Michael Steele, Republican National Committee Chairman, gave a speech against health care reform. It appears much of the speech came directly from a memo by Alex Castellanos, Republican strategist. For the similarities between the memo and the speech, view the link.
I’m not terribly surprised by the use of phrases and such from the memo. If they polled well, they’ll be used. What is surprising is Steele’s response to a question about whether or not he favors requiring citizens to get health coverage. “I don’t do policy,” he replied.
So, first of all, if he doesn’t do policy, why is he speaking about a policy proposal? Why should we care what he has to say about the Democrats’ proposals? Why does he care about politics? Why is he the RNC Chairman?
When asked why the GOP didn’t act to reform healthcare when they were in charge, he claimed there was a “general lack of focus on the issue.” So instead of helping to solve a problem, he’ll just stand up there spouting the same garbage in an attempt to kill an actual attempt at reform.
He did eventually bring up some Republican ideas, but he didn’t mention their ideas were all included in the Democrats’ version. (Side note, does this mean the bill is already bipartisan?) Also, if he doesn’t do policy, why was he even discussing policy ideas?
Republicans should be upset with their representatives. Instead of trying to solve what is an obvious problem by presenting their own ideas, they are spending all their time shooting down the ideas of others. Maybe if they could come up with a better plan to insure the 45 million Americans without healthcare, we would all jump on board. But instead of demonstrating any ingenuity, they are simply proving themselves to be a party of “no.”
Republicans should demand an alternative. Dr, get some people on the horn and demand something to root for. It must get old constantly saying, “Yes, I want everyone to be insured, but I don’t like how you do it” without the ability to say, “And I think we could do it like this.”
Then maybe we could debate some of the merits of your ideas instead of the constant “Government sucks at running programs,” “No they don’t” back and forth.
Enjoy the reform push, ’cause it’s a comin’.
Adam Feser
39 Comments
Leave a Reply
login
Polls
Loading ... Loading ... Loading ...Recent Comments
- adamfeser on SHS its not that hard: Yes or No
- I Wanna BE Elected. . .Alice on SHS its not that hard: Yes or No
- Jammer on The Daily Show on Park51 Imam’s “Radical Ties”
- adamfeser on SHS its not that hard: Yes or No
- adamfeser on The Daily Show on Park51 Imam’s “Radical Ties”
- Jammer on SHS its not that hard: Yes or No
- Jammer on The Daily Show on Park51 Imam’s “Radical Ties”
- adamfeser on SHS its not that hard: Yes or No
- adamfeser on The Daily Show on Park51 Imam’s “Radical Ties”
- DR on Tired of the Traffic Battle
Most Commented Posts
- Miss me yet (117)
- Arizona's Racist Law (111)
- Confessions of a Tea Party Casualty (77)
- Tom Tancredo Wants Literacy Tests (72)
- The Apparent Trap/Hawaiian Health Care (53)
- Healthcare (48)
- Tom Coburn Has Pelosi's Back and a Point (48)
- Cash for Clunkers: What a joke! (44)
- Steele Steals Speech and Does Not "Do Policy" (39)
- Smoking Ban Thoughts and Poll (38)
I know you’ll be furious Adam, but there are some of us out there who are against this plan completely. I’m not saying that I want people to be uninsured, but life isn’t always fair and our nation is already way too far in the red to go completely bankrupt trying to even everything out. Maybe if we could balance out the social security program and make it realistic for the next generation I’d be more confident. I also can’t stand seeing F-22’s being scrapped from budgeting, I would argue that national security and defense is more important than the health care crisis. We could also make progress on the health care issue if we solved the immigration problem. There are way too many hospitals, especially in the western states going belly up because they provided care for people they can’t even bill. There are many, many steps we can take to lower costs and help the industry go in the right direction without this plan. Coming up with massive bills that try to solve everything isn’t responsible, often smaller, less expensive steps can solve problems in a more productive way.
Ray, how is building more F-22s, a plane we’re not even using right now, going to help our national security? Doesn’t it make more sense to save money by scrapping that program and focus on something we are using? I’ve noticed that fiscal conservatives tend to not be very fiscally conservative when it comes to defense spending.
My entire point was that disagreeing with the plan is fine, but there should be alternatives laid out. So far it seems Republican leadership is content to try and destroy reform plans without constructing one of their own.
Tom nailed it, we don’t need an F-22 for our defense. I don’t know about you, but I heard about the F-22 being scrapped and I still feel safe.
Tom also sees how fiscal conservatives are often anything but. Why are you so concerned about our debt when it comes to an issue that costs Americans their lives and so unconcerned when it comes to an unnecessary, expensive project?
Adam: well argued! The Republicans blow smoke, complain about a bill that already includjes many of their ideas, and just start making stuff up when they start losing the argument.
All politicians blow smoke. They tell you what you want to hear to your face and do something completely different behind your back.
I will agree with a couple of points, F-22’s, if we ain’t using them and ain’t gonna use them, then what the hell are we wasting our money on building them for.
As for the healthcare bill, there are definately other problems with social issues that need be fixed before we add another. I would like to retire before I die, but right now its not looking good.
I’m not saying that F-22’s are necessary right now, but I feel like if Washington is desperate to spend money we don’t have for “the future”, defense is a more sound investment than a program that will cause our debt spending to balloon beyond anything anyone will ever be able to reign in.
What on Earth does the bill have to do with your retirement?
“there are definitely other problems with social issues that need be fixed before we add another.” What does that mean?
There are roughly 18,000 deaths a year due to no health insurance (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm). How is this not a problem? That is a huge number.
This isn’t about adding a problem, it’s about fixing one. And this is obviously an urgent problem.
And how about investing in American lives?
Investing in American lives? Wow, bold statement of morality for a pro-abortionist, what a hypocrite. Tell me Adam, when the Chinese are done buying American bonds, and it sounds like that may happen soon, will it still be just the rich funding all of the Obama/Pelosi feel good programs?
Also, I talked to a small business owner yesterday who doesn’t know how he’s going to afford this new plan. He doesn’t make $280,000 a year, but he’s going to have to pay because he doesn’t offer health coverage, because he can’t afford it, it’s a small business. He does have a health plan for his family, but the government is trying to ban that plan, it’s called the Christian Brotherhood plan. I know of at least 5 households on that plan and they are all financially responsible households, but our wonderful salvation bringing government doesn’t want to allow that plan, so much for having choices. Go oppressive Obama administration, Go!
Oh, and Adam, people die! Whether you believe in Creation of evolution, you have to agree that people die. That’s common sense. That’s basic biology. Can you guarantee that universal coverage will stop death? Can you guarantee beyond a doubt that those 18,000 people all would have lived with health coverage?
We established we differ in our views of life. Don’t call me a hypocrite then act unconcerned that thousands of Americans die due to lack of insurance.
If you would have read the report, it states that “18,314 people die in the USA each year because they lack preventive services, a timely diagnosis or appropriate care.” Treatable diseases kill the uninsured.
But let’s not insure them because they’re going to die anyway. How pro-life of you. Apparently if it’s not a fetus you don’t care for it.
And by the way, the debt/deficit started with the unnecessary war supported by people that claim to be pro-life. From 2000 to 2008, our debt more than doubled the national debt to $11.3 trillion.
Go ahead and spend money on unnecessary war, but don’t spend it on the health of Americans.
And I’m the hypocrite.
What will out national debt be when we are done with this Healthcare Reform?
Its obvious to me that more and more Americans are starting to agree with Ray’s argument. Obama’s approval rating has dropped 12 points since February and the doesnt have the majority support on his plan for health care. Same goes for the economy. This is according to AP-GFK poll that was published in the 7/22/09 edition of the American News.
This day in age we are too concerned about giving people stuff for free. Remember the days you had to do something to get something.
Good response Dr, not a popular one though, remember the government is now supposed to be a sugar daddy for the people.
Adam, I am prolife, and I am in favor of helping people. However, I am a fiscal conservative. I agree that the war in Iraq was probably not necessary, but the liberals voted for it too (I know, it wasn’t their fault, evil Mr. Bush lied to them, and since they’re incapable of independent thought, they had not choice). Iraq did violate U.N. agreements over and over. Iraq did appear to be a threat. I agree that the war was on false ideas in many ways. I also agree that if we could go back, it would possibly be ill-advised to start the war. Your argument seems to be that two wrongs make a right. Just because we spent money on a war where we shouldn’t have, doesn’t justify spending money on a health program that will further our financial crisis. Why don’t we finish the war (since the why and what for are irrelevent now), fix social security, balance the checkbook in Washington, and then if we’ve done all that, and we actually have a huge amount of money in the bank, fine, make your argument.
My neighbor could be going through a forclosure and I could feel bad for him, but that doesn’t mean I should go next door and write a check to pay off his house when I don’t have the money in the bank to give away. It’s really a basic concept. Bush did spend money he didn’t have, and it was wrong, but Obama is already making Bush’s financial irresponsibility look pretty mild.
Really, giving people treatment for diseases is just “giving people stuff for free”? What if you work hard but are dropped for a pre-existing condition? What if you work and can’t afford it? The plan isn’t about a handout, it’s about a sense of duty and decency. The savings will also allow people to spend money in other areas, thus helping the economy.
I was upset at even liberals for okaying the war. There was misinformation, but they didn’t even care to investigate. They were guilty of helping put us in that mess.
My argument is that the wrong shouldn’t stop us from doing a right.
Where is the national debt going to end up?
This healthcare program is not right, that’s the problem. There are reports everywhere from doctors who oppose the program, reports that docs and clinics will be required to offer abortions (Adam, even you can’t say that a provider should be forced to offer any procedure), and that the cost of the program will be beyond the imaginations of Obama and friends. Sense of duty? My sense of duty is as follows: 1.God 2.Family 3.Job, I believe in working hard at my job, for my family, and in no way that is contrary to my faith. I feel bad for people less fortunate and I am charitable, but sense of duty to the point of irresponsible and unstable spending, not quite.
You say conservatives offer no other ideas, how about these, they aren’t as comprehensive or costly as your hero’s system, but they would help.
1.Fix immigration. Hospitals nation wide could then stop providing what amounts to free care for people they can’t find after the fact in order to even send a bill. This would also reduce money spent in law enforcement on crimes commited by illegals, the investigations and jail costs involved. This would be a costly federal program to secure the borders, but it would be more worthwhile than the program we’re arguing about and would save money on the state, county, and city levels allowing better bottom lines and maybe more small government health assistance.
2.You won’t like it, but why not ban alcohal and tobacco? If we’re trying to help everyone and lower costs, think of the reductions we’d see in the next generation in health care costs without the endless liver, lung, throat, and countless other conditions caused by these products. The savings would be enormous. In this case also, there would be federal costs in implementing the idea, but in the long run, on the lower government levels money would be saved big time in the absence of drunk drivers and alcohal induced crime (assult, stealing, abuse, etc.). I know, I know, prohibition is a violation of human rights, but abortion isn’t, I know. I’m just saying think of the savings, after all, that’s part of why you love abortion right Adam, because we have fewer welfare kids?
3.If we want to offer some preventative care, fine, even some subsidized clinics for those who can’t afford care (for emergencies, illnesses, things of that nature) would be fine. We could offer free immunizations for those who want them and put in place clinics for those who need them, when they need them, and that might work out, and be less costly than this large, and all inclusive program.
4.A cap on medical lawsuits would help in reducing malpractice insurance premiums helping docs save money. The trickle effect is real and it works both ways. Create policy that saves money higher up and the savings work their way down. Create policy that costs money higher up and the cost is passed on.
I have more ideas, and I’m sure you won’t like them any more than you like these ones, but there are things we can do. In some cases like immigration and alcohal bans multiple problems can be fixed at the same time. None of it is easy, but these things reduce costs and improve national security over time instead of steadily ballooning costs and bills.
I meant health care reform ideas.
Fixing immigration would help, but I’m sure we’d differ on our idea of how to fix it.
You want to ban alcohol and tobacco? That sounds pretty oppressive to me.
Preventative care should be one of the bedrocks of any plan.
I don’t agree with the malpractice cap.
My point was that Republicans aren’t advocating any ideas, they are just hating on them.
Hating on them? Come on, that’s because democrats aren’t happy with any plan unless it covers everyone for everything. Do we need solutions and reform in certain areas, yes, but do we need a bill that spends this much money when guess what, we have no money, no!
Immigration being fixed would help, I’m glad you see that point. I think we need a controlled border. I think that any immigrant who’s committed a crime while here (illegal immigrants) should be immediately deported, which is not happening in most cases. I think that anyone else should have the option of coming forward and applying for citizenship. Given no criminal history in our country or their home country, possibly some American citizen references to back their behavior in the time they’ve been here, and given a sincere commitment to learn and abide by American law and to learn and use the English language (at least when necessary) there could be a program to grant temporary citizenship on a probationary basis followed by perminent citizenship pending good and productive behavior. With the borders secure and citizens accounted for the illegal immagration problem would be largely solved, not that there wouldn’t still be issues, but it would be mostly solved.
Oppressive? I call it preventative, what’s the best way to prevent lung cancer? What’s the best way to prevent liver problems? Is drinking proven to kill brain cells? Is chewing proven to cause cancer in the mouth and throat? Come on Mr. Prevention, if everyone has the right to preventative care and we’re all being forced to pay for it, it only seems natural to ban two items that serve absolutely no purpose. If that’s oppressive then we’d better hurry up and lift the ban on pot, heroine, crack, and every other drug out there. In fact in the interest of not being oppressive, we should eliminate pharmacies and put everything on the shelf right? Give me a break.
The malpractice cap is needed. People should be fairly compensated when something goes wrong, but how many cases warrant millions of dollars in pain and suffering compensation? Too many people are out for easy money. It could be defined, like loss of or loss of use of a limb warrants a cap of $X or a plastic surgery that didn’t turn out right warrants $X as a maximum. It only makes sense, there are maximum fines and jail sentences for just about every crime, why not have maximum lawsuits for medical malpractice, especially considering that these lawsuits can push a good doctor into bankruptcy over human error.
All of my ideas were healthcare reform ideas. We differ in that you want a plan instituted by the government to take care of everyone needing help, I want to make it easier and more affordable for people to take care of themselves, while still allowing for programs to help out those who just can’t make it. We should be trying to reduce the number of people needing the government for assitance instead of putting plans in place that will actually create much greater need for government help.
As the President said tonight, the majority of the plan will be paid by reallocating money that is currently directed to wasteful practices.
Should we ban red meat, sweets, high fructose corn syrup, soda, cheese, potato chips, fast food, and force people to wear sunscreen? America has always been about personal liberty, and banning alcohol and tobacco is obviously never going to happen, so what’s the point of talking about it? We’re better off reducing smoking increasing the price (which also makes the state money). (I do believe pot should be legal.) Why’d you say “give me a break?” You advocated banning tobacco and alcohol as though it is something that can actually be done. Give me a break.
It is up to judges to decide what constitutes a frivolous case. If we put a limit on malpractice suits, we only hurt people who have been screwed over. Most of the doctors fighting for stricter limitations are those that make the most mistakes. If you want to reduce malpractice rates, you need to reform the insurance industry. They invest the premiums. When their investments went bad, they started raising rates. It wasn’t due to an increase in cases or damages.
You have insurance because you may need help. Why is it better to get that help from insurance companies? Why is it better to get health care from a for-profit insurance company whose goal is to accept the fewest amount of claims? Why is that such a great goal? Health care shouldn’t be for profit, it should be for people.
We aren’t offering any ideas…probably true but its sounds like the same thing that the democrats were doing the last 8 years. Rather than coming up with something different, they sat there and whined that they didn’t get their way.
How about some examples?
And when it comes to something like infringing on the freedoms of Americans provided by the Constitution, saying, “We shouldn’t do that” is an idea separate from “Hey, let’s do that.”
I said give me a break because you used the argument that it is oppressive to take away tobacco and alcohal, and I said fine, let’s put all prescriptions on the shelf, legalize pot, cocaine, heroine etc. give me a break, it was sarcastic because your logic suggests that everything should be legal. I’m not surprised that you want pot legal, because like alcohal, that would do great things for our country, right?
Many doctors are in favor of caps on lawsuits, because it isn’t just the ones who make mistakes that pay the higher premiums for malpractice coverage.
Insurance companies are for profit, and I don’t have a huge problem with that, I think it’s a bigger concern that drug companies are for profit. The government obviously isn’t for profit, they are willing to accept massive, uncontrolled debt in order to we kind and wonderful, but eventually you can’t borrow any more money, and then nobody gets covered. These policies will provide only one thing to absolutey everyone, massive inflation.
The president of the United States should be reallocating money from wasteful spending to the national debt. That would be responsible.
DR where will it be if we do nothing about healthcare? do you not get it, if they leave it as is the insurance companys will run it up so high no business or middle class, such as yourself i would assume will be able to afford it, Then what? thats the republican way they have already came out and said it that they know it has to change they just won’t support because it wasn’t their idea? not that a republican has ever had a good idea just sit on the other side and complain when the dems do have a plan.
Going back to post #12 by Ray:
about dems voting for the war too, are you kidding me, so let’s make an example here a four star general and YOUR president come to you and they say: these people have huge guns and really big missles and their going to use them unless we go over there and kill them first? and their holding all this information (that dick chaney made up in his little peanut brain) saying they have facts on all of this, YOU would obviously be the one to say NOPE i wont support it, let them kill us first, Come on, get a life if you blame the war on anybody but bush chaney and their croneys your a moron.
I support legalizing marijuana because, like alcohol, people will do it regardless of whether or not it is legal. If it were legal, it could be regulated and taxed. That would make it safer and ensure evil people weren’t the ones making the profit off it.
You missed my point on malpractice insurance. It isn’t the suits that have caused the increase in malpractice insurance rates. It is the insurance companies themselves.
I ensuring that American citizens have access to healthcare is the most responsible thing he can do.
Come on Adam, if I have spelling errors, or Dr you’re all over that, what about Rd? Do you only correct conservatives?
Rd, come on, Iraq violated the impotent U.N.’s agreements 11 times, most of the world agreed and many other countries voted to go to war with them. The intel was wrong in many ways, but at the time, our government and others believed it was correct, and with reason. If we really want to argue about past administrations and their bad war decisions why don’t we talk Clinton/Somalia or LBJ/Vietnam, my issue is that it wasn’t just Bush or Cheney, it was the CIA, Congress, and mulitiple other countries, this is a huge example of liberals living in the past, much like some conservates dwelling on this stupid birth certificate issue. Move on.
Adam, people will do pot, heroine, crack, morphine, and many other countless drugs they aren’t supposed to have without a prescription or aren’t supposed to have at all. Right now you argue pot, what’s next?
Hey Adam, one more thing about legalizing pot, you make a popular and somewhat compelling argument about regulation and taxation. The problem with your idea is that you have to, in my opinion, compare it to the success we’ve had in regulation of other things, such as alcohal. Just drive down a highway and look at all the “Why Die” signs. Go down to any bar and watch people making decisions they’ll regret later (getting in fights or going home with people they wouldn’t go home with while sober) and tell me that alcohal is well regulated and doesn’t hurt anyone. Pot lowers inhibitions and damages decision making abilities. How are you going to regulate whether people are driving while smoking pot? What will the legal limits be? What will the age limit be? I know, these questions probably aren’t important since not allowing pot, alcohal, tobacco and probably eventually heroine, crack, and countless other drugs is oppressive right? Why do we have age limits and blood alcohal limits anyway, that’s probably oppressive right?
I heard Dennis Miller say it best on his old HBO show, he said we should legalize everything all at once, then all of us who don’t do drugs should lock ourselves in our houses in a few months, when we come out, all the people doing the drugs will either be dead, vegetables, or they’ll have smartened up watching the people around them destroy themselves. Drugs should not be legal.
I realize that alcohal will not be banned, I’m not saying that it will be, but I think it’s a more productive and less radical idea than Obama’s health package.
Also Adam, I’ve read a few different places about the main points of the freedom of choice act being in this health bill. I’ve also read that the conscience clauses were not added along with those points. I would like to know from you, do you believe that doctors or clinics/hospitals should be required to offer abortion services even against their own beliefs? And, do you believe that the government plan should include and/or require inclusion of abortion services in their plan and/or private insurance plans forcing those of us who are against it to pay premiums and tax dollars for it? If you answer yes to either of those questions, then aren’t you and your democrat buddies in Washington oppressing individual beliefs?
People already smoke marijuana. And when I say regulation, I regulating the drug itself, not the use of it. For instance, you can ensure there it won’t be laced with things. If you want to make an argument against legalization, it should be that it will drastically increase use.
Alcohol was banned once, it is not productive. And it’s way more radical than providing health care to Americans.
I don’t believe doctors will be forced to perform abortions. That just won’t happen.
Senator Boxer is intent on making doctors perform abortions. The pro-abortion movement not only wants the practice legal, but wants to make it a mandatory service in all clinics and hospitals. The freedom of choice act was designed for that purpose.
Again, what’s your argument about pot? Yes, people are doing it, just like crack and heroine, should they be legal too? Do you really think that making it legal will keep people from lacing it with other things?
Prohibition did fail, because our government doesn’t enforce law. It seems like, especially these days, you only get in trouble if there’s money involved. Child molestor-probation, Rapist-probation and maybe a few months in jail, Assult-probation and maybe a few days in jail (unless it’s a hate crime), cheat on your taxes or steal money-years in jail. Prohibition failed for the same reason the war on drugs is failing, lack of enforcement. Now instead of fighting drugs, people like you are fighting to legalize one of them, and then it’ll be time to legalize the next one, and the next one. I would agree that given the pathetic job our country has done in fighting drugs, they might as well be made legal. Like you said, at least we get tax money out of it, even if more of our work force is high on the job. Nothing better than high construction workers, factory workers, truck drivers, doctors, police, fire fighters, teachers, awesome plan Adam!
Legalization of pot…thats one hell of an idea. While we are at it, lets legalize prostitution and tax that too…(sarcasm)
All I can say Ray, is you have hit it right on the head!
RD: Please go find the post where I said we should do nothing about the healthcare in this country. There is a problem with healthcare, and Obama’s plan for it is not the answer. I work part time at a gas station and I see how the ‘free’ programs are used. Could the healthcare plan be abused? Yes, when they would allow elective procedures to this. Sorry, I can’t support a plan the allows a woman to use an abortion as a form of contraception.
Rather, instead of abortion, I am for other methods of contraception be availbe, free, to anyone that wants it,…up to and including the morning after pill.(that will be really popular with some of my concervative friends).
You’re assuming because it would be legal more people would do it. You’re also assuming they would do it on the job.
I thought you were pro-legalization, Dr.
I think it is a waste of time and money to prosecute and jail people for smoking marijuana.
If it was legal, it would take power and money from gangs and other generally bad people that are engaged in worse activity.
The gangs would just sell more crack, then you’d want to legalize that to stop the bad people. People would do pot on the job and before the job, just like people drink on the job and before the job. Pot would be worse, because every stupid smoking area at every company would be full of joints in addition to regular cigarettes. Don’t try to act naive enough to think it wouldn’t happen.
It’s a waste of time and money? A waste of time and money from the guy who supports Obama on the energy bill and the health bill? I know, we’ve been through both bills and we don’t agree, that’s cool, but it’s really odd to hear someone who supports such costly programs (especially costly to the consumer) talk about wasting money.
Dr, come on, not the morning after pill….you know better than that. Why are we even having these problems though, really, think about it. We have birth control pills, shots, inserts, sponges, condoms, condoms with spermicide, abstinence (I know, not popular), and other forms of birth control that I don’t know as much about. The point is, there are plenty of options for anyone with a brain to avoid pregnancy, and then if those options don’t work, maybe people can grow up and be adults and parents, there’s a concept. I will say in your defense Dr, that the morning after pill is less brutal than the regular abortion procedure. Abortions really are more appalling the older the baby is. I guess if I had to choose, and I’d really rather not have the right to choose mind you, but if I had to, I’d rather see the morning after pill legal than abortion.
I do have one wild idea that’ll irritate Adam, how about a law requiring women seeking abortions (and men who are pushing women to do it) to watch The Silent Scream, I think perhaps people would see things differently if they weren’t so ignorant about what an abortion really is.
Just in case you try to catch me on it Adam, I’m not saying that the plan b pill is any less a murder than an abortion, I’m simply pointing out that it is much less brutal and bloody. I do actively oppose any abortion in the form of partial-birth, 0-5month, or blan b pill.
I am for Medical Pot, not full blown.
Prosecuting and jailing people for non-violent, victimless crimes is a waste. Giving people access to health care and making the world cleaner/safer is not.
In other news, Langhorne Slim is a dominant musical force.
So prosecuting a drunk driver for DUI is a waste since there are no victims there?
Drunk drivers often kill people and as such it is illegal. There is a high possibility of there being a victim if nothing is done, so no that isn’t a waste of money.
Fair enough.
So Adam, you’re saying that people smoking pot before and during driving is ok? I’ve never smoked pot, so I don’t know, you tell me, isn’t it true that pot slows your reflexes and impairs your decision making ability? That’ll be great for the roads. If pot is so wonderful, why are so many people in treatment for being hooked on it? Oh, and have you noticed how wonderful the pot-heads function in society, it’ll be great if pot is legal, more and more people will display the obviously wonderful effects of pot on the human body. Meanwhile Adam, you’ll probably be pushing legal crack, or maybe legal meth labs, how about over the counter codeine? Why not right?
No. That is/would be illegal just as drunk driving is. I don’t smoke pot; I just don’t think it should be illegal.
You can take a slide down the slippery slope, but it doesn’t mean I’m following.
WOW. I have been catching up with some of these posts, and cannot believe some of this crap. It seems most of the conservative thoughts are a fundamentalist in nature in which everything is literal; it’s either right or wrong and there is no room for interpretation. I would like to hear from someone who has conservative beliefs but does not regurgitate what they hear from religious or political media.
Some of these brain-washing statements hit an all time high with the forced video comment in #30. I realize Adam is not willing take the bait and waste time discussing something that doesn’t make sense; probably a wise choice. I’m not sure why I’m even responding at this point, as I know you can’t have a discussion with someone who only sees in black and white.
From these posts it appears that some of you are not in favor of women’s rights. Does that mean you want goverment to take control over your women’s bodies? That means women (incuding your loved ones) will have NO say. The goverment will decide what is right for them.
Would you be willing to let the government decide the delivery method, fetal surgeries/procedures, surrogancy arrangements, and so on? If the goverment has this control, would you be ok with their deciding what types of genetic disorders they will or will not allow? Where would it end? I am not willing to find out. I want my loved ones to have control over their own body. BTW, if men could have babies, I would guarantee we would not be discussing this. I’m also surprised that the contraception issue did not end up in this post as many insurance companies will not pay for birth control.