What? :o Has it come to this, someone's right to life depends on the govt taxing the rich?

I'm sure you didn't mean that the way it sounds, Mookie. I sure hope a guy like me can get by ok without assistance from the rich (however they are defined).

How much better would it be if those programs were not there? We have no way of knowing either way....

So instead of addressing the proven failure of the "social net" system, we jump to "lets just bash the rich"? That doesn't address the problem.

Someone please explain to me why we should blindly continue on using a system that is demonstratably a failure at its stated goal. Someone please explain to me why even discussing changing a failed system that is proven to trap more and more people in poverty into something that has the potential to actually be more effective to help the underpriviledged is somehow "hearless and cold".

Someone explain to me why it makes sense to continue down a road that shows us that doing so will only create more poor people. Is this what we want for our countrymen? I say no - and thus the failed answer needs to change - else we doom even more people to poverty. We are better than that.

You have made the accusation - so by all means - show us how someone will lose their life if the strategy for the war on poverty were to change. I have already shown how NOT changing it means making more people poor, so you need to show how changes to the system are somehow automatically going to "kill people".

Well her claim about $3,000 a year is total bull.I remember my ex spent $50 a month, does not add up.I have heard others mention can get it for $20, sure the numbers are a little different depending on insurance, or lack there of etc etc but nowhere near three grand, just an outrageous figure from a democratic/feminist operative with an agenda, not the all american student the Dems tried to make her out to be.I believe Limbaugh was lampooning her ridiculous claims as the sarcasm in his voice was pretty easy to detect.I found his remarks somewhat amusing as did many others but as usual the fems, the dems and others who can't handle satire etc because it offends their politically correct sensibilities are just full of "moral outrage" and self righteous indignation.

The religious freedom aspect, which is the real issue not contraception itself, is a constitutional right.The federal government has absolutely no authority under the constitution to require a church to pay for something or do anything that is against it's own teachings.A church buys health insurance but does not want their policy to cover contraception, that is their right to do so.

I am an atheist and very much a fan of contraception BUT this is not about my opinion or yours, it is about not allowing the government to once again violate the constitutional rights of others.Some may say "so what?" government gets a pass because it's just those silly religious people.Well that sets a precedent and they will do it again in the future, next time you may be your or I because some fool like obama decides he knows better than us.That is why we have a bill of rights, to protect us.

I always think of the Martin Niemoller quote "

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me."


I find religious people to be morons usually, some are more intelligent than others but they certainly lack some intellect to believe in the fairy tale that is religion and I mean pretty much any religion.Sure. church is a big thing in many cultures and it is difficult to pull away, I grew up in the south so am well aware of that but I evolved away from that nonsense and that is my right, to be an atheist and not have the government involved in my religious life or lack thereof.Well, religious people have a right to the same protections.Like I said in the OP, people like Obama know this(for all things he is, he is not stupid really, he knows the constitution, just dislikes it unless it serves him which is rare as most liberal's views are contrary to the constitution) but just decided to be intellectually dishonest OR they shift the subject as they did this time.I do admire their political skill in this one as the sympathetic press really picked up on it and changed the discussion.

Wow, maths not your strong point either then.

Bubbles, are you trying to prove in simple stages that you are absolutely clueless about the issue as well as clueless about the constitution?

BTW you previously said you were going to show that last "constitutional experts" piece to your teachers of law, which raises two questions.....
did you and have they stopped laughing yet?

:har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har: priceless

So you have insulted women and the religious, which blanket segment of humans are you coming for next?:doh:

Food and medicine wouldn't fall under right to life?


[QUOTE=CaptainHaplo;1852809]
So instead of addressing the proven failure of the "social net" system, we jump to "lets just bash the rich"? That doesn't address the problem.]/quote] You're the one that brought up the expanding ranks of poor.

You're going to help the starving and those without any way of getting health insurance... by taking away their food stamps and Medicare. That's pants on head crazy.

You can always ask your doctor if you are concerned. If you still have questions, consult the PDR. If you are still concerned, you can pull the FDA report on the generic product. You can also contact the company that makes the generic product for information. If you are still concerned, I guess you can take one of the pills and pay for a lab to analyze it. I would not recommend that thought.:DL

But seriously, ask your doctor.

But what about buying in bulk on the internets instead of doing all that silly doctor pharmacist routine, I am surehe can find tablets with pfitzer on the box or tizer or piffer so its all good and reasuring

No, they do not. We disagree here. If you propose that food and medicine are an individual's rights to be provided by government, may as well through in shelter. And dramtatic as this statement sounds, we can start working on a new name for this country because that isn't American at all.

I bet you're really popular at school. :yep::03:

As I told Hap, I'm glad we live in a country where (for the most part) the poor aren't dying in the streets from sickness and hunger. Social Darwinism is brutal. It rewards those who take advantage of and exploit others. It necessarily places a lower value on some human life. It stratifies and divides society into caste systems. That's the antithesis of what America is to me. "All men are created equal."

If you want to get purely economical about it, having consumers die in the streets is bad for business. Better to keep them alive and spending.

I want to make it clear, I am not trying to argue with you for the sake of being contrary :) Yes, I am glad we are living in a country where the poor aren't dying in the streets, too. I would be even happier living in a country where people don't quit high school, form gangs, make rap music, and engage in organized crime. Unfortunately, people are free to choose those paths. I am glad we live in a country where (still) people are held accountable for their own choices.

We're a long way from Social Darwinism, and historically, America has been a country that provides opportunity and freedom, it does not guarantee food and medicine. I'm ok with people who want that to be a new part of the equation, but get used to being told that it is not American, because, historically, it is not.

So keeping programs that increase the number of poor is the right path? That's crazy too....

Its only crazy to close doors when you don't open others. I proposed the opposite. Your ignoring half the equation, and apparently doing it on purpose.

I have a friend who is part of Manna food bank. They provide food for a number of other charities, as well as direct to society. I asked him how many people he could feed if he got 10% of what is spent in foodstamp purchases in the area. Granted - we have no hard numbers - but his answer was quick and sure - 20% of the people getting foodstamps was what he could feed. That is with nutritious meals - not the crap that many snap recipients choose to purchase. Nothing the government does is efficient. Thus - it is wasteful.

When you can do more with less because its not government run, when you can do more with less because its done out of compassion and a desire to help, instead of compulsory by government, its foolish to not do so. Unless of course, you don't care about results......

Quite honestly - that is my biggest gripe with the left - results don't matter, only the "intent" when it comes to entitlements.

*edit - I also take exception to it being "their" foodstamps etc... They didn't pay for them - we of the working class did. It just shows how screwed up the thinking is - one person pays so another person can lay claim to something.

I've already talked to her about it and she shares my concerns. The PDR and FDA report are immaterial to my point here. I know what the drug is supposed to do. That's not the issue.

My problem with generic drugs in general is the difficulty of maintaining quality controls on a drug being made by numerous, often obscure and unknown companies located God knows where.

Good point, what is needed is more rigorous government enforcement and more government regulation.
After all if a label says the company and the product have been identified and approved by the government then they had better not be an obscure unknown company from god knows where and the product had better be what it says it is.

Nope. I already said that whether someone eats or not shouldn't depend on how generous another person feels that day.

Prominent figures in history were religious people. The everyday Joe is a religious person. There were the folks that believed in something greater than themselves including a country free to do as one wants. The same freedoms you enjoy today. Morons...

Morons indeed. :roll: I wish I could be a moron, too. But I'm too selfish. :O:

Indeed. Isaac Newton was religious. So was Johann Sebastian Bach. Louis Pateur, the Wright Brothers, astronaut Jim Irwin, George Washington and even Bubblehead's own beloved Ronald Reagan were all noted adherents to religion. This list of great and brilliant people who were also religious goes on and on.

You guys and your pesky "facts" are getting in the way of Bubs' mission to offend every group of people on the planet.

It doesn't even have to be black&white "religious / not religious" mentality. Machiavelli, for example, was fairly critical towards Christianity and yet sited Moses as a kind of a great person needed to build a flourishing republic. To him the characters of the Bible likely were historical persons, much like he considered Lycurgus of Sparta such great person.

What a moron, huh?