER let a pesky little thing like that get in their way and STOP from continuing the fear & smear chants! Or as I like to think of them… BOLD FACED LIES!!!

They sure think they have ALL the answers… when in reality they ONLY have NO… NO ideas… NO solutions… NO conscience… NO compassion... well you get the idea!

Even if it's a minority of people that believe abortion is immoral, are their rights not be respected and protected? I thought you liberals were for protecting minority rights? Apparently not though when it disagrees with a liberal dogma.

Angie Wallace, NC (Sent Monday, November 09, 2009 2:40 PM)
----------------------------------------------------
What? You are not being forced or even asked to have an abortion. If you believe abortion is immoral, that is fine with us. Don't have one.

If someone is allowed to have an abortion, exactly how does that infringe upon your "minority rights?"

One thing I appreciate about democrats is their independent spirit.  Even without the Stupak amendment, the House bill would not have allowed federal money to pay for abortions.  The amendment was not necessary for the bill to remain in line with federal law concerning taxpayer funded abortions.  

It gets a bit annoying that so much energy is expended on the pro-life/pro-choice debate.  It is a misconception for pro-life people to think that making abortion illegal will stop abortion, it won't.  I remember when abortion was illegal.  Instead it will force women to back alley quacks with filthy rooms and unsanitary conditions but that dirty little secret is beyond their mindset.  I'm pro-choice who believes abortions should be rare but who also believes it is not my right to decide for another.  If the pro-life group really wants to reduce abortions then they should stop the idiotic abstinence only sex education and stop preaching that birth control should not be used or even available to teens or adults.  If the right is serious about reducing abortions, it must face reality--sex happens despite the preaching to abstane, despite religious teachings, despite parental warnings.  Providing teenagers with planned parenthood education and birth control knowledge to fight unwanted pregnancies is a better solution to stopping abortion than preaching against it.  

Years ago, a young lady I knew where I worked was Catholic (not picking on Catholics here), she was single and became pregnant.  In talking to her, I asked why she didn't use protection and she said it was against her religion.  Now, that's fine, but I found and still find that answer to be disingenuous because pre-marital sex was against her religion also.  

Bush only wanted to make this an option or PERSONAL CHOICE for those who wanted to invest their money where they wanted to instead of depending on the government, including bank savings accounts. With Social security going bankrupt, it is starting to look like it would have been a good option.

The truth will set you free (Sent Monday, November 09, 2009 2:21 PM)
-----------------------------------------------------
The logistics of fixing Social Security are really quite simple. The retirement age can be pushed back. The maximum Social Security "tax" can be increased. Benefits can be eliminated/reduced for those with other sources of income (before you start screaming, recognize that most people get more money out than they pay in). And there are many other ways to fix the problem.

The reason it has not been fixed is because of politics.

Seems like 'tort' reform is a culture war target for the GOPers that want to see the end of trial lawyers. Tim, Seattle, WA (Sent Monday, November 09, 2009 3:19 PM)


-------------------------------------------------------


BOO HOO

And the end of the almost TWO HUNDRED MILLION dollars the Trial Lawyers gave the DNC in 2008!

Out of the goodness of their hearts no less!

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):