What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/2/14, 9:05 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 08:28:57 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:




I think it is reasonable to attack an idea you don't like, but I don't
see where it is necessary to attack the person *here* who posted the
idea you don't like.

Fine, attack an idea. If I post something that is ****, attack that post also. I don't give a rat's
butt. If it's ****, and I posted it, then I deserve the attack.



I might attack an idea you posted, but I'm not going to engage in
calling you names because you posted it.




You seem to be admitting defeat, and stating you cannot control
your temper and engage in adult-level conversation without engaging in
personal insults.

Seem? Are you pretending to be your wife now, with a touch of psychoanalysis?


It's called being polite.




As for *your* country...it is *my* country, too, and I would like my
country to do a better job of what most people would find important.

Then treat your country with some respect. It does a hell of a lot better than 90% of the other
countries in the world. Don't denigrate the entire country based on a one-sided view of a problem.

There are what, 200 or so countries in the world? So, 20 of them do a
better job in terms of what most people find important? Actually, I
suspect the number of countries doing better might be higher in some
categories that are really important. Perhaps if we cut back drastically
on military spending, we can address some other really important issues.






Oh, and I shall continue to not engage in personally insulting other
posters here, and simply observe the hypocrisy of "the right."

Good. That's suitable. Remember, when you proudly announce the members of your 'bozo bin' along with
the 'reasons' for entry thereto, you're insulting those folks also.


The inmates of my bozo bin aren't there because of their politics,
they're in there because they can't behave reasonably here and cannot
post without insulting others.

--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/2/2014 12:30 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 18:00:23 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 2/1/14, 6:32 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2014 6:08 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 5:59 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:05:54 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:


What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone

because they get sick? What a wonderful country.


What does the wrong doing of company have to do with this country?
Does she not have a legal team working on the situation? The article
says she does...


In most more rational western countries, the woman wouldn't have been
fired because she took ill, because her health insurance would not have
been something supplied via her employer. But that's the way we allow it
to be in this country...fired because you got sick and might impact the
company's health insurance premiums. *That* is sick.



Was that the reason she was fired? I don't know because her lawsuit
hasn't hit the courts yet and we haven't heard what the company has to say.

That said though, I agree, it's yet another example of why businesses
making widgets shouldn't be the provider or even administrator of health
insurance plans. Government passing laws that force businesses to
retain employees even as the health insurance premiums rise
exponentially isn't doing anything to help anybody.


Indeed, health insurance should not be subject to the employer's whim.
Neither should defined benefit pensions. Too many workers have been
screwed out of pensions because their employers used the funds for
something else or allowed unfunded liabilities to skyrocket.





Sort of like the unfunded public pensions? How many cities have or are
going to declare bankruptcy over unfunded liabilities?

Good point, there are far more unfunded government pensions than
private sector pensions. The biggest one is Social Security

What happened to the social security *trust fund*

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/2/2014 7:50 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
Perhaps we can add "Americans who get sick" to the list of groups and
concepts upon which Republicans are making war...let's see...women,
gays, latinos, people who have sex, blacks, peace, students, the poor,
the middle class, non-christians, immigrants. the environment, the
unemployed...I'm sure there are more.

Here's something to think about:

You should start thinking too. It would do you a world of good

Many studies have shown that abortion rates drop dramatically when
contraception is free and easily accessible.

Poverty rates drop dramatically when money is free and easily accessible.

So, why do so many self-described pro-lifers oppose
free and accessible birth control?

For some it's a religious issue. Others believe it's an area that that
the govt. has no jurisdiction over. Free and accessible birth control is
fine so long as tax payers are not burdened with paying for it.
I'm sure you'd be willing to help fund the effort if you had a chance to
put your money where your mouth is.

Is the answer that they really do not care about babies but, rather,
they want to punish women for having sex, even forced sex?

No. Try again. Think harder this time.

The Republican war on women is real and happening now.

please explain. This might take some time to wrap your head around it,
so think it over and give us a rational answer when you are ready.


--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/2/2014 2:47 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 21:09:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

I'm not engaging in personal insults against other posters here. You
are. Period. It's perfectly within your rights to not like my political
opinions, as it is within my rights to not like your political opinions.
No need to make it personal.

===

You engaged in a personal insult against our country. That is quite a
different matter than expressing a political opinion. As I and
others have pointed out, there was no logic to your statement, just
anti-establishment, emotional rhetoric.

Now go FOAD, right after you pay your taxes and creditors.

He'd ESAD before he'd pay his financial and societal debts.

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/2/2014 8:04 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 21:09:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 9:08 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 17:30:14 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 4:53 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 09:05:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 8:38 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 21:06:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/mntn3y7

I can think of only two people who would use that story to indict the USA.



What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone
because they get sick? What a wonderful country.

A person got fired - justly or unjustly. If justly, the country did nothing wrong. If unjustly, then
the employer is at fault. How do you possibly get off indicting the USA for this action?

I really can't understand why anyone responds to any of your ****.



There you go again, with the personal insults.

Read what you wrote. What you wrote was an indictment of America based on what one woman gave as her
side of a story.

It was ****. We've all written some **** in our time. That happened to be an example of yours.


I'm not engaging in personal insults against other posters here. You
are. Period. It's perfectly within your rights to not like my political
opinions, as it is within my rights to not like your political opinions.
No need to make it personal.

Horse manure. A journalist who writes **** should expect to face the consequences. Seems like that
happened fairly recently. Both Lara Logan and David Kilpatrick wrote some ****. Logan got fired.
Kilpatrick was simply supporting a liberal newspaper which revels in lies.

Both wrote ****, which is what you did. I suppose you feel insulted, but on the other hand, I live
in the country you continuously insult.

What did Lara do? I thought she was a good, honest, and brave reporter.

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/2/2014 8:28 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/2/14, 8:04 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 21:09:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 9:08 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 17:30:14 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 4:53 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 09:05:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:

On 2/1/14, 8:38 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 21:06:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/mntn3y7

I can think of only two people who would use that story to
indict the USA.



What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire
someone
because they get sick? What a wonderful country.

A person got fired - justly or unjustly. If justly, the country
did nothing wrong. If unjustly, then
the employer is at fault. How do you possibly get off indicting
the USA for this action?

I really can't understand why anyone responds to any of your ****.



There you go again, with the personal insults.

Read what you wrote. What you wrote was an indictment of America
based on what one woman gave as her
side of a story.

It was ****. We've all written some **** in our time. That happened
to be an example of yours.


I'm not engaging in personal insults against other posters here. You
are. Period. It's perfectly within your rights to not like my political
opinions, as it is within my rights to not like your political opinions.
No need to make it personal.

Horse manure. A journalist who writes **** should expect to face the
consequences. Seems like that
happened fairly recently. Both Lara Logan and David Kilpatrick wrote
some ****. Logan got fired.
Kilpatrick was simply supporting a liberal newspaper which revels in
lies.

Both wrote ****, which is what you did. I suppose you feel insulted,
but on the other hand, I live
in the country you continuously insult.



I think it is reasonable to attack an idea you don't like, but I don't
see where it is necessary to attack the person *here* who posted the
idea you don't like.

You seem to be admitting defeat, and stating you cannot control
your temper and engage in adult-level conversation without engaging in
personal insults.

I had a feeling the righties who post here would not be able to control
their tempers and would engage in personal insulting even if the usual
"object" of their hatred (me, of course :) ) refrained from those same
sort of personal insults. Thank you for proving me correct. At least a
half dozen of you righties, many of whom complain about the "tone" in
rec.boats, are perpetuating the tone you claim you don't like.

This, by the way, is not a venue of journalism in which people who are
paid to write are paid for what they write here, so therefore I think
your attempts to make comparisons to Ms. Logan or Mr. Kilpatrick (never
heard of him, actually) are invalid.

As for *your* country...it is *my* country, too, and I would like my
country to do a better job of what most people would find important.

Oh, and I shall continue to not engage in personally insulting other
posters here, and simply observe the hypocrisy of "the right."

As always, have a wonderfully terrific day.




I guess we'll have to learn to live with our rotten apple until it rots
away. (Evidence the improvement of the tone of this newsgroup while you
were away)

What a great country, eh?
 

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 09:19:17 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/2/14, 9:05 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 08:28:57 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:




I think it is reasonable to attack an idea you don't like, but I don't
see where it is necessary to attack the person *here* who posted the
idea you don't like.

Fine, attack an idea. If I post something that is ****, attack that post also. I don't give a rat's
butt. If it's ****, and I posted it, then I deserve the attack.



I might attack an idea you posted, but I'm not going to engage in
calling you names because you posted it.

Did I call you a name? If so I apologize for name-calling. On the other hand, if I called something
you wrote '****', then that's an appropriate comment.




You seem to be admitting defeat, and stating you cannot control
your temper and engage in adult-level conversation without engaging in
personal insults.

Seem? Are you pretending to be your wife now, with a touch of psychoanalysis?


It's called being polite.

I suppose your demeaning comments were delivered in a very polite way.


As for *your* country...it is *my* country, too, and I would like my
country to do a better job of what most people would find important.

Then treat your country with some respect. It does a hell of a lot better than 90% of the other
countries in the world. Don't denigrate the entire country based on a one-sided view of a problem.

There are what, 200 or so countries in the world? So, 20 of them do a
better job in terms of what most people find important? Actually, I
suspect the number of countries doing better might be higher in some
categories that are really important. Perhaps if we cut back drastically
on military spending, we can address some other really important issues.

Fine. Argue that point. Don't denigrate the country because some lady bitched to the news,
especially when you've heard only one side of the story.

Oh, and I shall continue to not engage in personally insulting other
posters here, and simply observe the hypocrisy of "the right."

Good. That's suitable. Remember, when you proudly announce the members of your 'bozo bin' along with
the 'reasons' for entry thereto, you're insulting those folks also.


The inmates of my bozo bin aren't there because of their politics,
they're in there because they can't behave reasonably here and cannot
post without insulting others.

We each have our definition of reasonable behavior. You find my calling your comment '****' to be
unreasonable. I find it very appropriate. Your accusations are, in fact, personal insults. You could
easily filter the individuals whose comments offend you *without* the announcements and personal
insults. True or false?

Is there some reason you continuously 'inform' us of whom you've filtered and your rationale for
doing so? Do you believe someone here gives a ****?

What a great country, eh?
 

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 09:55:50 -0500, Hank wrote:

On 2/2/2014 7:50 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
Perhaps we can add "Americans who get sick" to the list of groups and
concepts upon which Republicans are making war...let's see...women,
gays, latinos, people who have sex, blacks, peace, students, the poor,
the middle class, non-christians, immigrants. the environment, the
unemployed...I'm sure there are more.

Here's something to think about:

You should start thinking too. It would do you a world of good

Many studies have shown that abortion rates drop dramatically when
contraception is free and easily accessible.

Poverty rates drop dramatically when money is free and easily accessible.

So, why do so many self-described pro-lifers oppose
free and accessible birth control?

For some it's a religious issue. Others believe it's an area that that
the govt. has no jurisdiction over. Free and accessible birth control is
fine so long as tax payers are not burdened with paying for it.
I'm sure you'd be willing to help fund the effort if you had a chance to
put your money where your mouth is.

Is the answer that they really do not care about babies but, rather,
they want to punish women for having sex, even forced sex?

No. Try again. Think harder this time.

The Republican war on women is real and happening now.

please explain. This might take some time to wrap your head around it,
so think it over and give us a rational answer when you are ready.


Yup.

What a great country, eh?
 

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 10:03:33 -0500, Hank wrote:

On 2/2/2014 8:04 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 21:09:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 9:08 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 17:30:14 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 4:53 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 09:05:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 8:38 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 21:06:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/mntn3y7

I can think of only two people who would use that story to indict the USA.



What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone
because they get sick? What a wonderful country.

A person got fired - justly or unjustly. If justly, the country did nothing wrong. If unjustly, then
the employer is at fault. How do you possibly get off indicting the USA for this action?

I really can't understand why anyone responds to any of your ****.



There you go again, with the personal insults.

Read what you wrote. What you wrote was an indictment of America based on what one woman gave as her
side of a story.

It was ****. We've all written some **** in our time. That happened to be an example of yours.


I'm not engaging in personal insults against other posters here. You
are. Period. It's perfectly within your rights to not like my political
opinions, as it is within my rights to not like your political opinions.
No need to make it personal.

Horse manure. A journalist who writes **** should expect to face the consequences. Seems like that
happened fairly recently. Both Lara Logan and David Kilpatrick wrote some ****. Logan got fired.
Kilpatrick was simply supporting a liberal newspaper which revels in lies.

Both wrote ****, which is what you did. I suppose you feel insulted, but on the other hand, I live
in the country you continuously insult.

What did Lara do? I thought she was a good, honest, and brave reporter.

She made a mistake when reporting on Benghazi which ****ed off the White House and was suspended.
Kirkpatrick's story was also found to be bull****, but it supported the administration, so nothing
happened to him. After all, what is the New York Times if not a liberal mouthpiece.

What a great country, eh?
 

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 10:03:33 -0500, Hank wrote:

On 2/2/2014 8:04 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 21:09:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 9:08 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 17:30:14 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 4:53 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 09:05:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 8:38 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 21:06:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/mntn3y7

I can think of only two people who would use that story to indict the USA.



What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone
because they get sick? What a wonderful country.

A person got fired - justly or unjustly. If justly, the country did nothing wrong. If unjustly, then
the employer is at fault. How do you possibly get off indicting the USA for this action?

I really can't understand why anyone responds to any of your ****.



There you go again, with the personal insults.

Read what you wrote. What you wrote was an indictment of America based on what one woman gave as her
side of a story.

It was ****. We've all written some **** in our time. That happened to be an example of yours.


I'm not engaging in personal insults against other posters here. You
are. Period. It's perfectly within your rights to not like my political
opinions, as it is within my rights to not like your political opinions.
No need to make it personal.

Horse manure. A journalist who writes **** should expect to face the consequences. Seems like that
happened fairly recently. Both Lara Logan and David Kilpatrick wrote some ****. Logan got fired.
Kilpatrick was simply supporting a liberal newspaper which revels in lies.

Both wrote ****, which is what you did. I suppose you feel insulted, but on the other hand, I live
in the country you continuously insult.

What did Lara do? I thought she was a good, honest, and brave reporter.

Oh, forgot this. The Canadians seem to have a handle on it:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/60868

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/2/2014 9:05 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 08:28:57 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/2/14, 8:04 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 21:09:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 9:08 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 17:30:14 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 4:53 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 09:05:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 8:38 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 21:06:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/mntn3y7

I can think of only two people who would use that story to indict the USA.



What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone
because they get sick? What a wonderful country.

A person got fired - justly or unjustly. If justly, the country did nothing wrong. If unjustly, then
the employer is at fault. How do you possibly get off indicting the USA for this action?

I really can't understand why anyone responds to any of your ****.



There you go again, with the personal insults.

Read what you wrote. What you wrote was an indictment of America based on what one woman gave as her
side of a story.

It was ****. We've all written some **** in our time. That happened to be an example of yours.


I'm not engaging in personal insults against other posters here. You
are. Period. It's perfectly within your rights to not like my political
opinions, as it is within my rights to not like your political opinions.
No need to make it personal.

Horse manure. A journalist who writes **** should expect to face the consequences. Seems like that
happened fairly recently. Both Lara Logan and David Kilpatrick wrote some ****. Logan got fired.
Kilpatrick was simply supporting a liberal newspaper which revels in lies.

Both wrote ****, which is what you did. I suppose you feel insulted, but on the other hand, I live
in the country you continuously insult.



I think it is reasonable to attack an idea you don't like, but I don't
see where it is necessary to attack the person *here* who posted the
idea you don't like.

Fine, attack an idea. If I post something that is ****, attack that post also. I don't give a rat's
butt. If it's ****, and I posted it, then I deserve the attack.

Amen.


You seem to be admitting defeat, and stating you cannot control
your temper and engage in adult-level conversation without engaging in
personal insults.

Seem? Are you pretending to be your wife now, with a touch of psychoanalysis?


I had a feeling the righties who post here would not be able to control
their tempers and would engage in personal insulting even if the usual
"object" of their hatred (me, of course :) ) refrained from those same
sort of personal insults. Thank you for proving me correct. At least a
half dozen of you righties, many of whom complain about the "tone" in
rec.boats, are perpetuating the tone you claim you don't like.

None of which has any bearing on the post you made which I deemed '****'.


This, by the way, is not a venue of journalism in which people who are
paid to write are paid for what they write here, so therefore I think
your attempts to make comparisons to Ms. Logan or Mr. Kilpatrick (never
heard of him, actually) are invalid.

Look him up. Both wrote ****, and both were called for it.

As for *your* country...it is *my* country, too, and I would like my
country to do a better job of what most people would find important.

Then treat your country with some respect. It does a hell of a lot better than 90% of the other
countries in the world. Don't denigrate the entire country based on a one-sided view of a problem.


Oh, and I shall continue to not engage in personally insulting other
posters here, and simply observe the hypocrisy of "the right."

Good. That's suitable. Remember, when you proudly announce the members of your 'bozo bin' along with
the 'reasons' for entry thereto, you're insulting those folks also.

As always, have a wonderfully terrific day.

DITTO!!!!


I for one am proud to be in Harry's bozo bin. In fact, I wish he'd issue
plaques honoring that accomplishment.

I try to stay out of his discussions as much as possible. How can you
communicate on a rational plane with someone whose head is waayyyy out
in La La Land? He'll have to settle for an occasional insult from me,
because that's the only way to relate to assholes.

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/2/2014 9:19 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/2/14, 9:05 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 08:28:57 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:




I think it is reasonable to attack an idea you don't like, but I don't
see where it is necessary to attack the person *here* who posted the
idea you don't like.

Fine, attack an idea. If I post something that is ****, attack that
post also. I don't give a rat's
butt. If it's ****, and I posted it, then I deserve the attack.



I might attack an idea you posted, but I'm not going to engage in
calling you names because you posted it.




You seem to be admitting defeat, and stating you cannot control
your temper and engage in adult-level conversation without engaging in
personal insults.

Seem? Are you pretending to be your wife now, with a touch of
psychoanalysis?


It's called being polite.




As for *your* country...it is *my* country, too, and I would like my
country to do a better job of what most people would find important.

Then treat your country with some respect. It does a hell of a lot
better than 90% of the other
countries in the world. Don't denigrate the entire country based on a
one-sided view of a problem.

There are what, 200 or so countries in the world? So, 20 of them do a
better job in terms of what most people find important? Actually, I
suspect the number of countries doing better might be higher in some
categories that are really important. Perhaps if we cut back drastically
on military spending, we can address some other really important issues.






Oh, and I shall continue to not engage in personally insulting other
posters here, and simply observe the hypocrisy of "the right."

Good. That's suitable. Remember, when you proudly announce the members
of your 'bozo bin' along with
the 'reasons' for entry thereto, you're insulting those folks also.


The inmates of my bozo bin aren't there because of their politics,
they're in there because they can't behave reasonably here and cannot
post without insulting others.


I have no politics to speak of so it must be the insults that you can't
deal with. It would be impossible to recount your deeds and not leave
you feeling insulted. Example: When I call you deadbeat, you feel
insulted, right?. Facts is facts, Jack. Learn to live with it.

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/2/2014 10:36 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 10:03:33 -0500, Hank wrote:

On 2/2/2014 8:04 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 21:09:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 9:08 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 17:30:14 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 4:53 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 09:05:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 8:38 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 21:06:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/mntn3y7

I can think of only two people who would use that story to indict the USA.



What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone
because they get sick? What a wonderful country.

A person got fired - justly or unjustly. If justly, the country did nothing wrong. If unjustly, then
the employer is at fault. How do you possibly get off indicting the USA for this action?

I really can't understand why anyone responds to any of your ****.



There you go again, with the personal insults.

Read what you wrote. What you wrote was an indictment of America based on what one woman gave as her
side of a story.

It was ****. We've all written some **** in our time. That happened to be an example of yours.


I'm not engaging in personal insults against other posters here. You
are. Period. It's perfectly within your rights to not like my political
opinions, as it is within my rights to not like your political opinions.
No need to make it personal.

Horse manure. A journalist who writes **** should expect to face the consequences. Seems like that
happened fairly recently. Both Lara Logan and David Kilpatrick wrote some ****. Logan got fired.
Kilpatrick was simply supporting a liberal newspaper which revels in lies.

Both wrote ****, which is what you did. I suppose you feel insulted, but on the other hand, I live
in the country you continuously insult.

What did Lara do? I thought she was a good, honest, and brave reporter.

She made a mistake when reporting on Benghazi which ****ed off the White House and was suspended.
Kirkpatrick's story was also found to be bull****, but it supported the administration, so nothing
happened to him. After all, what is the New York Times if not a liberal mouthpiece.


What was her mistake? Did she report something wrong or did she
editorialize and **** off the prez?

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/2/2014 10:36 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 10:03:33 -0500, Hank wrote:

On 2/2/2014 8:04 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 21:09:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 9:08 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 17:30:14 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 4:53 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 09:05:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 8:38 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 21:06:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/mntn3y7

I can think of only two people who would use that story to indict the USA.



What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone
because they get sick? What a wonderful country.

A person got fired - justly or unjustly. If justly, the country did nothing wrong. If unjustly, then
the employer is at fault. How do you possibly get off indicting the USA for this action?

I really can't understand why anyone responds to any of your ****.



There you go again, with the personal insults.

Read what you wrote. What you wrote was an indictment of America based on what one woman gave as her
side of a story.

It was ****. We've all written some **** in our time. That happened to be an example of yours.


I'm not engaging in personal insults against other posters here. You
are. Period. It's perfectly within your rights to not like my political
opinions, as it is within my rights to not like your political opinions.
No need to make it personal.

Horse manure. A journalist who writes **** should expect to face the consequences. Seems like that
happened fairly recently. Both Lara Logan and David Kilpatrick wrote some ****. Logan got fired.
Kilpatrick was simply supporting a liberal newspaper which revels in lies.

Both wrote ****, which is what you did. I suppose you feel insulted, but on the other hand, I live
in the country you continuously insult.

What did Lara do? I thought she was a good, honest, and brave reporter.

Oh, forgot this. The Canadians seem to have a handle on it:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/60868

I'm amazed that Obamma allowed the Canadians to print that.

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/2/2014 11:09 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 09:37:52 -0500, Hank wrote:

Good point, there are far more unfunded government pensions than
private sector pensions. The biggest one is Social Security

What happened to the social security *trust fund*


FDR passed the legislation that allowed the government to spend in it
1939 and they have spent every dime of it since then.
The trust fund was just another line item on the debt since then.

*POOF* gone. Words used to have meaning.

What a great country, eh?
 

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 11:06:21 -0500, Hank wrote:

On 2/2/2014 10:36 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 10:03:33 -0500, Hank wrote:

On 2/2/2014 8:04 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 21:09:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 9:08 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 17:30:14 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 4:53 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 09:05:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 8:38 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 21:06:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/mntn3y7

I can think of only two people who would use that story to indict the USA.



What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone
because they get sick? What a wonderful country.

A person got fired - justly or unjustly. If justly, the country did nothing wrong. If unjustly, then
the employer is at fault. How do you possibly get off indicting the USA for this action?

I really can't understand why anyone responds to any of your ****.



There you go again, with the personal insults.

Read what you wrote. What you wrote was an indictment of America based on what one woman gave as her
side of a story.

It was ****. We've all written some **** in our time. That happened to be an example of yours.


I'm not engaging in personal insults against other posters here. You
are. Period. It's perfectly within your rights to not like my political
opinions, as it is within my rights to not like your political opinions.
No need to make it personal.

Horse manure. A journalist who writes **** should expect to face the consequences. Seems like that
happened fairly recently. Both Lara Logan and David Kilpatrick wrote some ****. Logan got fired.
Kilpatrick was simply supporting a liberal newspaper which revels in lies.

Both wrote ****, which is what you did. I suppose you feel insulted, but on the other hand, I live
in the country you continuously insult.

What did Lara do? I thought she was a good, honest, and brave reporter.

She made a mistake when reporting on Benghazi which ****ed off the White House and was suspended.
Kirkpatrick's story was also found to be bull****, but it supported the administration, so nothing
happened to him. After all, what is the New York Times if not a liberal mouthpiece.


What was her mistake? Did she report something wrong or did she
editorialize and **** off the prez?

Here's the story, one of several. Disregard the video.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4344883.html

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/2/14, 11:09 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 09:37:52 -0500, Hank wrote:

Good point, there are far more unfunded government pensions than
private sector pensions. The biggest one is Social Security

What happened to the social security *trust fund*


FDR passed the legislation that allowed the government to spend in it
1939 and they have spent every dime of it since then.
The trust fund was just another line item on the debt since then.



Just exactly how did Roosevelt "pass" such legislation?

--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/2/14, 11:19 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 09:55:50 -0500, Hank wrote:

So, why do so many self-described pro-lifers oppose
free and accessible birth control?

For some it's a religious issue. Others believe it's an area that that
the govt. has no jurisdiction over. Free and accessible birth control is
fine so long as tax payers are not burdened with paying for it.

If you are actually a fiscal conservative you know money spent on
birth control and abortion comes back 100 fold in welfare and prison
costs you don't have to spend.
It is a very efficient use of public money. Birth control and abortion
should be part of any welfare package.

When a single 15 year old has a baby, it destroys 2 lives and they
become a burden on the rest of society, virtually every time.

The ONLY issue is religious.



Religious and...control over women.

--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/2/2014 11:18 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 11:06:21 -0500, Hank wrote:

On 2/2/2014 10:36 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 10:03:33 -0500, Hank wrote:

On 2/2/2014 8:04 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 21:09:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 9:08 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 17:30:14 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 4:53 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 09:05:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/1/14, 8:38 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 21:06:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/mntn3y7

I can think of only two people who would use that story to indict the USA.



What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone
because they get sick? What a wonderful country.

A person got fired - justly or unjustly. If justly, the country did nothing wrong. If unjustly, then
the employer is at fault. How do you possibly get off indicting the USA for this action?

I really can't understand why anyone responds to any of your ****.



There you go again, with the personal insults.

Read what you wrote. What you wrote was an indictment of America based on what one woman gave as her
side of a story.

It was ****. We've all written some **** in our time. That happened to be an example of yours.


I'm not engaging in personal insults against other posters here. You
are. Period. It's perfectly within your rights to not like my political
opinions, as it is within my rights to not like your political opinions.
No need to make it personal.

Horse manure. A journalist who writes **** should expect to face the consequences. Seems like that
happened fairly recently. Both Lara Logan and David Kilpatrick wrote some ****. Logan got fired.
Kilpatrick was simply supporting a liberal newspaper which revels in lies.

Both wrote ****, which is what you did. I suppose you feel insulted, but on the other hand, I live
in the country you continuously insult.

What did Lara do? I thought she was a good, honest, and brave reporter.

She made a mistake when reporting on Benghazi which ****ed off the White House and was suspended.
Kirkpatrick's story was also found to be bull****, but it supported the administration, so nothing
happened to him. After all, what is the New York Times if not a liberal mouthpiece.


What was her mistake? Did she report something wrong or did she
editorialize and **** off the prez?

Here's the story, one of several. Disregard the video.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4344883.html


As a matter of courtesy, she should have sought White House approval of
the story. There seems to be discrepancies between her version of the
truth and the official White House version.

What a great country, eh?
 

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 09:37:52 -0500, Hank wrote:

Good point, there are far more unfunded government pensions than
private sector pensions. The biggest one is Social Security

What happened to the social security *trust fund*


FDR passed the legislation that allowed the government to spend in it
1939 and they have spent every dime of it since then.
The trust fund was just another line item on the debt since then.

The trust fund is paying off.
Thank God and FDR for the trust fund.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

It's the same as US Savings Bonds in that it will be paid.
Good as gold, and backed by the full faith and credit of the United
States of America.
Only Congress can change it.
They're welcome to try.

What a great country, eh?
 

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 11:19:28 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 09:55:50 -0500, Hank wrote:

So, why do so many self-described pro-lifers oppose
free and accessible birth control?

For some it's a religious issue. Others believe it's an area that that
the govt. has no jurisdiction over. Free and accessible birth control is
fine so long as tax payers are not burdened with paying for it.

If you are actually a fiscal conservative you know money spent on
birth control and abortion comes back 100 fold in welfare and prison
costs you don't have to spend.
It is a very efficient use of public money. Birth control and abortion
should be part of any welfare package.

When a single 15 year old has a baby, it destroys 2 lives and they
become a burden on the rest of society, virtually every time.

The ONLY issue is religious.

And I know of only one that prohibits birth control - the Catholic Church. There may be more, but
they aren't major. I also know many Catholics. I know of none who don't practice birth control. It
is a widely disregarded mandate.

I'm a firm believer in free birth control, and I have no problem with guidance counselors
distributing prophylactics. I *would* like to see one of these studies that show the huge declines
in unwed pregnancies when free birth control was provided.

I also agree with 'free' morning after pills for those who couldn't or wouldn't use another form of
birth control. This should prevent pregnancies from rape or incest.

I don't agree with the killing of viable infants - born or unborn.

What a great country, eh?
 

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 11:24:55 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/2/14, 11:19 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 09:55:50 -0500, Hank wrote:

So, why do so many self-described pro-lifers oppose
free and accessible birth control?

For some it's a religious issue. Others believe it's an area that that
the govt. has no jurisdiction over. Free and accessible birth control is
fine so long as tax payers are not burdened with paying for it.

If you are actually a fiscal conservative you know money spent on
birth control and abortion comes back 100 fold in welfare and prison
costs you don't have to spend.
It is a very efficient use of public money. Birth control and abortion
should be part of any welfare package.

When a single 15 year old has a baby, it destroys 2 lives and they
become a burden on the rest of society, virtually every time.

The ONLY issue is religious.



Religious and...control over women.

I suppose you'd consider it a 'personal insult' if I said that's just more ****?

Liberals espousing the dependency of women on the government are the folks using 'control over
women'. Have more kids, get more money -- but vote for those who provide the handouts.

THAT'S control.

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/2/2014 11:24 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/2/14, 11:19 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 09:55:50 -0500, Hank wrote:

So, why do so many self-described pro-lifers oppose
free and accessible birth control?

For some it's a religious issue. Others believe it's an area that that
the govt. has no jurisdiction over. Free and accessible birth control is
fine so long as tax payers are not burdened with paying for it.

If you are actually a fiscal conservative you know money spent on
birth control and abortion comes back 100 fold in welfare and prison
costs you don't have to spend.
It is a very efficient use of public money. Birth control and abortion
should be part of any welfare package.

When a single 15 year old has a baby, it destroys 2 lives and they
become a burden on the rest of society, virtually every time.

The ONLY issue is religious.



Religious and...control over women.


I call bull**** on both of you.

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/2/2014 11:09 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 09:37:52 -0500, Hank wrote:

Good point, there are far more unfunded government pensions than
private sector pensions. The biggest one is Social Security

What happened to the social security *trust fund*


FDR passed the legislation that allowed the government to spend in it
1939 and they have spent every dime of it since then.
The trust fund was just another line item on the debt since then.



I thought the legislation allowed the transfer of *excess* funds to the
general treasury.

There are economists that claim that's how Bill Clinton was able to
claim a "surplus" in the latter part of his administration. The dot com
bubble produced SS contributions far in excess of payouts and the
excesses were transferred to the general fund.

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/2/2014 11:19 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 09:55:50 -0500, Hank wrote:

So, why do so many self-described pro-lifers oppose
free and accessible birth control?

For some it's a religious issue. Others believe it's an area that that
the govt. has no jurisdiction over. Free and accessible birth control is
fine so long as tax payers are not burdened with paying for it.

If you are actually a fiscal conservative you know money spent on
birth control and abortion comes back 100 fold in welfare and prison
costs you don't have to spend.
It is a very efficient use of public money. Birth control and abortion
should be part of any welfare package.

When a single 15 year old has a baby, it destroys 2 lives and they
become a burden on the rest of society, virtually every time.

The ONLY issue is religious.


Are you suggesting you can't have principals, beliefs, and morals,
without religion?

What a great country, eh?
 

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 11:19:28 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 09:55:50 -0500, Hank wrote:

So, why do so many self-described pro-lifers oppose
free and accessible birth control?

For some it's a religious issue. Others believe it's an area that that
the govt. has no jurisdiction over. Free and accessible birth control is
fine so long as tax payers are not burdened with paying for it.



If you are actually a fiscal conservative you know money spent on
birth control and abortion comes back 100 fold in welfare and prison
costs you don't have to spend.
It is a very efficient use of public money. Birth control and abortion
should be part of any welfare package.


Excellent points. I am personally surprised that they are not more
widely embraced. It's not like all of these unwanted children are
becoming good little church goers and model citizens.

When a single 15 year old has a baby, it destroys 2 lives and they
become a burden on the rest of society, virtually every time.

The ONLY issue is religious.

No doubt.

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/2/14, 12:14 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 11:24:55 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

If you are actually a fiscal conservative you know money spent on
birth control and abortion comes back 100 fold in welfare and prison
costs you don't have to spend.
It is a very efficient use of public money. Birth control and abortion
should be part of any welfare package.

When a single 15 year old has a baby, it destroys 2 lives and they
become a burden on the rest of society, virtually every time.

The ONLY issue is religious.



Religious and...control over women.

Keep talking about the war on women and some day they might start
believing you.


Check the polls...they do.

--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

What a great country, eh?
 

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 11:46:42 -0500, Hank wrote:

If you are actually a fiscal conservative you know money spent on
birth control and abortion comes back 100 fold in welfare and prison
costs you don't have to spend.
It is a very efficient use of public money. Birth control and abortion
should be part of any welfare package.

When a single 15 year old has a baby, it destroys 2 lives and they
become a burden on the rest of society, virtually every time.

The ONLY issue is religious.



Religious and...control over women.


I call bull**** on both of you.

===

Greg makes some excellent points. You disagree?

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/2/14, 11:42 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 11:24:55 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/2/14, 11:19 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 09:55:50 -0500, Hank wrote:

So, why do so many self-described pro-lifers oppose
free and accessible birth control?

For some it's a religious issue. Others believe it's an area that that
the govt. has no jurisdiction over. Free and accessible birth control is
fine so long as tax payers are not burdened with paying for it.

If you are actually a fiscal conservative you know money spent on
birth control and abortion comes back 100 fold in welfare and prison
costs you don't have to spend.
It is a very efficient use of public money. Birth control and abortion
should be part of any welfare package.

When a single 15 year old has a baby, it destroys 2 lives and they
become a burden on the rest of society, virtually every time.

The ONLY issue is religious.



Religious and...control over women.

I suppose you'd consider it a 'personal insult' if I said that's just more ****?

Liberals espousing the dependency of women on the government are the folks using 'control over
women'. Have more kids, get more money -- but vote for those who provide the handouts.

THAT'S control.


Oh, I don't give a tinker's dam what you think of my opinions, so long
as you don't make it personal.

--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/2/2014 12:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 11:19:28 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 09:55:50 -0500, Hank wrote:

So, why do so many self-described pro-lifers oppose
free and accessible birth control?

For some it's a religious issue. Others believe it's an area that that
the govt. has no jurisdiction over. Free and accessible birth control is
fine so long as tax payers are not burdened with paying for it.



If you are actually a fiscal conservative you know money spent on
birth control and abortion comes back 100 fold in welfare and prison
costs you don't have to spend.
It is a very efficient use of public money. Birth control and abortion
should be part of any welfare package.


Excellent points. I am personally surprised that they are not more
widely embraced. It's not like all of these unwanted children are
becoming good little church goers and model citizens.

When a single 15 year old has a baby, it destroys 2 lives and they
become a burden on the rest of society, virtually every time.

The ONLY issue is religious.

No doubt.


There's a difference between "free" (or subsidized) birth control
devices and "free" (or subsidized) abortions. Both should require
personal responsibility as a prerequisite.

No religious influence on my part.

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/2/2014 12:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 11:19:28 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 09:55:50 -0500, Hank wrote:

So, why do so many self-described pro-lifers oppose
free and accessible birth control?

For some it's a religious issue. Others believe it's an area that that
the govt. has no jurisdiction over. Free and accessible birth control is
fine so long as tax payers are not burdened with paying for it.



If you are actually a fiscal conservative you know money spent on
birth control and abortion comes back 100 fold in welfare and prison
costs you don't have to spend.
It is a very efficient use of public money. Birth control and abortion
should be part of any welfare package.


Excellent points. I am personally surprised that they are not more
widely embraced. It's not like all of these unwanted children are
becoming good little church goers and model citizens.

When a single 15 year old has a baby, it destroys 2 lives and they
become a burden on the rest of society, virtually every time.

The ONLY issue is religious.

No doubt.


No doubt in your mind.. Some of us just see a viable human being and
want to have a discussion as to when it's ok to kill that person...
Noting to do with religion..

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/2/2014 12:40 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 11:46:42 -0500, Hank wrote:


The ONLY issue is religious.

I disagree




Religious and...control over women.

I disagree



I call bull**** on both of you.

I agree

===

Greg makes some excellent points. You disagree?

see above:)

What a great country, eh?
 

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 12:41:34 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/2/14, 11:42 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 11:24:55 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/2/14, 11:19 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 09:55:50 -0500, Hank wrote:

So, why do so many self-described pro-lifers oppose
free and accessible birth control?

For some it's a religious issue. Others believe it's an area that that
the govt. has no jurisdiction over. Free and accessible birth control is
fine so long as tax payers are not burdened with paying for it.

If you are actually a fiscal conservative you know money spent on
birth control and abortion comes back 100 fold in welfare and prison
costs you don't have to spend.
It is a very efficient use of public money. Birth control and abortion
should be part of any welfare package.

When a single 15 year old has a baby, it destroys 2 lives and they
become a burden on the rest of society, virtually every time.

The ONLY issue is religious.



Religious and...control over women.

I suppose you'd consider it a 'personal insult' if I said that's just more ****?

Liberals espousing the dependency of women on the government are the folks using 'control over
women'. Have more kids, get more money -- but vote for those who provide the handouts.

THAT'S control.


Oh, I don't give a tinker's dam what you think of my opinions, so long
as you don't make it personal.

If calling a statement you make '****' is taken personally by you, then you have a problem.

Liberals espousing the dependency of women on the government are the folks using 'control over
women'. Have more kids, get more money -- but vote for those who provide the handouts.
THAT'S control.

Did you find the name-calling? I can't remember it.

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/2/2014 12:40 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 11:46:42 -0500, Hank wrote:

If you are actually a fiscal conservative you know money spent on
birth control and abortion comes back 100 fold in welfare and prison
costs you don't have to spend.
It is a very efficient use of public money. Birth control and abortion
should be part of any welfare package.

When a single 15 year old has a baby, it destroys 2 lives and they
become a burden on the rest of society, virtually every time.

The ONLY issue is religious.



Religious and...control over women.


I call bull**** on both of you.

===

Greg makes some excellent points. You disagree?

The women who take advantage of birth control, whether self paid or from
some government giveaway, aren't the breeding factories that train
their offspring to game the system and generally keep an undesireable
element growing and multiplying.

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/2/2014 12:41 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/2/14, 11:42 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 11:24:55 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/2/14, 11:19 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 09:55:50 -0500, Hank wrote:

So, why do so many self-described pro-lifers oppose
free and accessible birth control?

For some it's a religious issue. Others believe it's an area that that
the govt. has no jurisdiction over. Free and accessible birth
control is
fine so long as tax payers are not burdened with paying for it.

If you are actually a fiscal conservative you know money spent on
birth control and abortion comes back 100 fold in welfare and prison
costs you don't have to spend.
It is a very efficient use of public money. Birth control and abortion
should be part of any welfare package.

When a single 15 year old has a baby, it destroys 2 lives and they
become a burden on the rest of society, virtually every time.

The ONLY issue is religious.



Religious and...control over women.

I suppose you'd consider it a 'personal insult' if I said that's just
more ****?

Liberals espousing the dependency of women on the government are the
folks using 'control over
women'. Have more kids, get more money -- but vote for those who
provide the handouts.

THAT'S control.


Oh, I don't give a tinker's dam what you think of my opinions, so long
as you don't make it personal.

I should think that making it personal would warm the cockles of your
heart. If not. Why not? And when did you first have a change of heart.

What a great country, eh?
 

Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 09:37:52 -0500, Hank wrote:

Good point, there are far more unfunded government pensions than
private sector pensions. The biggest one is Social Security

What happened to the social security *trust fund*


FDR passed the legislation that allowed the government to spend in it
1939 and they have spent every dime of it since then.
The trust fund was just another line item on the debt since then.

The trust fund is paying off.
Thank God and FDR for the trust fund.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

It's the same as US Savings Bonds in that it will be paid.
Good as gold, and backed by the full faith and credit of the United
States of America.
Only Congress can change it.
They're welcome to try.

Where is the money? Where are real assets backing that "trust fund"? The
government spent the money, and it is just an undocumented part of the
national debt. The government will have to tax people again to pay for the
"trust fund" obligations.

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/2/2014 11:01 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 13:25:40 -0500, Hank wrote:


The women who take advantage of birth control, whether self paid or from
some government giveaway, aren't the breeding factories that train
their offspring to game the system and generally keep an undesireable
element growing and multiplying.

That is a bit harsher than what I said because these girls usually did
not plan on being pregnant (breeding factories) but once they are they
are doomed to a life of poverty and public assistance about 99,99% of
the time, particularly if the baby daddy is in the wind, as is usually
the case.
You all know I am a cheap *******
Getting this girl "un****ed" and back in school is the cheapest thing
we can do. It is also best for her, the baby she didn't have and the
rest of society.
Once she gets in a stable place, with a hubby and job skills she can
put the dice back in the cup and throw the family dice again


If you want to discuss what you said, please include it in your quote.
I don't know which girls you are referring to.

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/2/2014 10:39 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 12:26:30 -0500, KC wrote:

On 2/2/2014 11:19 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 09:55:50 -0500, Hank wrote:

So, why do so many self-described pro-lifers oppose
free and accessible birth control?

For some it's a religious issue. Others believe it's an area that that
the govt. has no jurisdiction over. Free and accessible birth control is
fine so long as tax payers are not burdened with paying for it.

If you are actually a fiscal conservative you know money spent on
birth control and abortion comes back 100 fold in welfare and prison
costs you don't have to spend.
It is a very efficient use of public money. Birth control and abortion
should be part of any welfare package.

When a single 15 year old has a baby, it destroys 2 lives and they
become a burden on the rest of society, virtually every time.

The ONLY issue is religious.


Are you suggesting you can't have principals, beliefs, and morals,
without religion?

I am saying you can and they do not have to include church dogma.
I have no problem with religious organizations denying these services
in their hospitals and as employers but I don't want them imposing it
on everyone else through legislation.


Now you are starting to sound like harry.... I don't see the little nuns
trying to push their agenda on anybody else, they just don't want to be
covered or charged for abortions....

What a great country, eh?
 

On 2/2/2014 10:53 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 13:11:27 -0500, KC wrote:

Some of us just see a viable human being and
want to have a discussion as to when it's ok to kill that person...

You have no problem when they are 15 and just shot a cop.
I am just nipping it in the bud.


Wth does that have to do with anything?

What a great country, eh?
 

On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 05:21:38 -0500, KC wrote:

On 2/2/2014 10:39 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 12:26:30 -0500, KC wrote:

On 2/2/2014 11:19 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 09:55:50 -0500, Hank wrote:

So, why do so many self-described pro-lifers oppose
free and accessible birth control?

For some it's a religious issue. Others believe it's an area that that
the govt. has no jurisdiction over. Free and accessible birth control is
fine so long as tax payers are not burdened with paying for it.

If you are actually a fiscal conservative you know money spent on
birth control and abortion comes back 100 fold in welfare and prison
costs you don't have to spend.
It is a very efficient use of public money. Birth control and abortion
should be part of any welfare package.

When a single 15 year old has a baby, it destroys 2 lives and they
become a burden on the rest of society, virtually every time.

The ONLY issue is religious.


Are you suggesting you can't have principals, beliefs, and morals,
without religion?

I am saying you can and they do not have to include church dogma.
I have no problem with religious organizations denying these services
in their hospitals and as employers but I don't want them imposing it
on everyone else through legislation.


Now you are starting to sound like harry.... I don't see the little nuns
trying to push their agenda on anybody else, they just don't want to be
covered or charged for abortions....

Read it again:

"I have no problem with religious organizations *denying* these services
in their hospitals and as employers..."

Harry would insist that the Sisters of Charity perform abortions - free, of course.