Separation of church and state makes him want to throw up

[Immanuel]

now tell us all what birth control (i.e. the pill of plan b) does............... it either destroys a fertilized egg............ or it prevents a fertilized egg from attaching the to uterus wall................... if life is defined (as personhood usa wants a constitutional ammendment stating so) as at the moment of conception. using the pill or plan b is then considered murder and a women using said birth control could be charged as such.

learn to think for yourself for once.

Technically this is correct but what will happen is that those forms of birth control will simply become illegal. I think people being charged with murder...while certainly possible...is not their goal. They will deal with that by simply banning certain forms of birth control that interfere with or destroy a fertilized egg. Of course people may face legal prosecution for having and/or using those products but I doubt anyone will be charged with murder for taking the pill.

He has already declared that I am pro-"personhood" so I will have to wait for him to tell me what I think next.

Immie

 

[Inthemiddle]

now tell us all what birth control (i.e. the pill of plan b) does............... it either destroys a fertilized egg............ or it prevents a fertilized egg from attaching the to uterus wall................... if life is defined (as personhood usa wants a constitutional ammendment stating so) as at the moment of conception. using the pill or plan b is then considered murder and a women using said birth control could be charged as such.

learn to think for yourself for once.

Technically this is correct but what will happen is that those forms of birth control will simply become illegal. I think people being charged with murder...while certainly possible...is not their goal. They will deal with that by simply banning certain forms of birth control that interfere with or destroy a fertilized egg. Of course people may face legal prosecution for having and/or using those products but I doubt anyone will be charged with murder for taking the pill.

Actually, it's not correct. The mechanism of action is to prevent ovulation from occurring in the first place. If contraception does occur, the medication has no effect on preventing pregnancy.

 

[koshergrl]

now tell us all what birth control (i.e. the pill of plan b) does............... it either destroys a fertilized egg............ or it prevents a fertilized egg from attaching the to uterus wall................... if life is defined (as personhood usa wants a constitutional ammendment stating so) as at the moment of conception. using the pill or plan b is then considered murder and a women using said birth control could be charged as such.

learn to think for yourself for once.

Technically this is correct but what will happen is that those forms of birth control will simply become illegal. I think people being charged with murder...while certainly possible...is not their goal. They will deal with that by simply banning certain forms of birth control that interfere with or destroy a fertilized egg. Of course people may face legal prosecution for having and/or using those products but I doubt anyone will be charged with murder for taking the pill.

Still waiting for the list of "most" birth control options that will be banned because of the personhood law.

Still seems to me the only ones that would be banned would be the morning after, and actual surgical abortion...

Is that "most" of available birth control methods?

 

[Syphon]

This is what you claimed the pro-life movement wants:



Emphasis added.

I don't see anything that backs up your statements in the About Us for Personhood USA.

Here is something they encourage people to do:



Do you really find the idea of changing the hearts and minds of people in a non-violent manner:



as reprehensible as it seems you do? I actually think it is a commendable goal.

Oh and by the way, Personhood USA doesn't speak for the pro-life movement either, only themselves.

Immie

apparently reasoning and reading comprehension is not one of your strong suits.

"Personhood USA serves the pro-life community"

"Personhood is a movement working to respect the God-given right to life by recognizing all human beings as persons who are “created in the image of God” from the beginning of their biological development, without exceptions."
"Personhood USA desires to glorify Jesus Christ in a way that creates a culture of life so that all innocent human lives are protected by love and by law.
Personhood USA serves the pro-life community by assisting local groups to initiate citizen, legislative, and political action focusing on the ultimate goal of the pro-life movement: personhood rights for all innocent humans.
We intend to build the support of at least two thirds of the states in an effort to reaffirm personhood within the U.S. Constitution."

now tell us all what birth control (i.e. the pill of plan b) does............... it either destroys a fertilized egg............ or it prevents a fertilized egg from attaching the to uterus wall................... if life is defined (as personhood usa wants a constitutional ammendment stating so) as at the moment of conception. using the pill or plan b is then considered murder and a women using said birth control could be charged as such.

learn to think for yourself for once.

Apparently you believe you have the right to define your opponent's beliefs and arguments.

How can anyone argue against your fallacious arguments when you decide what they think?

Immie

in not advocating a pro life stance / personhood stance.

so define your position.

are you against abortion?
are you against birth control?
are you for personhood laws?
are you for the repeal of Roe v. Wade?
are you against a persons right to choose?

 

[Syphon]

now tell us all what birth control (i.e. the pill of plan b) does............... it either destroys a fertilized egg............ or it prevents a fertilized egg from attaching the to uterus wall................... if life is defined (as personhood usa wants a constitutional ammendment stating so) as at the moment of conception. using the pill or plan b is then considered murder and a women using said birth control could be charged as such.

learn to think for yourself for once.

Technically this is correct but what will happen is that those forms of birth control will simply become illegal. I think people being charged with murder...while certainly possible...is not their goal. They will deal with that by simply banning certain forms of birth control that interfere with or destroy a fertilized egg. Of course people may face legal prosecution for having and/or using those products but I doubt anyone will be charged with murder for taking the pill.

Still waiting for the list of "most" birth control options that will be banned because of the personhood law.

Still seems to me the only ones that would be banned would be the morning after, and actual surgical abortion...

Is that "most" of available birth control methods?

really, you dont have much reading comprehension and reasoning them

if the pill destroys a fertilized egg, and a fertilized is defined by law a person with legal rights.......... this is in essence murder as you have killed a human being.

if the pill does not allow for a fertalized egg to implant on the uterus wall, since a fertilized egg is defined as person with legal rights....... this is in essence murder. you have killed a human being.

Plan B does the same thing as the pill, just in a more concentrated dose.

the only contraception that would not be deemed illegal would be condoms.

no you tell me, why im wrong.

 

[koshergrl]

Technically this is correct but what will happen is that those forms of birth control will simply become illegal. I think people being charged with murder...while certainly possible...is not their goal. They will deal with that by simply banning certain forms of birth control that interfere with or destroy a fertilized egg. Of course people may face legal prosecution for having and/or using those products but I doubt anyone will be charged with murder for taking the pill.

Still waiting for the list of "most" birth control options that will be banned because of the personhood law.

Still seems to me the only ones that would be banned would be the morning after, and actual surgical abortion...

Is that "most" of available birth control methods?

really, you dont have much reading comprehension and reasoning them

if the pill destroys a fertilized egg, and a fertilized is defined by law a person with legal rights.......... this is in essence murder as you have killed a human being.

if the pill does not allow for a fertalized egg to implant on the uterus wall, since a fertilized egg is defined as person with legal rights....... this is in essence murder. you have killed a human being.

Plan B does the same thing as the pill, just in a more concentrated dose.

the only contraception that would not be deemed illegal would be condoms.

no you tell me, why im wrong.

Because you're an idiot:

"Birth control pills, or oral contraceptives, contain hormones that suppress ovulation. During ovulation an egg is released from the ovaries, without ovulation there is no egg to be fertilized and pregnancy cannot occur."

Moron.

"The progestin in the Minipill may prevent ovulation; however it may not do this reliably each month. The Minipill works further by thickening the mucous around the cervix and preventing sperm from entering the uterus."

How Does the Birth Control Pill Work?

 

[Immanuel]

apparently reasoning and reading comprehension is not one of your strong suits.

"Personhood USA serves the pro-life community"

"Personhood is a movement working to respect the God-given right to life by recognizing all human beings as persons who are “created in the image of God” from the beginning of their biological development, without exceptions."
"Personhood USA desires to glorify Jesus Christ in a way that creates a culture of life so that all innocent human lives are protected by love and by law.
Personhood USA serves the pro-life community by assisting local groups to initiate citizen, legislative, and political action focusing on the ultimate goal of the pro-life movement: personhood rights for all innocent humans.
We intend to build the support of at least two thirds of the states in an effort to reaffirm personhood within the U.S. Constitution."

now tell us all what birth control (i.e. the pill of plan b) does............... it either destroys a fertilized egg............ or it prevents a fertilized egg from attaching the to uterus wall................... if life is defined (as personhood usa wants a constitutional ammendment stating so) as at the moment of conception. using the pill or plan b is then considered murder and a women using said birth control could be charged as such.

learn to think for yourself for once.

Apparently you believe you have the right to define your opponent's beliefs and arguments.

How can anyone argue against your fallacious arguments when you decide what they think?

Immie

in not advocating a pro life stance / personhood stance.

so define your position.

are you against abortion?
are you against birth control?
are you for personhood laws?
are you for the repeal of Roe v. Wade?
are you against a persons right to choose?

Are you prepared to eat crow?

are you against abortion? Yes, without a doubt.

are you against birth control? absolutely not.

are you for personhood laws? Never said I was nor have I read enough about them to say whether or not I am for them.

are you for the repeal of Roe v. Wade? Repealing Roe v. Wade would not reduce the number of abortions by any significant number. It is not my goal. I would rather win the hearts of women and see them choose life.

are you against a persons right to choose? Are you thinking of anything at all but the right to choose to kill a human fetus? If not, and I suspect you are not, how is that any different than "are you against abortion?" Yes, I am for the right to choose birth control or the right to choose if I want to put cheese on my burger.

Now, are you going to tell me what I really think?

Immie

 

[JDzBrain]

You know what kills me about where the focus of where this thread has gone? The fact that liberals are arguing to FORCE insurance companies and tax payers to GIVE women a drug that the FDA classifies a Class A carcinogen and are working their asses off to keep them from eating Twinkies.

The hypocrisy of this borders on the...strike that...IS absurd!

ALMOST as absurd as the separation OF church and state argument when the 13 original states had 9 different OFFICIAL STATE RELIGIONS!

Which only changed when they realized that...as Jefferson argued...that if the state had a single official religion, state funds could not be used to establish colleges and hospitals that were founded by other religions.

It's AMAZING the ignorance on display by some on these subjects.

 

[Syphon]

Apparently you believe you have the right to define your opponent's beliefs and arguments.

How can anyone argue against your fallacious arguments when you decide what they think?

Immie

in not advocating a pro life stance / personhood stance.

so define your position.

are you against abortion?
are you against birth control?
are you for personhood laws?
are you for the repeal of Roe v. Wade?
are you against a persons right to choose?

Are you prepared to eat crow?

are you against abortion? Yes, without a doubt.

are you against birth control? absolutely not.

are you for personhood laws? Never said I was nor have I read enough about them to say whether or not I am for them.

are you for the repeal of Roe v. Wade? Repealing Roe v. Wade would not reduce the number of abortions by any significant number. It is not my goal. I would rather win the hearts of women and see them choose life.

are you against a persons right to choose? Are you thinking of anything at all but the right to choose to kill a human fetus? If not, and I suspect you are not, how is that any different than "are you against abortion?" Yes, I am for the right to choose birth control or the right to choose if I want to put cheese on my burger.

Now, are you going to tell me what I really think?

Immie

no i never told you what you should think, i told what the opinion of personhood laws, which until this post you never stated you were against when i raised the issue.

i am not against abortion because i dont believe a fetus under 12 weeks old in fact a person. i am against late term abortion. (i.e. 20 weeks or later into a pregnancy) i feel that its a womans choice to decided if she wants to actually have a child or not. not all pregnancy's are planned and i would rather have a woman abort, than have a child live either in extreme poverty or be a ward of the state.

so heres an interesting question. if you are against abortion, hence you believe life is sacred and should be protected at all costs (correct me if im wrong) then why is letting a person die because they do can not afford access to health care acceptable?

 

[koshergrl]

Who has died because they can't access healthcare due to cost?

Incidentally, if you can't see the difference between dying of an illness, and killing an infant, you have bigger problems than can be addressed here. And it's unlikely that the person who thinks that the pill works by aborting fertilized eggs is going to learn much...here.

 

[BluePhantom]

now tell us all what birth control (i.e. the pill of plan b) does............... it either destroys a fertilized egg............ or it prevents a fertilized egg from attaching the to uterus wall................... if life is defined (as personhood usa wants a constitutional ammendment stating so) as at the moment of conception. using the pill or plan b is then considered murder and a women using said birth control could be charged as such.

learn to think for yourself for once.

Technically this is correct but what will happen is that those forms of birth control will simply become illegal. I think people being charged with murder...while certainly possible...is not their goal. They will deal with that by simply banning certain forms of birth control that interfere with or destroy a fertilized egg. Of course people may face legal prosecution for having and/or using those products but I doubt anyone will be charged with murder for taking the pill.

Actually, it's not correct. The mechanism of action is to prevent ovulation from occurring in the first place. If contraception does occur, the medication has no effect on preventing pregnancy.

That's actually not correct.

"Oral contraceptives are designed to prevent pregnancy in one of three ways:

Prevent ovulation each month.

The cervix produces less and thicker mucus so that sperm cannot easily enter the uterus.

The lining of the uterus becomes thinner, making it more difficult for a fertilized egg to attach to the uterus should ovulation occur and fertilization take place. "

Oral Contraceptives: Birth Control Pills : American Pregnancy Association

How Birth Control Pills Prevent Pregnancy

Facts About Abortion: Can Birth Control Cause an Abortion?

 

[BluePhantom]

You know what kills me about where the focus of where this thread has gone? The fact that liberals are arguing to FORCE insurance companies and tax payers to GIVE women a drug that the FDA classifies a Class A carcinogen and are working their asses off to keep them from eating Twinkies.

The hypocrisy of this borders on the...strike that...IS absurd!

ALMOST as absurd as the separation OF church and state argument when the 13 original states had 9 different OFFICIAL STATE RELIGIONS!

Which only changed when they realized that...as Jefferson argued...that if the state had a single official religion, state funds could not be used to establish colleges and hospitals that were founded by other religions.

It's AMAZING the ignorance on display by some on these subjects.

It's almost as amazing as coming to a thread with over 500 posts thinking you are going to tell us something that hasn't already been beaten to death

 

[Immanuel]

in not advocating a pro life stance / personhood stance.

so define your position.

are you against abortion?
are you against birth control?
are you for personhood laws?
are you for the repeal of Roe v. Wade?
are you against a persons right to choose?

Are you prepared to eat crow?

are you against abortion? Yes, without a doubt.

are you against birth control? absolutely not.

are you for personhood laws? Never said I was nor have I read enough about them to say whether or not I am for them.

are you for the repeal of Roe v. Wade? Repealing Roe v. Wade would not reduce the number of abortions by any significant number. It is not my goal. I would rather win the hearts of women and see them choose life.

are you against a persons right to choose? Are you thinking of anything at all but the right to choose to kill a human fetus? If not, and I suspect you are not, how is that any different than "are you against abortion?" Yes, I am for the right to choose birth control or the right to choose if I want to put cheese on my burger.

Now, are you going to tell me what I really think?

Immie

no i never told you what you should think, i told what the opinion of personhood laws, which until this post you never stated you were against when i raised the issue.

i am not against abortion because i dont believe a fetus under 12 weeks old in fact a person. i am against late term abortion. (i.e. 20 weeks or later into a pregnancy) i feel that its a womans choice to decided if she wants to actually have a child or not. not all pregnancy's are planned and i would rather have a woman abort, than have a child live either in extreme poverty or be a ward of the state.

so heres an interesting question. if you are against abortion, hence you believe life is sacred and should be protected at all costs (correct me if im wrong) then why is letting a person die because they do can not afford access to health care acceptable?

Oh, now you are going to tell me what my beliefs are in regards to euthanasia, eugenics, welfare, medicaid/medicare and the ACA.

I can save you the problem of typing out my opinion of ACA. I am opposed to it. Not because I don't think we should do everything in our power to make sure that everyone who wants or needs health insurance... and by the way, ACA does nothing about health care it is all about increasing the bottom lines of health insurance companies... has it, but because one we as a nation can't afford it, two, it does not solve the problem. There are so many things wrong with ACA.

Would you like to take a stab at my views on Welfare? I will bet you won't come close if you don't search through the site to find out.

I'll leave welfare out of this so you can tell me what I think but let me help you out with the others:

Euthanasia: If there is someway that we can guarantee that it is the choice of the patient, then I do not oppose Euthanasia. I am concerned about the idea of Grandson Johnny euthanizing Grandpa Joe because Grandpa Joe is leaving a large inheritance and he just won't die fast enough.

Eugenics: You have me here. I take a hard rightwing stance against Margaret Sanger and her Eugenics buddies.

Medicaid/Medicare: I'm not a fan of Social Security. I don't think it should be eliminated, but I do believe it needs to be modified and that includes privatizing much of it. We need to wean ourselves off of it, so that retirees can improve their situation and leave much of the funds that were put into SSI to their families. After all, isn't that what the plan was supposed to insure survivability for the retiree and his/her family? As for Medicare and Medicaid, except for the fraud, I'm not against it at all.

Now, take your stab at pigeon-holing me on Welfare. No fair peeking.

Immie

 

[koshergrl]

If it's the choice of the patient, it isn't euthanasia..it's assisted suicide.

People get them confused. Euthanasia is just killing.

Assisted suicide is killing at the behest of the victim.

 

[koshergrl]

In case you haven't seen this:

"Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled."

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? -- Giubilini and Minerva -- Journal of Medical Ethics

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? -- Giubilini and Minerva -- Journal of Medical Ethics

 

[Syphon]

Are you prepared to eat crow?

are you against abortion? Yes, without a doubt.

are you against birth control? absolutely not.

are you for personhood laws? Never said I was nor have I read enough about them to say whether or not I am for them.

are you for the repeal of Roe v. Wade? Repealing Roe v. Wade would not reduce the number of abortions by any significant number. It is not my goal. I would rather win the hearts of women and see them choose life.

are you against a persons right to choose? Are you thinking of anything at all but the right to choose to kill a human fetus? If not, and I suspect you are not, how is that any different than "are you against abortion?" Yes, I am for the right to choose birth control or the right to choose if I want to put cheese on my burger.

Now, are you going to tell me what I really think?

Immie

no i never told you what you should think, i told what the opinion of personhood laws, which until this post you never stated you were against when i raised the issue.

i am not against abortion because i dont believe a fetus under 12 weeks old in fact a person. i am against late term abortion. (i.e. 20 weeks or later into a pregnancy) i feel that its a womans choice to decided if she wants to actually have a child or not. not all pregnancy's are planned and i would rather have a woman abort, than have a child live either in extreme poverty or be a ward of the state.

so heres an interesting question. if you are against abortion, hence you believe life is sacred and should be protected at all costs (correct me if im wrong) then why is letting a person die because they do can not afford access to health care acceptable?

Oh, now you are going to tell me what my beliefs are in regards to euthanasia, eugenics, welfare, medicaid/medicare and the ACA.

I can save you the problem of typing out my opinion of ACA. I am opposed to it. Not because I don't think we should do everything in our power to make sure that everyone who wants or needs health insurance... and by the way, ACA does nothing about health care it is all about increasing the bottom lines of health insurance companies... has it, but because one we as a nation can't afford it, two, it does not solve the problem. There are so many things wrong with ACA.

Would you like to take a stab at my views on Welfare? I will bet you won't come close if you don't search through the site to find out.

I'll leave welfare out of this so you can tell me what I think but let me help you out with the others:

Euthanasia: If there is someway that we can guarantee that it is the choice of the patient, then I do not oppose Euthanasia. I am concerned about the idea of Grandson Johnny euthanizing Grandpa Joe because Grandpa Joe is leaving a large inheritance and he just won't die fast enough.

Eugenics: You have me here. I take a hard rightwing stance against Margaret Sanger and her Eugenics buddies.

Medicaid/Medicare: I'm not a fan of Social Security. I don't think it should be eliminated, but I do believe it needs to be modified and that includes privatizing much of it. We need to wean ourselves off of it, so that retirees can improve their situation and leave much of the funds that were put into SSI to their families. After all, isn't that what the plan was supposed to insure survivability for the retiree and his/her family? As for Medicare and Medicaid, except for the fraud, I'm not against it at all.

Now, take your stab at pigeon-holing me on Welfare. No fair peeking.

Immie

1. never mentioned the health care law, thanks for making assumptions.
2. never mentioned euthanasia
3. never mentioned eugenics
4. Never mentioned SS, Medicare, Medicare or Welfare
so im actually gonna avoid everything you said, since that is not part of the current discussion.

why cant you answer simple questions when asked.

if you are against abortion, hence you believe life is sacred and should be protected at all costs (correct me if im wrong) then why is letting a person die because they do can not afford access to health care acceptable? (leave the ACA out this, and answer the question)

you seem to have a real hard time answering directly asked questions. are you afraid of the answers?

 

[Immanuel]

In case you haven't seen this:

"Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled."

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? -- Giubilini and Minerva -- Journal of Medical Ethics

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? -- Giubilini and Minerva -- Journal of Medical Ethics

Actually, I started the thread on that two days ago. It died very quickly. It seemed that liberals avoided that thread like it was the Bobonic Plague.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...ons-the-next-step-for-planned-parenthood.html

Immie

 

[koshergrl]

Oh here, I started one again then...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...-baby-we-should-kill-both-with-impunity.html?

 

[Gadawg73]

Santorum got his ass kicked. He had a shit load of Democrat crossover primary votes and still lost. Santorum is a big supporter of unions and voted against right to work legislation. That is most of the support he got in Michigan.
He is toast. No one wants the Taliban in the White House.
Romney is the man and a good candidate. Just sent him a large check.

 

[Immanuel]

no i never told you what you should think, i told what the opinion of personhood laws, which until this post you never stated you were against when i raised the issue.

i am not against abortion because i dont believe a fetus under 12 weeks old in fact a person. i am against late term abortion. (i.e. 20 weeks or later into a pregnancy) i feel that its a womans choice to decided if she wants to actually have a child or not. not all pregnancy's are planned and i would rather have a woman abort, than have a child live either in extreme poverty or be a ward of the state.

so heres an interesting question. if you are against abortion, hence you believe life is sacred and should be protected at all costs (correct me if im wrong) then why is letting a person die because they do can not afford access to health care acceptable?

Oh, now you are going to tell me what my beliefs are in regards to euthanasia, eugenics, welfare, medicaid/medicare and the ACA.

I can save you the problem of typing out my opinion of ACA. I am opposed to it. Not because I don't think we should do everything in our power to make sure that everyone who wants or needs health insurance... and by the way, ACA does nothing about health care it is all about increasing the bottom lines of health insurance companies... has it, but because one we as a nation can't afford it, two, it does not solve the problem. There are so many things wrong with ACA.

Would you like to take a stab at my views on Welfare? I will bet you won't come close if you don't search through the site to find out.

I'll leave welfare out of this so you can tell me what I think but let me help you out with the others:

Euthanasia: If there is someway that we can guarantee that it is the choice of the patient, then I do not oppose Euthanasia. I am concerned about the idea of Grandson Johnny euthanizing Grandpa Joe because Grandpa Joe is leaving a large inheritance and he just won't die fast enough.

Eugenics: You have me here. I take a hard rightwing stance against Margaret Sanger and her Eugenics buddies.

Medicaid/Medicare: I'm not a fan of Social Security. I don't think it should be eliminated, but I do believe it needs to be modified and that includes privatizing much of it. We need to wean ourselves off of it, so that retirees can improve their situation and leave much of the funds that were put into SSI to their families. After all, isn't that what the plan was supposed to insure survivability for the retiree and his/her family? As for Medicare and Medicaid, except for the fraud, I'm not against it at all.

Now, take your stab at pigeon-holing me on Welfare. No fair peeking.

Immie

1. never mentioned the health care law, thanks for making assumptions.
2. never mentioned euthanasia
3. never mentioned eugenics
4. Never mentioned SS, Medicare, Medicare or Welfare
so im actually gonna avoid everything you said, since that is not part of the current discussion.

why cant you answer simple questions when asked.

if you are against abortion, hence you believe life is sacred and should be protected at all costs (correct me if im wrong) then why is letting a person die because they do can not afford access to health care acceptable? (leave the ACA out this, and answer the question)

you seem to have a real hard time answering directly asked questions. are you afraid of the answers?

then why is letting a person die because they do can not afford access to health care acceptable?

I already answered your question. I don't give a shit if you don't like my answer. You won't get another. This was my answer: "Not because I don't think we should do everything in our power to make sure that everyone who wants or needs health insurance... has it, but because one we as a nation can't afford it, two, it does not solve the problem."

What the hell gives you the right to insinuate that I am for letting someone die because they can't afford health insurance? Now you have crossed the line from being an ass to being a prick.

I don't have any problem answering direct questions. I have answered every one you asked me at least once, yet you don't like the answers I have given you so, you won't accept my answer. About all I can tell you is shove your games in your ass and go play with someone that you can trap.

Immie