scottwww, NEEDS TO CHILL AND LET DEMOCRATS TAKE THE WHITE HOUSE!!!

[Driv3r]

Originally Posted by dr325i

Nobody any more...
ANy news on the car?

He still has a chance in the upcoming primaries....time will tell, but he has my support 100%

ehh, the car is not as bad as i imagined 2 body panels and slight suspension damage/bending..lets see what the estimate brings...

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by TurboFan

Once again doc, you've lost the ability to support an argument with anything approaching logic or fact, and you've had to result to immature personal attacks and bad mama comments.

once again -- I just responded to his attack. I never started it or provoked it -- just expressed my opinion like everyone else...

Read the thread before coming up with comment like that. Read his response that lead to mine...

[e90im]

Originally Posted by Rips335iCoupe

Wow … you can’t even read the first sentence in my post …. I didn’t say anything about “Media Freaks”. Take those blinders off!! I was calling the loony left, Media Matters, and MoveOn.org FREAKS!!

I give you facts and you just deny them! You are a couple bottles short of a 6 pack, aren’t you?

Why are people on the far left so miserable?? They did a study showing that those that vote republican are happier with their lives (see below). I can see why! Go out with that little boy’s car, and enjoy life a little bit. You live in the greatest country in the world … be happy!!

For your reference:

REPUBLICAN HAPPIER THAN DEMOCRATS - PEW STUDY FINDS
Republicans Happier than Democrats

By Robert Roy Britt, LiveScience Managing Editor

Overall happiness among U.S. residents has not changed much over the years, according to the latest survey by the Pew Research Center that finds 34 percent of adults are very happy.

Among 3,014 telephone respondents, half reported being pretty happy, and 15 percent said they are not too happy.
The survey, released this week, points out several disparities based on lifestyle, beliefs and political persuasion:

• Republicans are happier than Democrats.
• People who worship frequently are happier than those who don't.
• The rich are happier than the poor.
• Whites and Hispanics are happier than blacks.
• Married people are happier than the unmarried.
• Dog owners and cat owners rate the same.
• Sunbelt residents are happier than everyone else.

About 45 percent of Republicans said they were very happy, compared with 30 percent of Democrats. Republicans have been happier in surveys going back to 1972, the Pew study notes.

The reason might seem obvious, since "Republicans tend to have more money than Democrats, and-as we've already discovered-people who have more money tend to be happier," the report states.

But even after adjusting for income, poor Republicans are happier than poor Democrats, and rich Republicans are happier than rich Democrats.

What about religion?

Forty-three percent of people who attend religious services weekly or more say they're very happy, compared to 26 percent of those who go seldom or never. The Pew analysis does not answer the question of how religion, Republicanism and happiness might be related, however.

You sound angry and miserable...You must be a lefty...

People that watch Fox only want their biased opinions confirmed. That's fine... you need someone to deliver opinions to you. Fox is a total garbage. CNN too.

You labeled Fox as conservative? It is not conservative, it's brainwashing perpetually repeating single minded view. Just like religion. Free thinking and authority questioning is non-existent.
So live in your little cocoon and for God's sake, take off those repugnant rims. They reek of ghetto...It's a German luxury car, not an ACCORD.
But then again, you think Fox News is great...

[TurboFan]

Originally Posted by dr325i

once again -- I just responded to his attack. I never started it or provoked it -- just expressed my opinion like everyone else...

Read the thread before coming up with comment like that. Read his response that lead to mine...

I've been reading the thread, and I stand by my comment.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by TurboFan

I've been reading the thread, and I stand by my comment.

good for you, then mind your own business.
I would never call you or anyone else an idiot for expressing your opininon, no matter if I agreed with it...

[Neurorad]

Fox has nothing to do with journalism. It is an extension of the Republican convention. Stop watching and listening. Get your news from an unbiased source. You're being brainwashed.

No, personal blogs are not a good alternative.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by Neurorad

Fox has nothing to do with journalism. It is an extension of the Republican convention.

Prove it. Or will you leave this as an unsupported allegation?

[TurboFan]

Originally Posted by Neurorad

Fox has nothing to do with journalism. It is an extension of the Republican convention. Stop watching and listening. Get your news from an unbiased source. You're being brainwashed.

No, personal blogs are not a good alternative.

I get my info from a wide variety of sources, and Fox isn't one of them. Business Week, Wall St. Journal, The Economist, various evening news casts, USA Today (aka News Lite).....misc web searches for detail.....

Where do you get yours?

[Jaws]

Originally Posted by TurboFan

Yes, people in the US do seek experimental treatment, or treatment that has not passed FDA approval.

But Canadians are comming across the border every day to obtain medical care here in the states that is supposed to be available in Canada. I lived in Detroit for years, and counted a hospital CFO as a close family friend. He loved the Canadians constantly coming across the border and paying full rate for any numbers of procedures, tests and scans.

I'm sure you don't see many in FL, but up here in the great white north....we see quite a few. My co-workers in Canada have even querried me about coming here for care they can't get in Canada any time soon.

I know of no one who has had to seek medical attention outside the country. Not to say that it doesn't happen, but if it does happen it is usually covered fully by the government or the patient was seeking non-approved care (ie experimental cancer treatment in Mexico). But I am sure that all US governments also look after their citizens and that everyone has access to treatment. I am also sure that insurance companies would never deny coverage to those that have pre-existing conditions and that no one's health would ever be put at risk by having to wait for an insurance company to approve coverage. I'm sure your co-workers have queried you regarding health treatment, because you certainly seem to know your stuff.

[TurboFan]

Originally Posted by Jaws

I know of no one who has had to seek medical attention outside the country. Not to say that it doesn't happen, but if it does happen it is usually covered fully by the government or the patient was seeking non-approved care (ie experimental cancer treatment in Mexico). But I am sure that all US governments also look after their citizens and that everyone has access to treatment. I am also sure that insurance companies would never deny coverage to those that have pre-existing conditions and that no one's health would ever be put at risk by having to wait for an insurance company to approve coverage. I'm sure your co-workers have queried you regarding health treatment, because you certainly seem to know your stuff.

Overall, I'd take our system of the Canadian helthcare system, any day, all day long. At NO point have I said ours is without its flaws. The biggest flaw in our healthcare system is the inability of people to be responsible for their own actions.

The issue of cost must be addressed in the US healthcare system, and the government is not in the position to address this directly. The VA medical system is one of the worst run institutions in the country. We don't need to turn the rest of our system into a VA type system, which is exactly what we'll have. If we want to fix medical costs in this country we first must address tort law, and then move on from there. When you take the attorneys out of medicine, the costs WILL come down.

I don't beleive that everyone should have equal access to the most expensive, most advanced, least proven treatments available. I beleive in a basic level of care for all, and more advanced, expensive treatment if someone wants to pay for it. If someone has made a lifestyle choice that results in poor health, in no friggin way should I have to pay for their choices. If they want to pay, great, go for it.

I don't believe in entitlements, and I believe a government run healthcare system will stiffle innovation.

Yes, my coworkers do call me with questions, and share medical info I don't want to know and ask questions I really don't want to know about, and seek advice on specialists. I do "know my stuff". There's a reason for that.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by TurboFan

Overall, I'd take our system of the Canadian helthcare system, any day, all day long. At NO point have I said ours is without its flaws. The biggest flaw in our healthcare system is the inability of people to be responsible for their own actions.

The issue of cost must be addressed in the US healthcare system, and the government is not in the position to address this directly. The VA medical system is one of the worst run institutions in the country. We don't need to turn the rest of our system into a VA type system, which is exactly what we'll have. If we want to fix medical costs in this country we first must address tort law, and then move on from there. When you take the attorneys out of medicine, the costs WILL come down.

I don't beleive that everyone should have equal access to the most expensive, most advanced, least proven treatments available. I beleive in a basic level of care for all, and more advanced, expensive treatment if someone wants to pay for it. If someone has made a lifestyle choice that results in poor health, in no friggin way should I have to pay for their choices. If they want to pay, great, go for it.

I don't believe in entitlements, and I believe a government run healthcare system will stiffle innovation.

Yes, my coworkers do call me with questions, and share medical info I don't want to know and ask questions I really don't want to know about, and seek advice on specialists. I do "know my stuff". There's a reason for that.

Completely RIDICULOUS and heartless!
I would completely agree if you said that not everyone should drive the best car ou there, but that you don't believe that everyone should have the access to the best possible medical treatment is a plain nonsence. WHat about pre-existing conditions that were not the outcome of bad food, smoking or lack of exercise? What about the baby born with a defect to parents that work at local grocery stores???

If you think our medical system is better (or more preferrable to you) than Canadian -- please explain -- What happens to your medical coverage IF you get really sick, i.e. cannot work any more? Or if you get laid off??? What happens to your wife, to "your" new born baby?
Also, if you do not get med coverage through employment, but apply by yourself -- what happens if you have a pre-existing condition? Will you get the coverage? Will you be able to afford the coverage?

Will your insurance cover for you if you wish to go to France for the procedure instead in the USA (within the network)? Canadian will!

ANd that all is PPO stuff. What if you have an HMO? Will you get pre-approved for the procedure as preventive care? Most likely not! I had an HMO a few years back and went to nutricionist to consult with them because I have diabetes and HBP running in my family. My numbers are great, but I am at risk of genetically developing both. The insurance did not want to pay for the preventive care. It was cheap, so OK, I cannot even imagine more complex things...

Yep, they would rather spend thousands when you develop the desease that was probably preventable, then they would dump you and the end (you have pre-existing condition for the next guy)...

What is so great about our medical system as it is? Sure, we do have great doctors with great equipment and most of the time you can get in within reasonable time (though try to get derm appt in FL -- some areas 8-month wait). But the other countries (Canada, France, Germany, Taiwan, China, Japan, India -- ones that I (or someone close to me) experienced medical treatment with have it too.

I completely agree on a capitalistic approach to businesses, trade, etc...but medical treatment is a complete nonsence. We get equalized to our wallets and receive a type of medicsal attention according to our wealth. That is simply ridiculous in today's world. And our Gov't goes accross the world to "help some other oppressed country" get rid of dictators and make their lives better, but the basic stuff like medical and education are PURE business here instead of necessity. It is a HealthCARE that you get cared about only if you're either NOT sick or wealthy...

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by dr325i

Yep, they would rather spend thousands when you develop the desease that was probably preventable, then they would dump you and the end (you have pre-existing condition for the next guy)...

What do you think of this?

The health care system in this country is irrevocably broken, in part because it is only a "health care" system, not a "health" system. We don't need universal health care mandated by federal edict or funded through ever-higher taxes. We do need to get serious about preventive health care instead of chasing more and more dollars to treat chronic disease, which currently gobbles up 80% of our health care costs, and yet is often avoidable. The result is that we'll be able to deliver better care where and when it's needed.

I advocate policies that will encourage the private sector to seek innovative ways to bring down costs and improve the free market for health care services. We have to change a system that happily pays $30,000 for a diabetic to have his foot amputated, but won't pay for the shoes that would save his foot.

We can make health care more affordable by reforming medical liability; adopting electronic record keeping; making health insurance more portable from one job to another; expanding health savings accounts to everyone, not just those with high deductibles; and making health insurance tax deductible for individuals and families as it now is for businesses. Low income families would get tax credits instead of deductions. We don't need all the government controls that would inevitably come with universal health care. When I'm President, Americans will have more control of their health care options, not less.

I also value the states' role as laboratories for new market-based approaches, and I will encourage those efforts. As President I will work with the private sector, Congress, health care providers, and other concerned parties to lead a complete overhaul of our health care system, not more of the same, paid for by Uncle Sam at the expense of hard-working families.

Health care spending is now about $2 trillion a year, which is close to $7,000 for each one of us. It consumes about 17% of our gross domestic product, easily surpassing the few European nations where spending is close to 10% and far higher than any other country in the world. If we reduced our out-of-control health care costs from 17% to 11%, we'd save $700 billion a year, which is about twice our annual national deficit.

Our health care system is making our businesses non-competitive in the global economy. General Motors spends more on health care than it does on steel, $1,500 per car. Starbucks spends more on health care than it does on coffee beans. We have an employer-based system from the 1940's, a system devised not because it was the best way to provide health care, but as a way around World War II wage-and-price controls. Costs have skyrocketed because the party paying for the health care - the employer - and the party using the health care - the employee - are not the same. It is human nature to consume more of something that is essentially free.

Workers complain that their wages are stagnant, but businesses reply that their total compensation costs are rising significantly because they are paying so much more for health care. Health care costs are adversely affecting your paycheck, even if you're healthy. Some Americans are afraid to change jobs or start their own businesses because they're afraid of losing their health insurance. It is time to recognize that jobs don't need health insurance, people do, and to ease the burden on our businesses. Our employer-based system has outlived its usefulness, but the answer is a consumer-based system, not socialized medicine.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by scottwww

What do you think of this?

The health care system in this country is irrevocably broken, in part because it is only a "health care" system, not a "health" system. We don't need universal health care mandated by federal edict or funded through ever-higher taxes. We do need to get serious about preventive health care instead of chasing more and more dollars to treat chronic disease, which currently gobbles up 80% of our health care costs, and yet is often avoidable. The result is that we'll be able to deliver better care where and when it's needed.

I advocate policies that will encourage the private sector to seek innovative ways to bring down costs and improve the free market for health care services. We have to change a system that happily pays $30,000 for a diabetic to have his foot amputated, but won't pay for the shoes that would save his foot.

We can make health care more affordable by reforming medical liability; adopting electronic record keeping; making health insurance more portable from one job to another; expanding health savings accounts to everyone, not just those with high deductibles; and making health insurance tax deductible for individuals and families as it now is for businesses. Low income families would get tax credits instead of deductions. We don't need all the government controls that would inevitably come with universal health care. When I'm President, Americans will have more control of their health care options, not less.

I also value the states' role as laboratories for new market-based approaches, and I will encourage those efforts. As President I will work with the private sector, Congress, health care providers, and other concerned parties to lead a complete overhaul of our health care system, not more of the same, paid for by Uncle Sam at the expense of hard-working families.

Health care spending is now about $2 trillion a year, which is close to $7,000 for each one of us. It consumes about 17% of our gross domestic product, easily surpassing the few European nations where spending is close to 10% and far higher than any other country in the world. If we reduced our out-of-control health care costs from 17% to 11%, we'd save $700 billion a year, which is about twice our annual national deficit.

Our health care system is making our businesses non-competitive in the global economy. General Motors spends more on health care than it does on steel, $1,500 per car. Starbucks spends more on health care than it does on coffee beans. We have an employer-based system from the 1940's, a system devised not because it was the best way to provide health care, but as a way around World War II wage-and-price controls. Costs have skyrocketed because the party paying for the health care - the employer - and the party using the health care - the employee - are not the same. It is human nature to consume more of something that is essentially free.

Workers complain that their wages are stagnant, but businesses reply that their total compensation costs are rising significantly because they are paying so much more for health care. Health care costs are adversely affecting your paycheck, even if you're healthy. Some Americans are afraid to change jobs or start their own businesses because they're afraid of losing their health insurance. It is time to recognize that jobs don't need health insurance, people do, and to ease the burden on our businesses. Our employer-based system has outlived its usefulness, but the answer is a consumer-based system, not socialized medicine.

Some good points there (amputated foot and shoe thing for example...).
I am not sure what the best option would be but I see huge issues with today's system. Why is the price of my daughter's asthma inhaler medicine over $150 ($50 after insurance) here and the same thing we got in Europe in May for $5 (with no insurance). Why is the price of anti-biotic here close to $100 per box and less than $3 for the same thing somewhere else.

Why do you lose your coverage when you need it (when you get sick and cannot work any more for extensive period or indefinitely) even though you poured hundreds of $$ (plus your company did more than that) every month while you were healthy? Pure business, just like a local car dealership, unfortunately we're dealing with our lives here...

IMO the system other countries have (for example France, Canada, Germany, Serbia...of ones I know) give you a peace of mind and more flexibility. Just like your article pointed out -- some are afraid to be self-employed just because of these things in this country. And it would not necessarily damage our health provider profile -- physician quality and equipment quality. You would be still paying for it through taxes or call it something else...just like other countries do. People in this country get "scared" of the "socialized" term without even understanding it. And the media (like in other cases) makes it even more unknown or wrongly understood.

It is a very wrong perception that Canadians for example have less experienced and worse health professionals than we do, worse hospitals and equipment, longer wait lines and so on in general. And someone came up with a stupid line that Canadians now pour into the USA for medical attention.

I believe that balancing Gov't spendings (taxes, Wars, Homeland Security, other programs...) and Healthcare should be prioritioes of whoever takes over next...

[e90im]

Originally Posted by scottwww

What do you think of this?

The health care system in this country is irrevocably broken, in part because it is only a "health care" system, not a "health" system. We don't need universal health care mandated by federal edict or funded through ever-higher taxes. We do need to get serious about preventive health care instead of chasing more and more dollars to treat chronic disease, which currently gobbles up 80% of our health care costs, and yet is often avoidable. The result is that we'll be able to deliver better care where and when it's needed.

I advocate policies that will encourage the private sector to seek innovative ways to bring down costs and improve the free market for health care services. We have to change a system that happily pays $30,000 for a diabetic to have his foot amputated, but won't pay for the shoes that would save his foot.

We can make health care more affordable by reforming medical liability; adopting electronic record keeping; making health insurance more portable from one job to another; expanding health savings accounts to everyone, not just those with high deductibles; and making health insurance tax deductible for individuals and families as it now is for businesses. Low income families would get tax credits instead of deductions. We don't need all the government controls that would inevitably come with universal health care. When I'm President, Americans will have more control of their health care options, not less.

I also value the states' role as laboratories for new market-based approaches, and I will encourage those efforts. As President I will work with the private sector, Congress, health care providers, and other concerned parties to lead a complete overhaul of our health care system, not more of the same, paid for by Uncle Sam at the expense of hard-working families.

Health care spending is now about $2 trillion a year, which is close to $7,000 for each one of us. It consumes about 17% of our gross domestic product, easily surpassing the few European nations where spending is close to 10% and far higher than any other country in the world. If we reduced our out-of-control health care costs from 17% to 11%, we'd save $700 billion a year, which is about twice our annual national deficit.

Our health care system is making our businesses non-competitive in the global economy. General Motors spends more on health care than it does on steel, $1,500 per car. Starbucks spends more on health care than it does on coffee beans. We have an employer-based system from the 1940's, a system devised not because it was the best way to provide health care, but as a way around World War II wage-and-price controls. Costs have skyrocketed because the party paying for the health care - the employer - and the party using the health care - the employee - are not the same. It is human nature to consume more of something that is essentially free.

Workers complain that their wages are stagnant, but businesses reply that their total compensation costs are rising significantly because they are paying so much more for health care. Health care costs are adversely affecting your paycheck, even if you're healthy. Some Americans are afraid to change jobs or start their own businesses because they're afraid of losing their health insurance. It is time to recognize that jobs don't need health insurance, people do, and to ease the burden on our businesses. Our employer-based system has outlived its usefulness, but the answer is a consumer-based system, not socialized medicine.

I support it in theory but ignore it in practice.

Before you know it, Huckewannabe will implement "prayer medical system".
You get sick, you pray. By the way, how come God lets sick babies die everyday???

[e90im]

And, NO, I will not vote for a religious freak, that believes literally in bible.
Because Jesus might whisper in his ear to attack Iran.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by e90im

I support it in theory but ignore it in practice.

Before you know it, he will implement "prayer medical system".
You get sick, you pray. By the way, how come God lets sick babies die everyday???

Originally Posted by e90im

And, NO, I will not vote for a religious freak, that believes literally in bible.
Because Jesus might whisper in his ear to attack Iran.

Didn't you say before that you aren't supporting anyone until it is down to one candidate per party? Don't you have a feel for whom you would want to win that slot?

I am not prepared with an answer for you about why babies die. Most Christians would not claim to have all the answers. We just have most of them.

BTW: your assertions about Christians attitude toward medical treatment is wrong. It sounds like you equate Christians with Christian Scientists. They are the ones who won't take medical treatment. They are completely misguided.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by scottwww

BTW: your assertions about Christians attitude toward medical treatment is wrong. It sounds like you equate Christians with Christian Scientists. They are the ones who won't take medical treatment. They are completely misguided.

That is another topic of discussion as they may claim that your views and my views are completely misguided. Seems to me that (politically or religiosly) you believe that anyone who does not support what you believe in is "misguided"...

I had a friend (moved back to Europe) that NEVER took a medicine in his life. Every time he got sick, from fever to common cold, he just rode it and never went to the doctor. Never had any issues with it... Who knows, maybe our body can fight it without putting $$$ in someone else's pocket...

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by dr325i

That is another topic of discussion as they may claim that your views and my views are completely misguided. Seems to me that (politically or religiosly) you believe that anyone who does not support what you believe in is "misguided"...

I had a friend (moved back to Europe) that NEVER took a medicine in his life. Every time he got sick, from fever to common cold, he just rode it and never went to the doctor. Never had any issues with it... Who knows, maybe our body can fight it without putting $$$ in someone else's pocket...

I had a poor choice of words here. Let me rephrase. It is not part of Christian belief to not accept medical treatment. Perhaps there are Christians somewhere who would refuse treatment based on Christianity, but it is not a valid objection for a Christian. Christian Scientists are not Christian (I don't think they even claim to be... or do they?).

Maybe I should rephrase that again, trinitarian Christians (those who accept the doctrine of the trinity) do not object to medical treatment. There may be some who would, but citing their faith to justify that is not part of any trinitarian Christian faith I have ever heard of. I would suggest not being concerned about such a thing unless we were discussing Christian Scientists and maybe some other faith.

[e90im]

Originally Posted by scottwww

Didn't you say before that you aren't supporting anyone until it is down to one candidate per party? Don't you have a feel for whom you would want to win that slot?

I am not prepared with an answer for you about why babies die. Most Christians would not claim to have all the answers. We just have most of them.

BTW: your assertions about Christians attitude toward medical treatment is wrong. It sounds like you equate Christians with Christian Scientists. They are the ones who won't take medical treatment. They are completely misguided.

Awesome. I say religious freak, and you respond: Christians.

Most Christians would not claim to have all the answers. We just have most of them.

Majority of the answers are wrong though.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by e90im

Awesome. I say religious freak, and you respond: Christians.

Most Christians would not claim to have all the answers. We just have most of them.

Majority of the answers are wrong though.

From prior discussions it was obvious about whom you were referring. But religious freak doesn't really fit. Jesus freak would be closer. But I don't think I have ever been called either by anyone I know. Huckabee doesn't appear to be a religious freak either. I guess it depends on your definition. If you include in your definition anyone who believes Jesus Christ is Lord, then that is most of America (and maybe 1/3 of the earth's population). That's good company to be in.

[e90im]

Originally Posted by scottwww

From prior discussions it was obvious about whom you were referring. But religious freak doesn't really fit. Jesus freak would be closer. But I don't think I have ever been called either by anyone I know. Huckabee doesn't appear to be a religious freak either. I guess it depends on your definition. If you include in your definition anyone who believes Jesus Christ is Lord, then that is most of America (and maybe 1/3 of the earth's population). That's good company to be in.

well, not to you for sure...

[Neurorad]

Originally Posted by AWD Addict

It's not Fox news. Whether it's Hillary's massive national health care plan, or any other Democrat's expanded social program initiatives, they all included increased taxes on Americans. Look at how they expect to fix our dying social programs like Medicare and Social Security. Rather than fix the broken programs, they just throw more money at them.

That plus the fact that liberals want to engineer a class system (which is the scariest, orwellian proposal I've ever seen) by taxing one class to support another and "save" or "preserve" yet another is the most anti-american act I've ever seen.

This government wasn't created to force one class to pay for another, or to manufacter and work for certain classes at the expense of others. Take a Constitution Class.

Keep Socialism out of America, and vote Republican. They're not perfect, but at least they're not chasing a political structure that has ONLY failed on this earth since it's inception. That's why I think Liberals are blind. How many times does Socialism have to wreck a society before they figure out it doesn't work?

You're saying you want to remove all social programs in the U.S., so you can save $ on taxes? Let's get rid of public schools. Wouldn't we save you taxes that way? If you choose to have kids, then you should have to pay for their education. Simple.

How about interstate highways? Taxes. Military defense? Taxes. Medical research? Taxes. Farm aid? Taxes. Tax breaks to anyone? Yes, paid for with taxes. Welfare? Medicare? Medicaid? Food stamps? WIC? The Veterans Affairs system? Federal Judge Salaries?

Now remove all of those federal 'programs', so you will pay less taxes.

It all has to do with where you want to draw the line.

Stop equating giving foodstamps to poor families with children communism. Indirectly, yet clearly, you stated that social programs should be avoided, because they will cause our society to crumble. Brilliant. Classic.

Go back to high school. Stop tuning in to Fox propaganda and think for yourself. You may want to read more than that 1 blog each morning, too.