Democrat Congressman – I Care More About People Without Healthcare Than The Constitution

If our members of Congress use their emotions as the only parameters for how the federal government should or should not act, then the United States is done. Kaput. Over.

Nations that don’t have a Constitution as we do that specifically limits the government’s actions and power end up making laws out of thin air without any regard for individual rights. This has led to all kinds of terrible things, from becoming a nanny state all the way to becoming a police state.

This Phil Hare person has no business being anywhere near our government.

Regarding Congressman Hare’s bleeding heart, Thomas Jefferson had made it clear regarding the General Welfare Clause that good intentions on Congress’s part are no substitute for basing legislation on enumerated powers.

“1. To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.

It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.” –Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791

This guy is unbelievable! To think the Constitution does not matter to him, which he swore to uphold. That should be enough to throw him out of office. Fortunatly this moron is not in my district, as I am from IL also. But I can hardly wait to hear what my Representative says after voting YES for the people, as she says. She must not have heard the PEOPLE.

PS. Yes, I am from the “Heart of Obama” country but that does not mean that I support him or his corrupt “Chicago” style of politics.

If I could I’d start impeachment hearings on Monday morning — it would take that long to draw up the legal documents. He’s admitted that the oath he gave his a fraud. Nothing would send the message more nicely than to take this corpulent toad out of power immediately. Let him spend the rest of his term defending it — right until the day he’s unelected, then send him to jail — hound this man into submission.

I’m feeling charitable today, so that’s as far as it should go. Hound, impeach, jail. ‘Nough said.

😳 Phil Hare was picked by the Party machine in Rock Island County over a very popular and intelligent Mayor of the City of Rock Island to replace the former reprentative. The machine has been running the district like the Daley’s run Chicago. Strong arm and get the union vote! As you can tell Mr. Hare is really intelligent???
😳

…. and you’re faced with a $10,000 or $15,000 medical bill, waaaa… cars cost more than that, make payments and get over it. What’s more important, your boy’s life or cable tv?

The dishonorable Congressman seems to “know” what’s in the 2700 page health care bill but doesn’t know the Declaration of Independence from the Constitution. Makes you wonder how well he retains what he reads and if he’s even bothered to read with the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.

Some peoples priorities are all f’d up.

JIMHLAVAC we could do like they did to NAPOLEON ,,exile to an island and we could add to it by capzising the island,,bye 🙄

IMHO the interviewers were behaving like total jackasses. Congressman Hare sat down to talk with them, whereupon they took turns badgering him until he finally lost his composure and gave them an offhanded remark they could run with. No doubt they’re delighted to have a video comment that they can now present totally out of context in a negative campaign ad.

If I had a friend or loved one who was sick and without insurance, and somebody was in my face yapping at me about healthcare and the Constitution, I might well make a similar comment myself. It wouldn’t reflect my actual views about the importance of the document.

The guy asked the question: “Where in the Constitution does it say you can force someone to have insurance?” I could ask a slightly different question: “Where in the Constitution does it say that you can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term?”

Literally, the Constitution doesn’t say anything about abortion, just as it says nothing about insurance or semi-trucks, or beer. We create rules, however, based on concepts drawn from the plain language of the Constitution. So the internet is tethered back into the Commerce Clause, the Patents and Copyrights clause, and the First Amendment. The right to an abortion and the right to use a condom if you want is drawn from the Ninth Amendment, and the right to not send your kids to school because you think education is a afront to God is drawn from the First Amendment “free exercise” clause.

And here’s the funny part: there is more of a Constitutional basis for the “right” to have an abortion (in the Ninth Amendment — “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”) than there is for freedom from “forced” financial responsibility, i.e., health insurance. Cons rely on the Tenth Amendment (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”) but act as if the Spending Clause and the Commerce Clause provide no mechanism to force THE STATES to provide for health care, or the mandates apply to the citizens in that state. And that, my friends, is what much of this bill is — a series of mandates on states, some paid for directly, some dolled out as part of the Medicare and Medicaid funding.

I do not necessarily expect a congressman to know all the constitutional underpinnings of a given statute, or the various permutations of constitutional scrutiny that could be applied to a statute. You will have judges decide, at some point, whether the statutes elements pass muster or don’t, and many judges will disagree. (Hell, just last year, Scalia and friends questioned the constitutionality of “disparate impact” analysis in Title VII, and that statute is more than 40 years old!) So to have some moron pontificate about how the statutes are “obviously” unconstitution because the Constitution does not mention the word “insurance”, is a joke.

I am especially not going to expect a terribly high level of analysis from Phil Hare.

http://hare.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=314&sectiontree=2,314

Hare is a working class guy with a high school education; he is not a lawyer and he has been in Congress a little more than three years. You cons CLAIM there are too many lawyers in the Congress . . . OK . . . but if you don’t have lawyers, you can expect them not to be as conversant with the Constitution, or to understand all the nuanced constitutional ramifications of legislation. Hell, Newt Gingrich doesn’t know shiznit about the Constitution, but we don’t hold it against him, do we?

But the tool operating the camera, the one yelling and all angry, pontificating about the Constitution . . . I bet he would not know (or acknowledge) the Constitutional basis of the “right to privacy” . . which is freedom from governmental interference, rooted in the Ninth Amendment.

Indeed, I wonder if the reason that all the wingnut AGs who are suing are using the bogus Tenth Amendment argument because they don’t like the implications of using a Ninth Amendment argument. Makes you wonder . . . .

@ B. Johnson… thank you for the Jefferson quote on “general welfare”… what part of that gem from the guy that authored the Constitution do the activist supreme court judges and Congress not understand.

I don’t expect congressmen to know everything, but there’s right and wrong that anyone with a smidgeon of common sense can figre out (B-Rob is in the sans smidgeon category)

@Mr. Irons

FYI: Important document that it is, the Declaration of Independence is not sworn to be upheld (unlike the Constitution) by government officials and the military, nor does the Supreme Court recognize that has any legal bearing whatsoever in Constitutional Law. (and be glad that it doesn’t, else Democrats would have used it to create even more entitlement programs.) The Supreme Court only recognizes the D of I as an important historically significant document.

The problem with lawyers writing legislation is they can take an idea you and I can articulate in a paragraph so that other people can understand what’s being said, and turn it into 20 pages of legalese that requires a judge to figure out what they really said.

After all, it wasn’t too long ago that a lawyer argued about “what is the meaning of is”. Well BJ Clinton… here’s a clue… “You is no longer an attorney”

Concerning abortion… we need a simple law that states

“For the purposes of bestowing Constitutional rights; it is herby decreed that life begins begins one week after conception.”

I I used one week because it takes that long before you can even test to see if a pregnancy exists.

Thanks Curt. I’m sending this to my address book. What a gigantic ‘hole. Please ignore email.. I can now post. ?????

21. Jefferson had no direct role in authoring the Constitution, as he was Minister to France at the time. In fact, on his return, Jefferson was one of the leading sources of opposition to its ratification.

@ilovebeeswarzone…Yes, I think it ought to be a law that anyone considering abortion should have to watch a video of an abortion to see what the baby goes through and how it is killed. Because even though all those out there who think it should be a woman’s choice, when you get right down to it, it is murder.

In cases of medical emergency or incest, I can understand how that would be different, but in cases of it being a woman’s choice…well murder is murder; plain and simple.

Look at these links, ilove…

“Abby Johnson, 29, used to escort women from their cars to the clinic in the eight years she volunteered and worked for Planned Parenthood in Bryan, Texas. But she says she knew it was time to leave after she watched a fetus “crumple” as it was vacuumed out of a patient’s uterus in September.

“Every meeting that we had was, ‘We don’t have enough money, we don’t have enough money — we’ve got to keep these abortions coming,'” Johnson told FoxNews.com. “It’s a very lucrative business and that’s why they want to increase numbers.””

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2009/11/02/planned-parenthood-director-quits-watching-abortion-ultrasound/

Here is the lady in the above news story being interviewed by Mike Huckabee. She explains what she saw about the baby trying desperately to get away from the doctor’s probe at around the 3 minute mark.

Here is a link that touches on the philosophy of the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger:

Does anyone care to think about the husband or boyfriend that wants the baby? There have been court cases where the husband/boyfriend wanted the baby, the woman didn’t, therefore the woman got the abortion. If a woman doesn’t want a child, there are a number of birth control methods to PREVENT pregnancy. Number one is GET OFF YOUR BACK AND OUT OF THE RACK!. Even stupid people can understand that. Abortion is murder, pure and simple.
Madalyn

anticsrocks —

“BRob why it is okay to kill that unborn child?”

I’ll put it this way. Childbearing involves inherent physical risks including, but not limited to (just from my own experience and those of friends and family) eclampsia leading to death, stroke, blindness, cardiomyopathy leading to death, and uterine rupture leading to hysterectomy. These are actually risks that occur with carrying to term. And you never know whether a particular pregnancy will go smoothly, or whether the woman will end up dead, disabled, or unable to have any more kids. Since I am not a woman carrying a child, I simply believe that the woman who is going to face those risks should be the one deciding whether it is worth it . . . NOT government, and certainly not you or your church. If you don’t believe in abortion, fine — don’t have one. But leave to the pregnant woman whether she will carry to term, not knowing whether it will be her last pregnancy or the end of her life.

Given how much conservatives claim they believe in freedom, and how they pooh pooh government’s ability to make smart decisions or execute a plan, I fail to see why so called conservative cannot grasp the concept that government should not intrude in these kinds of life or death decisions. (It is why y’all got the Terri Sciavo situation wrong, too.) Moreover, your question casually avoids the point I made about the Constitution: nowhere does it give government the right to interfere in the decision regarding child bearing. So where do you cons get off trying to butt in and force women to face the risks I noted (eclampsia leading to death, stroke, blindness, cardiomyopathy leading to death, and uterine rupture leading to hysterectomy) even if they choses not to? What authority do you have to interfere? Certainly there is no such authority in the plain language of the Constitution.

Madalyn —

For the reasons I stated above, that is why the man should not have veto power. Because the last I checked, no man has ever lost his uterus to a rupture during a vaginal delivery.

atti —

Unless the pro athlete was forcing these women to have unprotected sex, then he is not solely responsible for having so many kids. You need to ask those women why they were choosing to have unprotected sex, even though they would run the risk of pregnancy. We might as well start with Nancy Reagan and Pat Robertson’s wife, Adelia, to see why they had unprotected sex and got knocked up out of wedlock. Furthermore, I am not sure why cons always seem to want to compare people to animals; the South Carolina governor candidate did the same thing you just did. You do not advance your cause one iota by resorting to such base commentary. If you do not know the difference between your cat and a human being, then you really should not be commenting on the pregnancy/abortion issue at all.

ryan —

You wrote “As for abortion, since you brought it up, one of the amendments that you mentioned in support of abortion actually makes the recently passed health care reform bill illegal via the constitution.” Good to see that SOMEONE caught my point.

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the government to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term (which is, any doctor will tell you, an inherently risk-filled proposition). Likewise there is nothing in the Constitution that would permit the government to force someone to buy health insurance. I think the reason that con AGs refuse to use the Ninth Amendment is that they don’t like the idea of unfettered freedom from government interference in decision making. They like the idea of government control when the issue is abortion; they wish to retain government’s right to regulate what goes on in a woman’s body, therefore they can’t use the Ninth Amendment’s implicit freedom from government interference as the basis of their lawsuit. Because it would be a bad precedent for the anti-abortion side. So the con AGs are, instead, using the totally b.s. Tenth Amendment argument, even though it will not work.

Personally, I think we should not be forced to buy health insurance. But I also believe that a hospital should not be forced to provide health care to your uninsured a$$ either. That is the part that the teabaggers refuse to acknowledge: that their insistence on being “free” from the mandate to buy health insurance puts the financial burden on the rest of us who do have insurance, since the hospitals will have to pass on the costs of unpaid health care to someone, or they go under. The anti-mandate folks, in that sense, want to maintain the free-rider problems we have now. This is inherently unfair, which is why it was conservatives think tanks that came up with the insurance mandate idea in the first place. And that is also why the mandate is constitutional: both the mandate that hospitals provide the care, and the mandate that you get insurance, flow from government’s interests in preserving the general welfare and its interest in using its dollars in a manner to serve that purpose. We will all be better off, i.m.h.o., when the financial onus is not on individual employers to buy health insurance and the onus is not on hospitals to provide uncompensated care. This bill approaches both goals without having a centralized single payer system. Indeed, the health insurers obviously think it will help them, as you can see from the price of their stock since the bill passed.

Personally, what I would like to see is a system where, when you turned 18, you fill out a form. You will either chose to be part of the socialistic Great Society and pay higher taxes, or be a Lone Wolf and pay lower taxes. The Great Society folks will have federally subsidized mortgages, health care, student loans, welfare if they need it, Social Security, etc. The Lone Wolves get nothing. If a Lone Wolf loses his job, he is sh*t out of luck and gets no unemployment compensation. And he will not get the Obama Stimulus Plan COBRA subsidy to continue his health insurance because, after all, that is for the Great Society folks only. If he cannot pay his insurance premium, then he loses it. If he is uninsured, no hospital has to treat him, no matter how severe his injuries from an auto accident. Why? Because he is a Lone Wolf and government owes him nothing.

Y’all want a Randian system? Have at it! Put your money where your mouth is. But don’t sit around and criticize our socialist system when its convenient, then suck on the government teat when times get tough, or when it presents a better deal for you.

@B-Rob the Liar, Waster of Air and Time

The law here is only to address when the rights of citizenship are bestowed.

I never said jack S… about abortion. The law would be simple…. one week after conception (that’s the time the sperm enters the egg and cells begin to divide, cells with their own unique DNA, which is about the time it takes to determine if pregnancy has occured. At that point the “lawyers” can argue their cases pitting one citizen’s rights against the rights of another. Over the course of time, case law would answer all of these questions. But, the best course of action, if you’re pregnant don’t seek out procedures that would kill an unborn citizen of the United States.

You’ve been an ardent supporter of ObamaCare… yet all the answers aren’t in that behemoth 2700 page bill. Why would you expect all the answers to be provide in this case? You really are a dumb ass.

Gotta love lawyers, they’re so low, they gotta look up to see whale shit, and B-Rob the Liar, Waster of Air and Time has to look up to see lawyers.

@B-Rob the Liar, Waster of Air and Time

The nice thing about the United States, you have the right to associate with whomever you choose. You advocate the following:

Personally, what I would like to see is a system where, when you turned 18, you fill out a form. You will either chose to be part of the socialistic Great Society and pay higher taxes, or be a Lone Wolf and pay lower taxes. The Great Society folks will have federally subsidized mortgages, health care, student loans, welfare if they need it, Social Security, etc. The Lone Wolves get nothing. If a Lone Wolf loses his job, he is sh*t out of luck and gets no unemployment compensation. And he will not get the Obama Stimulus Plan COBRA subsidy to continue his health insurance because, after all, that is for the Great Society folks only. If he cannot pay his insurance premium, then he loses it. If he is uninsured, no hospital has to treat him, no matter how severe his injuries from an auto accident. Why? Because he is a Lone Wolf and government owes him nothing.

There is nothing to stop you and like minded individuals from forming your own co-op, where you are free to fund and provide all of these things for each other. So… let the rubber hit the road, I expect to hear of your astounding progress in the very near future.

@B-Rob the Liar, Waster of Air and Time

“your “simple sentence” has a sh*tload of implications that, obviously, will need more than a paragraph to deal with. That, my friends, is why you need lawyers to write laws, not lay people”

The highest law of the land; The U.S. Constitution has 4,400 words. It is the oldest and shortest written Constitution of any major government in the world.” Concieved and written mostly by “lay people”. And it’s a damn good thing too… otherwise dumb ass lawyer types would still be debating all the “implications and ramifications”, it would be 100,000 pages and it still wouldn’t be signed.

Now be a good dumb ass… and go start your utopian socialistic co-op.

BRob is back on the troll timeclock.

RYAN wow you said what many of us mean to say,very well.thank you 🙄

@BRob…You can’t have it both ways.

“Personally, I think we should not be forced to buy health insurance. ”

Here you are against the mandate.

“And that is also why the mandate is constitutional”

And here you are for it. What a complete mess of ill-logic that flows from your mind. You attempt to make a Constitutional argument for the mandate based upon the general welfare clause. What a joke.

In a letter to Rev. Frederick Besley, James Madison wrote in respect to the general welfare wording in the Constitution:

“ With respect to the words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. ”

You obviously are not a Constitutional lawyer, so don’t quit your day job – if you even have one.

You also said:

“I fail to see why so called conservative cannot grasp the concept that government should not intrude in these kinds of life or death decisions. (It is why y’all got the Terri Sciavo situation wrong, too.)”

Where do I even start?? First of all, it is Terri Schiavo. Good God man, get it right and show the poor deceased woman the respect she deserves. It takes what, 2 seconds to google her name and make sure the spelling is correct?

Secondly, you purport that the Conservatives, – or ‘cons’ as you are so fond of typing (I am guessing it is because four letters are easier for you to type and words like Schiavo give you trouble) but to my point, you claim we ‘cons’ got it wrong. Well that is such a specific statement. I will have to assume you mean that the Republicans advocated to step in and save that woman’s life and should have stayed out of it. You are either woefully misinformed or just plain disingenuous.

What really happened is that a very, very deceptive poll was used during that case to advocate the far left’s favorite cause, killing an innocent person. After a Florida judge ordered her to be starved to death because of lies her adulterous husband told, relating a story that she had supposedly said as much after watching a TV show decades earlier. ABC is the entity behind this awful poll which they used to claim that the vast majority of Americans wanted Schiavo to die. The question said:

“Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for fifteen years. Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible. Her husband and her parents disagree about whether she would have wanted to be kept alive. Florida courts have sided with the husband and her feeding tube was removed on Friday. What’s your opinion on this case-do you support or oppose the decision to remove Schiavo’s feeding tube?”

She wasn’t on “life support” any more than a toddler is on life support because he needs help being fed. It wasn’t true she had no “consciousness,” and her condition was not “irreversible.” That was merely what the doctors paid for by her lying, adulterous husband stated, as opposed to what other doctors reported, such as the ones produced by her parents, who wanted her to live. It also was not true that the question being raised was whether to keep her on life support. SHE WASN’T ON LIFE SUPPORT. The fact of the matter was that the Florida courts had not even sided with the husband, only one lone judge. The other courts found they did not have the authority to overturn the one judge’s decision who ordered her to die. So the ABC poll that was filled with lies, obtained the answer the liberals were fishing for. 63% supported removing Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube based on the falsehoods presented in the question and 28% were opposed.

A follow up ABC poll asked whether it was “appropriate or inappropriate for Congress to get involved in this way?” To this question, 70% said “inappropriate” and 27% said “appropriate.”

But a Zogby poll stayed away from the rhetoric and asked this question:

“If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water?”

Not surprisingly, the Zogby poll found that 79% of respondents said the patient should not be denied food and water; with only NINE PERCENT saying the ought to get no food or water.

So with the lie filled ABC poll leading the way, the liberal media seized upon this as a way to attack Republicans and Conservatives. The Los Angeles Slimes said, “Democrats are preparing to link the Republican move against the filibusters with Washington’s last-minute effort to require additional judicial review in the Schiavo case—a step polls showed was opposed by a large majority of Americans.”

Let me remind you, BRob…the Democrats were trying to stop those evil Republicans from, GASP!!! – not forcing Schiavo to be given food and water, but to ask for more judicial review of the case. Oh those horrible GOP monsters!

As for abortion, you are just an ignoramus that thinks he is an intellectual. You purport that the Government stay out of the abortion issue, yet you expect that same Government to sit by and allow that baby to be murdered. Talk about being two faced. Who advocates for that unborn baby, BRob? You talk of the risks of pregnancy, well did not the woman assume those risks when she got pregnant in the first place? Why do you far left nut jobs think it is okay for some women to use abortion as retroactive birth control?

You also accused me of making Constitutional arguments about abortion. I did no such thing. I made, and continue to make arguments against abortion based upon humanitarian reasoning and responsible thought.

You sir, (and I use that term very loosely) are simply talking to hear yourself jabber. You make no valid points and your arguments tend to ping pong from one side to the other of whatever topic you are ‘debating.’

BRob run along, the grown-ups are trying to have a meaningful debate here. Go find some other blog that needs a resident troll.

Don Bly —

You seem to grow less and less intelligent each day. I am reminded of “Flowers for Algernon.” I think I will call you Charley Bly, from now on! You wrote: “I simply addressed when the rights of citizenship would be bestowed. A very simple concept….” You numbskull, I asked you a simple question: does the zygote get human rights on implantation or at fertilization? If you don’t understand the legal ramifications, then you are too “un-bright” to be trusted with the TV remote, nonetheless influencing policy.

As far as the “Lone Wolf” proposal, Charley, it is intended to smoke out the gravy train riders . . . you know the people who like all the government benefits but refuse to pay their fair share. Like these teabaggers noted here:

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/hartmann-what-happens-when-you-show-tea-pa

My Lone Wolf plan says “You don’t want high taxes? Fine. You also don’t get the benes.” I fail to understand what is so “unfair” about that, as you and Ryan imply. But then I remember: the cons are the party of the free lunch! They want the benes, without the taxes to pay for them! Its just like the Magic Tax Cut Fairie, who the cons predict will come sprinking dollars so that you ca increase spending and cut revenues to, and voila, no deficits!

Ryan —

By bringing in the Nazis, you authomatically lose the argument. Godwin’s Law, dude. Thanks for trying, though.

And you make no sense, to boot. You wrote: “Actually, many socialists said the same thing in defense of their ideas.” Which socialist countries offered people an opt out? Name them! My utopia wold be rather simple: people who want to have safety net pay for it and get one; the rest . . . no soup for you! Why is this “wrong” or “unfair”? In fact, I think it makes more sense that the Randian Paul Ryan plan, where .

In fact, why don’t we have that as part of the GOP “repeal and replace” campaign: people are not “mandated” to get insurance. If you want insurance, you pay a tax and can get a subsidy for your and your family. But if you don’t have insurance, or have cash on the barrelhead, you don’t get health care. It would put all those teabaggers in a “put up or shut up” position, as oppose to what they want now, which is health care at no cost to them.

Madalyn —

You are simply not a very honest person. I did not “make it sound like every pregnancy is almost guaranteed to cause death or serious injury to the woman.” What I said was that death and serious injury are part and parcel with childbearing. This is a fact that cannot be disputed; ask any doctor. And because of the risks, I believe that the person bearing the risks is the only person who should be calling the shots . . . because it is her life and her reproductive future that are at risk . . . not mine or yours or Newt Gingrich’s.

You also wrote: “God forbid any more women make the mistake of getting pregnant. They could wind up dead acccording to your calculations.” This is, in fact, statistically true: with every pregnancy, there is a risk that the woman may not make it out alive. Because childbearing is no frigging joke. I know this the hard way, as does any Ob/gynecologist who has been around long enough. You can put you head in the samd about the risks if you wish; won’t change reality, though.

“It’s like I said before, abortion is MURDER!!!” That is your opinion and I assume you have lived your life based on that belief. Does not give you or anyone else the right to force any other person to bear the risks that I laid out above. I know your moral argument would be “cleaner” if there were no concommittent risks from pregnancy, but there are. Which is why it should be none of your friggin business whether a woman has an abortion or not. Don’t believe in abortion? Good. Don’t have one.

“You literally make me sick!” Mad, the feeling is mutual . . . your reflexive ignorance in the face of fact, your inability to reason and use any judgment, your childish resort to emotion . . . all very tiring.

anticrocks —

My cats could understand that you don’t delete the middle part of an argument, then declare that it makes no sense. Why not try dealing with what I ACTUALLY SAID instead of resorting to creative editing?

I said: if hospitals are forced to take all comers, we need a mandate to keep the hospitals and the public from GOING FLAT BROKE PROVIDING HEALTH CARE TO FREELOADERS WHO REFUSE TO GET INSURANCE BUT STILL INSIST ON GETTING HEALTH CARE. This is common sense, but cons don’t seem to grasp common sense any more. Instead, for some reason, the party of “personal responsibility” now wished to be the party of the gravy train. Not “Don’t tread on me” as much as “Free Lunch.” But I don’t want it to continue. That does not make me an “intellectual” or a socialist; but it does make you cons a bunch of slackers and enablers. Again: the mandate idea was put forth by the Heritage Foundation, then adopted by Mitt Romney. But Obama adopts the same thing and all of a sudden everythis is Hitler and Dachau.

I mean, seriously, if ten years ago, I told you that someone would pass a law to induce people to be financial responsibility and not pass their debts on to the general public, would you think that the GOP would be in LOCK STEP OPPOSITION? Especially since it was their idea in the first place?

You cons have totally lost it.