Right on - another voice of reason and truth (no message)
Posted By: Kaydie on 2008-11-26
In Reply to: For all your republican bashing, the economy was - great til 2 years ago, dems took over Congress.nm
x
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Thank you - the voice of reason (nm)
x
Piglet, thank you for your voice of reason
It's very refreshing. Thanks again...
A voice of reason and balance.
nm
THANK YOU!! Finally, a voice of reason!
My head has been spinning so much over the abc comment about not starting to live until after the fourth month, or whatever it was she said, that I was just too baffled to address this. And then going on in another post about a life is a life when talking about a frog and a ferret . . . apparently totally missing the point of that post.
I believe, however, that a lot of abortions occur because the male involved does not want a child. I am not sticking up, necessarily, for the females who still have this done, but, IMHO, we STILL live in a male-dominated world and that is a huge reason for why this has become legal. I think that oftentimes it is young, scared GIRLS who subject themselves and their fetuses to this, in order to please their "man". I think that in many cases, if the female in question felt that she would have support, either from the father or from her family, she might make a different choice. Not excusing it, just saying . . . IMHO. Heck, I've seen it, and more than once.
the voice of reason! completely true. nm
x
Yeah, and you're ALWAYS the voice of reason
Oh brother!
Some truth about ISP and message boards
Hey Observer, you are right to be concerned. ISPs are certainly available to administrators so that they can ban certain parties if they want to. This is not normally a problem if the administrator and monitors are fair and impartial, and posters stick to the rules.
We've seen in the past here however that certain folks had the ear of the Politics moderator and this led to vindictive bannings that shouldn't have happened in a fair forum. Some people were allowed to get away with abuse while others were banned for simply asking that they not be abused.
In all fairness to the moderator and administrator, however, they devised this new forum format and since that has happened, there's been very little interference and things seem a lot more equitable. I admit I haven't read down the posting list yet to see what you're referring to, so we'll see about that:)
I think the tighy Righties got very used to being able to bait, insult, and then kick off anyone they wanted and they really enjoyed it. Now they're screaming because people can actually talk back to them and give them a few doses of their own sour medicine. Regardless of what the posts below say, I for one thank the administrator and moderator for making this fairer play possible as much as they have.
The truth sounds rude when put bluntly but still is the truth. nm
!!!! hahaha
Jon, our voice
Isn't it amazing the length that people that have such closed minds will go to, a matter of loss of control.
another voice from
the "you are on your own party" that the next prez, Barack, talked about in his wonderful acceptance speech.
In the voice of........
Rodney King "why can't we all just get along." Name-calling serves no purpose. Can't we just refer to ourselves as Americans. Can we agree to disagree? I see a bright future. I am sorry your future is so dark and meaningless.
This is the reason we are in Iraq and it's the same reason I didn't vote for him in 2000: Didn't
his own personal reasons.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php
The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.
Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."
Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.
In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"
Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.
Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.
Conversations With Bush The Candidate
Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.
The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.
I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."
Debating The Timeline For War
But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.
The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.
On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"
I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."
"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …
"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.
Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.
Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"
Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.
Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."
Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.
Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.
So because you don't like her voice and demeanor? (sm)
You aren't voting for your high school class president, or best personality for your year book. You need to base your decision on facts.
that voice is like a needle in the eye!...
Aw, the voice of wisdom.
x
no, it's not about Voice recognition, it's about
using medical computerized charts and "check boxes" if you will... cutting out the work of the MT by using generic charts and filling in information... at least where i come from
I am all for EMR, just not voice recognition -
EMR is just a way of keeping up with your records and not having all the paper at a bunch of different doctor's office.
Voice recognition on the other hand is what is killing our profession. Of course, the hospital I just left implemented voice recognition the week I left and the feedback from my ex-coworkers so far is that the Transcriptionist hate the system, the doctors hate the system, and they are already thinking about having to change it --- and they actually only bought the initial license for 10 of the 200 doctors to use the voice (and they put the good American doctors in that 10, of course).
I don't think that transcription will totally be replaced by computers in my lifetime at least, but I do think as technology advances, transcription will face even more changes.
We all have to keep in mind that typing these reports is based on an antiquated concept and that as the doctors are getting younger and younger, it means they have grown up using all this new technology that our older doctors did not have and are resistant to.
Like it or not, Obama or not, times are achangin'!
Thanks Dem for the lone sane voice here
Thanks for affirming that the *genocide* comment was was WAYYY off base. There is a difference between you and the far leftists here, and the gap widens between the two on a daily basis.
Ann Coulter is a very vocal (sometimes over vocal) conservative. Many of us don't always agree with her approach or tactics. However, Ann says what she feels, and her free speech is as protected as anyone elses. Now, when Michael Moore says the same things in the same way and in the same style he's lauded here. So, to say that people like Ann are uniquely on the right is completely untruthful.
Ann is out to make money, of course! So is Michael Moore, and to a large extent so are the 9/11 widows. I don't minimize their loss, but I think exploiting their husband's memory for money politics, and 15 minutes of fame is pretty low.
Jewish Voice For Peace
It is Jewish Voice For Peace.Org, not Jewish Voices For Peace as I previously posted. Sorry.
Another voice in Utah last week.
This is quite long but if you just read the the last lines, the no mores, it will move you. While our **leaders** were out there borrowing rhetoric from WWII and not from the good guys either, the mayor of Salt Lake City had some words of his own to share.
I have not been on the boards much lately because I just don't know what to say. There is so much that is so wrong that I am completely overwhelmed, so much death, so much torture, so much pain, so much greed, so much **depraved indifference***, so much deceit and on and on and on. I am grateful there are still those who can put words together and produce a piece of coherent outrage. The mayor of Salt Lake is one of them.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0902-03.htm
AAMT was supposed to be our voice
in Washington. I finally dropped my membership in disgust at their lack of action. All I saw them do was puff themselves up, making up all sorts of education and standards wish lists that have never been applied to the field which certainly would have helped keep work on shore and our wages more in line with our knowledge and services to the medical community.
More like a voice of scare tactics.
XX
Bravo. A voice of compassion and
wisdom. Not often seen herewithin.
Liberal truth vs. Conservative truth.
x
The MSM has been a liberal political voice for years
what's the beef about. What does freedom of the press have to do with foreign countries? That argument withstanding the military has published articles for years in foreign newspapers. It happened after WWII and wars previous and subsequent to that, but just because this administration is doing it it's all of the sudden a problem.
Thank you...nice to have a second voice crying out in the wilderness...
just put on your kevlar and come right on in. :)
Do not patronize. Bristol has no real voice here.
She, her baby and her husband be living their private lives out on the alter of sacrifice for the sake of SP, regardless of how the news got out there. It's out now and mom's ambitions played just as much role in this tragedy as any rumor factory you will repeatedly try to use as a scapegoat. No need to beat this dead horse and repeat youself a thousand times tonight. The media will not show restraint and the internet, even less. We will all have our bellies full of this as the convention grinds on. One thing is certain, Palin just rained on her own parade.
I cannot STAND to listen to that woman's voice!
Any one else feel this way about Palin? She irks me.
"Our opposition.." You are the voice of the liberal board?
Guffaw.
Obama's voice "irks" me. Every time I hear him, I
nm
voice mail doesn't cost anything - but I hate it
I cannot stand having to pick up my phone, hear a beep, beep, beep, then dial into the phone company, then dial my telephone number, then dial my password. Too much of a hassle for me. So it was free but what a waste of my time.
Voice mail doesn't cost anything? Crapola. My
phone company must be run by dems! I pay to have my phone company's voice mail, line item every month of my bundled services.
I'm not so lazy it bothers me to dial in and get my messages. Public mindset says, "give it to me without any effort, any cost to me, and let others pay for it." Private sector mindset says, "let me dial in, I'll pay for it, and when I can't, I'll discontinue the service."
No hassle to me says I can delete what I don't want to hear. Picking up a handset is better than picking up a welfare check.
Couple of months back, I was the lone voice on this issue.
nm
Did anyone notice the voice doesn't match the video? How does that make her (sm)
a witch hunter? So ridiculous. The voice didn't even match the minister who was praying with her.
The truth, the whole truth and nothing but...It's probably the biggest...sm
reason why I am voting democrat...they seem more honest than the the republicans and it looks like people are starting to get smart and *bailin' Palin*... We don't need to keep hearing her *greatest hits" version of her acceptance speech over and over and McSame's POW story...that was then, this is now...we need REAL change and we need it NOW. I don't need someone to push the red button, I need someone to fix the economy!
Truth? The truth is she is nuts!
nm
New reason
Bush gives new reason for Iraq war
Says US must prevent oil fields from falling into hands of terrorists
By Jennifer Loven, Associated Press | August 31, 2005
CORONADO, Calif. -- President Bush answered growing antiwar protests
yesterday with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in
Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields, which he said
would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.
The president, standing against a backdrop of the USS Ronald Reagan,
the newest aircraft carrier in the Navy's fleet, said terrorists
would be denied their goal of making Iraq a base from which to
recruit followers, train them, and finance attacks.
''We will defeat the terrorists, Bush said. ''We will build a free
Iraq that will fight terrorists instead of giving them aid and
sanctuary.
Appearing at Naval Air Station North Island to commemorate the
anniversary of the Allies' World War II victory over Japan, Bush
compared his resolve to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's in the
1940s and said America's mission in Iraq is to turn it into a
democratic ally just as the United States did with Japan after its
1945 surrender. Bush's V-J Day ceremony did not fall on the actual
anniversary. Japan announced its surrender on Aug. 15, 1945 -- Aug.
14 in the United States because of the time difference.
Democrats said Bush's leadership falls far short of Roosevelt's.
''Democratic Presidents Roosevelt and Truman led America to victory
in World War II because they laid out a clear plan for success to the
American people, America's allies, and America's troops, said Howard
Dean, Democratic Party chairman. ''President Bush has failed to put
together a plan, so despite the bravery and sacrifice of our troops,
we are not making the progress that we should be in Iraq. The troops,
our allies, and the American people deserve better leadership from
our commander in chief.
The speech was Bush's third in just over a week defending his Iraq
policies, as the White House scrambles to counter growing public
concern about the war. But the devastation wrought by Hurricane
Katrina in the Gulf Coast drew attention away; the White House
announced during the president's remarks that he was cutting his
August vacation short to return to Washington, D.C., to oversee the
federal response effort.
After the speech, Bush hurried back to Texas ahead of schedule to
prepare to fly back to the nation's capital today. He was to return
to the White House on Friday, after spending more than four weeks
operating from his ranch in Crawford.
Bush's August break has been marked by problems in Iraq.
It has been an especially deadly month there for US troops, with the
number of those who have died since the invasion of Iraq in March
2003 now nearing 1,900.
The growing death toll has become a regular feature of the slightly
larger protests that Bush now encounters everywhere he goes -- a
movement boosted by a vigil set up in a field down the road from the
president's ranch by a mother grieving the loss of her soldier son in
Iraq.
Cindy Sheehan arrived in Crawford only days after Bush did, asking
for a meeting so he could explain why her son and others are dying in
Iraq. The White House refused, and Sheehan's camp turned into a hub
of activity for hundreds of activists around the country demanding
that troops be brought home.
This week, the administration also had to defend the proposed
constitution produced in Iraq at US urging. Critics fear the impact
of its rejection by many Sunnis, and say it fails to protect
religious freedom and women's rights.
At the naval base, Bush declared, ''We will not rest until victory is
America's and our freedom is secure from Al Qaeda and its forces in
Iraq led by Abu Musab alZarqawi.
''If Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would
create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks, Bush
said. ''They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could
recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the
United States and our coalition.
The reason
Like GT so eloquently wrote below, she has nothing to do with my request that you leave our board. The only person who has anything to do with it is YOU.
You and every single one of your *friends* are rude, crude, abrasive, insulting, and continually lie, lie, LIE. You are the kind of people I would choose NOT to associate with in real life because you have no values and you have a gang mentality, but most of all, you're just deplorable human beings, as you yourselves have demonstrated through your posts.
You have your own board. Would you please just go back there? You are offensive to many on this board. This is the liberal board. You clearly don't belong here any more than I don't belong on your board, where you and you *friends* indeed constantly gang up on anyone who disagrees with you. If that's how you want to conduct yourselves on your own board, that's fine. It's your board, and if you choose to turn it into a filthy sewer, that's your option. But you don't have the right do that on the liberal board. I'm very close to writing to the administrator and complaining about you all before I leave, as well. You don't contribute anything of value to this board, and all you morons do is chase kind, loving and intelligent people away.
As GT says in her posts, you are clearly obsessed with her, and I don't understand why, but you're becoming psychotic about it, and you're showing that psychosis to anyone who reads this board. You paint her to be a terrible person, and from what I read in her posts, she is NOT a terrible person. She is loving and caring and intelligent..all traits that not ONE of you posseses. You are way out of your limited ignorant hateful league on this board. Please. JUST GO AWAY.
There's no other reason.
All they want to do is start trouble. Ignore the gnats.
The reason for this. sm
and something that is not in this short article is the language of the bill and the loopholes it leaves open. I have no doubt at all that the NRA would back terrorists or suspected terrorists from getting guns. However, this bill is badly written and needs to be revised to leave no loopholes for further legislation not included in the bill, which often happens.
This is one BIG reason why
I don't want government involved in my health care. The VA is a joke and our veterans do not get the care that they need and deserve. If heroes like that aren't taken care of by our government....what in the he11 makes us think that the government will take care of us? 
You are the reason I put it in here, to
see just how much it would bother you. Knew you would make a fool of yourself again and give us all another good laugh for the day. It's just another name to me, could be Tom Thumb as far as I care.
I am sorry that is the only reason you
want Obama to win this election. I am afraid you are in for a rude awakening, my child! No need for rubbing in my face, I can easily live it, I have a higher power on my side! As stated earlier, I have a life outside this election, I only wish the same for you.
Here's another possible reason:
Maybe people who are struggling to afford healthcare, fill up their gas tanks and feed their families just happen to agree with his VIEWS on the issues. 
This is the reason
We have always felt O was wrong for the position. We have been discussing what his policies will mean to the country. His lack of knowledge, his plans are bad for the country and will not keep us safe, his redistribution of wealth and how that will not help the economy and will put us into a depression. It will now mean there will no longer be a middle income anymore. Those middle income will now be among the low income and the downright poor will now also join the low income. So we've tried discussing O and his plans/issues. Nobody wanted to listen. They are just too he!!-bent on hating Bush with such abhorrence they won't listen to reason. O tells people he's going to give them all this stuff for free and people believe it. We've tried pointing out his character flaws and who he keeps for company - Ayers, Wright, Farrahkan, etc. Only after he hears an outcry from some he decides to say, oh yeah, I don't agree with him, he just happened to be someone in my neighborhood which is an outright lie, but people just hate Bush/Cheney so much they won't see past his lies.
I think we all have a feeling O will win, unless a miracle happens (and they can - we can all hope and pray), but a lot do not know what it is like to live in a socialist country. Where what you work for his taken away from you without your consent and given to others who like most are now saying they will quit and just get the handouts O is promising.
We are trying to expose O for what he truly is. His followers do not seem to care that he sat through 20 years of Wright's hateful anti-American sermons twice a month for the past 20 years and never got up and walked out of any of them. His followers do not seem to care that he will blantantly change the constitution just so he can be elected. His followers do not seem to care that the people who gave him his start in politics are Ayers. While you all choose to believe he was "just a guy in my neighborhood". His followers do not seem to care that he is accepting money from countries like Libya and our other enemies - the same ones who are trying to destroy us and wipe us off the planet as a nation unless we convert to Islam. There are so many reasons we are so appalled that this character slimed his way up and stole the election from Hillary. As election day comes closer we are ever more worried that that O could get in. We will hope and pray he doesn't but the thought of what will happen to our country. Everything our country was based on and evertything our founding fathers went through to make this a great country will be lost forever. But that is okay for his followers. After all Farrakan said he is the messiah, so most of his followers must be Farrakan supporters too. It's a very sad time to see how many of O's followers want to live in socialism, how many of you do not care if the country is safe, how many don't care that they are have re-education camps to throw those who do not think like them in and if they cannot be re-educated they will be eliminated. It's frightening to think many who support him will most likely be like those in Germany who turned in people who didn't agree with the Fuhrer. I just don't want to live in a country like that, but many do say "History will repeat itself".
For some reason......
they didn't want to give you that loan. Refusal because of $11? Sounds like an excuse to me. Our lender (who also sold us the property) even lied about how much we put down..........
The only reason I have
ever called you a kool-aid drinker is because you constantly post about rhetoric. When will you wake up and realize that even democrat politicians say one thing and do another. You can't get much more obvious about than the Obama administration and yet you continue to sing his praise. You are blinded by your own political party.
Obama...the man who said he would sign no bill with pork in it and then did without batting an eyelash.
The man who said he would pull troops out of Iraq and has extended the time frame to keep troops in Iraq longer and to deploy more in Afghan. He ridiculed McCain for not wanting a time line but I guess a time line is okay as long as you can push it back whenever you feel the need, huh?
A man who promised tax cuts on 95% of the American people and yet he wants cap and trade which will tax everyone A LOT.
Gay rights activists sing his praise and yet Obama himself isn't for same sex marriage.
He wants people to have the right to choose to carry a child or abort it and yet he takes the rights away from hospitals and doctors by not allowing them to refuse to perform that procedure. You complain about taking the rights away from people but yet you have no problem taking rights away from people with a different view point than yourself.
Yet all you ever come back with is that we are a bunch of babies who need to grow some balls and how ignorant we are for watching Fox News even though Fox has higher ratings than the crap you watch.
The channels you profess to tell the truth aren't even covering the tea parties. I personally feel that thousands and thousands of Americans protesting is a big deal and should be reported on whether or not a channel agrees with the reason behind it. Picking and choosing what to report is not telling the truth. It is being very one sided. Any open minded person would realize that.
Reason
Can you demonsrate that the health of those without healthcare coverage is better or equal to that of those who have healthcare coverage?
I see no reason why
marriage would not still be limited to two people (of whatever flavor) at a time. Bygamy would still be bygamy.
You're right. Think what men with half a dozen legal wives and a couple of dozen kids could do to any medical plan, let alone our system for deducting dependents from income tax.
On the other hand, I have a same-sex housemate who is disabled, unemployed and uninsured. We are not gay, but if same-sex marriage were legal, I could marry her and get her insured under my plan. Many marriages involve no sex. Maybe they didn't start out that way but over time they evolve in that direction. We would simply be skipping the honeymoon part.
There is a reason for this......
Less natives of these countries are having children because they are paying such high taxes to let others live off the system, they can't afford to have more children.
Same in the U.S.
Here is a possible reason why.....
Because the smart people have seen through Obama and the rest of the Dems from the get-go and don't want more of what we have now. If you want to win bad enough, you will use any means available, legal or illegal. But then that is JMO.
|
