"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 12/29/13, 12:44 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 07:25:56 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



You mean through private health insurance? Well, the regressive
governors and legislatures in some states have taken care of that for
the pushy religious. Seems reasonable that if I don't want my insurance
premiums to pay for cancer treatments for smokers, why, smokers should
be S.O.L. when they need surgery or chemo or whatever, right? Right?

D'oh.

So you would also deny treatment of gallstones, type 2 diabetes, high
blood pressure, high cholesterol and triglycerides, coronary artery
disease (CAD), a stroke, and sleep apnea for fat people?

Nobody held them down and shoved that pie in their mouth.



I was being sarcastic, Gregg-ster. You didn't see the "right. Right?" I
would hope you would have realized that.

No, I wouldn't deny coverage for anything on your little list, nor would
I deny coverage for abortion. And of course, I also wouldn't allow anyone
to exclude themselves from getting coverage. Universal health care
coverage for *all* and if we have to pay for it by selling a few aircraft
carriers or nuclear submarines or F35s, so be it.



Bull**** on the being sarcastic. You actually believe this ****. I would
much more support birth control supplies being paid for by the government.
Something is really wrong with society, when almost 50% of births are out
of wedlock and welfare is paying for more than 50% of those kids. When you
get more money for more kids, and we are on 6+ generations of welfare
families!

wrote:
On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 05:44:38 -0800, hank
wrote:


I have no problem with anyone wanting an abortion. I do have a problem
with the govt. deciding on who pays for it. When and if you finally get
around to paying your taxes, you'll probably take a more conservative
view of what the govt. does with your money.


I think that is the best use of government money I can think of.

Kill them while they are fetuses so we don't have the 18 year welfare
bill, followed by a 50 year prison bill. (or a multimillion death
penalty fight)

I actually agree with this post.

On 12/29/13, 1:19 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 13:08:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

and if we have to pay for it by selling a few
aircraft carriers or nuclear submarines or F35s, so be it.

Who would you sell them to?


I'd list them on eBay.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

On 12/29/13, 1:37 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 12/29/13, 12:44 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 07:25:56 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



You mean through private health insurance? Well, the regressive
governors and legislatures in some states have taken care of that for
the pushy religious. Seems reasonable that if I don't want my insurance
premiums to pay for cancer treatments for smokers, why, smokers should
be S.O.L. when they need surgery or chemo or whatever, right? Right?

D'oh.

So you would also deny treatment of gallstones, type 2 diabetes, high
blood pressure, high cholesterol and triglycerides, coronary artery
disease (CAD), a stroke, and sleep apnea for fat people?

Nobody held them down and shoved that pie in their mouth.



I was being sarcastic, Gregg-ster. You didn't see the "right. Right?" I
would hope you would have realized that.

No, I wouldn't deny coverage for anything on your little list, nor would
I deny coverage for abortion. And of course, I also wouldn't allow anyone
to exclude themselves from getting coverage. Universal health care
coverage for *all* and if we have to pay for it by selling a few aircraft
carriers or nuclear submarines or F35s, so be it.



Bull**** on the being sarcastic. You actually believe this ****. I would
much more support birth control supplies being paid for by the government.
Something is really wrong with society, when almost 50% of births are out
of wedlock and welfare is paying for more than 50% of those kids. When you
get more money for more kids, and we are on 6+ generations of welfare
families!



Indeed, Bilious, I do believe in mandatory universal health care
coverage, and I don't believe the conditions mentioned should be
excluded from coverage.

I also believe we should cut back drastically on military spending, with
the goal of reducing it by at least 50% over the next decade.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

On 12/29/13, 1:37 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 12/29/13, 12:15 AM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 12/28/13, 8:20 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 12/28/13, 5:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:20 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

On 12/28/13, 4:15 PM, wrote:


Excellent PR by the Catholic Church. They even made a believer of you.


Indeed, I believe the new pope has the right idea about what he should
say and do and of course I admire his ability to really, truly, **** off
the conservative christians in name only. But, I'm afraid, the catholic
church and religion have no appeal for me.


You've made that abundantly clear over and over and over and over again.

There are many however to whom the Catholic Church and religion in
general are major parts of their lives. How they practice their faith
and how involved they are are personal decisions to which they are
entitled. You have no right to establish the "rules".

Why do you insist on jamming your non-interest in what is important to
them "down their throats"?


I do have the right to do what I can to make sure "the religious" don't
shove or try to shove their beliefs down the throats of our non-sectarian
society. Why should they be allowed to do that?

I don't give a damn what the religious do or say in their churches or
homes in terms of forcing their smallmindedness on each other.

I will admit to giggling inside when several of the self-proclaimed
"christians" here make fun of minorities or the poor. I'm sure that's
what Jesus would want them to do, eh?


They have just as much right to jam it down your throat as you do to ram
your views down others throats.


Ah, but Bilious...I'm not doing anything to force abortions or gay
relationships on anyone, nor am I pushing a legislative agenda that does any of this.

"The Religious" to whom I refer are doing their best legislatively to
push their anti-gay, anti-abortion agenda on those who do not subscribe to their beliefs.

Even if I get my way in the legislature and abortions are kept readily
available on those who want one, I'm not forcing anyone to get one.

Got it?


Got it that you are forcing your beliefs on others! Maybe those others
think that even if abortions are legal, they should not have pay for them!


You mean through private health insurance? Well, the regressive governors
and legislatures in some states have taken care of that for the pushy
religious. Seems reasonable that if I don't want my insurance premiums to
pay for cancer treatments for smokers, why, smokers should be S.O.L. when
they need surgery or chemo or whatever, right? Right?

D'oh.


Hell, smokers cost us less than most groups lifetime cost. They die
earlier, and do not linger for years as an octogenarian. And they pay a
lot of money via sin taxes to provide for their care. Abortion and
pregnancy is a lot different than cancer, and diseases.



Whoosh...right over your head. Again.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 12/29/13, 1:37 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 12/29/13, 12:15 AM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 12/28/13, 8:20 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 12/28/13, 5:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:20 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

On 12/28/13, 4:15 PM, wrote:


Excellent PR by the Catholic Church. They even made a believer of you.


Indeed, I believe the new pope has the right idea about what he should
say and do and of course I admire his ability to really, truly, **** off
the conservative christians in name only. But, I'm afraid, the catholic
church and religion have no appeal for me.


You've made that abundantly clear over and over and over and over again.

There are many however to whom the Catholic Church and religion in
general are major parts of their lives. How they practice their faith
and how involved they are are personal decisions to which they are
entitled. You have no right to establish the "rules".

Why do you insist on jamming your non-interest in what is important to
them "down their throats"?


I do have the right to do what I can to make sure "the religious" don't
shove or try to shove their beliefs down the throats of our non-sectarian
society. Why should they be allowed to do that?

I don't give a damn what the religious do or say in their churches or
homes in terms of forcing their smallmindedness on each other.

I will admit to giggling inside when several of the self-proclaimed
"christians" here make fun of minorities or the poor. I'm sure that's
what Jesus would want them to do, eh?


They have just as much right to jam it down your throat as you do to ram
your views down others throats.


Ah, but Bilious...I'm not doing anything to force abortions or gay
relationships on anyone, nor am I pushing a legislative agenda that does any of this.

"The Religious" to whom I refer are doing their best legislatively to
push their anti-gay, anti-abortion agenda on those who do not
subscribe to their beliefs.

Even if I get my way in the legislature and abortions are kept readily
available on those who want one, I'm not forcing anyone to get one.

Got it?


Got it that you are forcing your beliefs on others! Maybe those others
think that even if abortions are legal, they should not have pay for them!


You mean through private health insurance? Well, the regressive governors
and legislatures in some states have taken care of that for the pushy
religious. Seems reasonable that if I don't want my insurance premiums to
pay for cancer treatments for smokers, why, smokers should be S.O.L. when
they need surgery or chemo or whatever, right? Right?

D'oh.


Hell, smokers cost us less than most groups lifetime cost. They die
earlier, and do not linger for years as an octogenarian. And they pay a
lot of money via sin taxes to provide for their care. Abortion and
pregnancy is a lot different than cancer, and diseases.



Whoosh...right over your head. Again.


Whoosh my ass. Harry's posits are very limited. Limited to the very left!

"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 12/29/13, 1:37 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 12/29/13, 12:44 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 07:25:56 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



You mean through private health insurance? Well, the regressive
governors and legislatures in some states have taken care of that for
the pushy religious. Seems reasonable that if I don't want my insurance
premiums to pay for cancer treatments for smokers, why, smokers should
be S.O.L. when they need surgery or chemo or whatever, right? Right?

D'oh.

So you would also deny treatment of gallstones, type 2 diabetes, high
blood pressure, high cholesterol and triglycerides, coronary artery
disease (CAD), a stroke, and sleep apnea for fat people?

Nobody held them down and shoved that pie in their mouth.



I was being sarcastic, Gregg-ster. You didn't see the "right. Right?" I
would hope you would have realized that.

No, I wouldn't deny coverage for anything on your little list, nor would
I deny coverage for abortion. And of course, I also wouldn't allow anyone
to exclude themselves from getting coverage. Universal health care
coverage for *all* and if we have to pay for it by selling a few aircraft
carriers or nuclear submarines or F35s, so be it.



Bull**** on the being sarcastic. You actually believe this ****. I would
much more support birth control supplies being paid for by the government.
Something is really wrong with society, when almost 50% of births are out
of wedlock and welfare is paying for more than 50% of those kids. When you
get more money for more kids, and we are on 6+ generations of welfare
families!



Indeed, Bilious, I do believe in mandatory universal health care
coverage, and I don't believe the conditions mentioned should be excluded from coverage.

I also believe we should cut back drastically on military spending, with
the goal of reducing it by at least 50% over the next decade.


I agree somewhat. But what we have now is only universal healthcare for
abortions. And most of my post was ignored, and only Harry's specified
posits were posted by FOAD.

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 12:37:53 -0600, Califbill wrote:

"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 12/29/13, 12:44 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 07:25:56 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



You mean through private health insurance? Well, the regressive
governors and legislatures in some states have taken care of that for
the pushy religious. Seems reasonable that if I don't want my insurance
premiums to pay for cancer treatments for smokers, why, smokers should
be S.O.L. when they need surgery or chemo or whatever, right? Right?

D'oh.

So you would also deny treatment of gallstones, type 2 diabetes, high
blood pressure, high cholesterol and triglycerides, coronary artery
disease (CAD), a stroke, and sleep apnea for fat people?

Nobody held them down and shoved that pie in their mouth.



I was being sarcastic, Gregg-ster. You didn't see the "right. Right?" I
would hope you would have realized that.

No, I wouldn't deny coverage for anything on your little list, nor would
I deny coverage for abortion. And of course, I also wouldn't allow anyone
to exclude themselves from getting coverage. Universal health care
coverage for *all* and if we have to pay for it by selling a few aircraft
carriers or nuclear submarines or F35s, so be it.



Bull**** on the being sarcastic. You actually believe this ****. I would
much more support birth control supplies being paid for by the government.
Something is really wrong with society, when almost 50% of births are out
of wedlock and welfare is paying for more than 50% of those kids. When you
get more money for more kids, and we are on 6+ generations of welfare
families!

Putting a stop to that would be putting a stop to future generations of welfare-dependent, Democrat
voters.
--

Hope you're day is spectacular!

On Sunday, December 29, 2013 12:44:59 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 07:25:56 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:







You mean through private health insurance? Well, the regressive

governors and legislatures in some states have taken care of that for

the pushy religious. Seems reasonable that if I don't want my insurance

premiums to pay for cancer treatments for smokers, why, smokers should

be S.O.L. when they need surgery or chemo or whatever, right? Right?



D'oh.



So you would also deny treatment of gallstones, type 2 diabetes, high

blood pressure, high cholesterol and triglycerides, coronary artery

disease (CAD), a stroke, and sleep apnea for fat people?



Nobody held them down and shoved that pie in their mouth.

You forget that Krause is a fat ass......

On 12/29/13, 2:57 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 12/29/13, 1:37 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 12/29/13, 12:44 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 07:25:56 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



You mean through private health insurance? Well, the regressive
governors and legislatures in some states have taken care of that for
the pushy religious. Seems reasonable that if I don't want my insurance
premiums to pay for cancer treatments for smokers, why, smokers should
be S.O.L. when they need surgery or chemo or whatever, right? Right?

D'oh.

So you would also deny treatment of gallstones, type 2 diabetes, high
blood pressure, high cholesterol and triglycerides, coronary artery
disease (CAD), a stroke, and sleep apnea for fat people?

Nobody held them down and shoved that pie in their mouth.



I was being sarcastic, Gregg-ster. You didn't see the "right. Right?" I
would hope you would have realized that.

No, I wouldn't deny coverage for anything on your little list, nor would
I deny coverage for abortion. And of course, I also wouldn't allow anyone
to exclude themselves from getting coverage. Universal health care
coverage for *all* and if we have to pay for it by selling a few aircraft
carriers or nuclear submarines or F35s, so be it.



Bull**** on the being sarcastic. You actually believe this ****. I would
much more support birth control supplies being paid for by the government.
Something is really wrong with society, when almost 50% of births are out
of wedlock and welfare is paying for more than 50% of those kids. When you
get more money for more kids, and we are on 6+ generations of welfare
families!



Indeed, Bilious, I do believe in mandatory universal health care
coverage, and I don't believe the conditions mentioned should be excluded from coverage.

I also believe we should cut back drastically on military spending, with
the goal of reducing it by at least 50% over the next decade.


I agree somewhat. But what we have now is only universal healthcare for
abortions. And most of my post was ignored, and only Harry's specified
posits were posted by FOAD.


Perhaps if you knew what a posit was, and who FOAD and Harry were, you'd
appear to have a higher IQ than you present.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.